tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post624825346906386377..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Paul die at end of Acts?Ken Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-19447835578391067342010-12-24T00:05:43.846-05:002010-12-24T00:05:43.846-05:00Hi Ken. I haven't received the book yet.
By t...Hi Ken. I haven't received the book yet.<br /><br />By the way, I particularly like your points about the sense of foreboding in Acts that anticipates Paul's execution. This sense of foreboding works well if the intended audience knew that Paul had been executed, but it makes Luke's silence about the execution all the more surprising. The anti-climax is all the more surprising, given the build-up. While Luke avoided direct reference to Paul's execution, he alluded to it for those readers who already knew about it. I think this shows that Luke had two audiences in mind: his intended audience of believers who knew that Paul had been executed, and his unintended audience of opponents who might have used his text against the Christians if it had referred to Paul's conviction and other rulings against the Christians. While some assume that Luke's pro-Roman silences were a result of a desire to convert Romans, I think your observations support the view that his silences are protective. He was censoring himself to avoid getting the church into more trouble than it was already in. If Luke had wanted to convert loyal Romans he would have deleted the sense of foreboding as well as the execution itself.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-9193669567218886962010-12-23T11:39:16.536-05:002010-12-23T11:39:16.536-05:00Richard, did I remember to have my publisher send ...Richard, did I remember to have my publisher send you a copy of my first Paul book?Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-87712914154079848362010-12-23T11:36:28.886-05:002010-12-23T11:36:28.886-05:00Very well said, Ken.
If Luke had written about Pau...Very well said, Ken.<br />If Luke had written about Paul's execution he would have provided ammunition to enemies of the church, who could have used the text to argue that the Christians were trouble makers. I have argued elsewhere that Luke's silence about Paul's (illegal?) preaching in Arabia is similarly explained by his need to avoid drawing attention to conflicts between the Christians and the civil authorities.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-82143613692164877572010-12-23T07:36:20.655-05:002010-12-23T07:36:20.655-05:00"it is quite likely that the original audienc..."it is quite likely that the original audience did know the outcome of Paul’s trail"<br /><br />It is also quite likely that the original audience of Luke knew that Jerusalem had been destroyed but Luke felt it necessary to clarify Mark's "prophesy." In fact, his readers may have been ore familiar with Jerusalem's fate given it's closer proximity in time and it's significance over the details of the death of a single Christian at the hands of Nero. Besides Luke was ever known to shy away from a trial scene! <br /><br />On the other hand, I just finished The Case Against Q which reminds us that our assumptions about the literary motivations of Luke must remain somewhat of a mystery. <br /><br />Have a great ChristmasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com