Acts and the Bacchae repost of Luke as Historian

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

HELEN:
This is a repost of a post made by Pat Spears a few months ago on Luke as a 
historian. I don't speak Greek, so it is not really my place to judge how 
good this analysis is. Just about every city had a Greek theater at this time 
in history and there is a very good chance Euripides being by that time a 
classic was performed often so the borrowing of lines by Luke or whoever 
wrote Acts may not have been conscious, but I think that Pat makes a good 
argument that it did occur. The lifting of whole scenes is a more serious 
matter. By the way, I think there was another post on this issue which if I 
get a chance I will try to find.
Helen
hhiwater@bright.net  

LUKE AS HISTORIAN

PATSPEARS patspears@email.msn.com
Mon, 2 Feb 1998 03:15:06 -0800 (00886439706,
06b131718080228UPIMSSMTPUSR01@email.msn.com) 

     Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] 



PAT

>    Sir William Ramsay, who spent over 30 years checking out the

> archaeology involved in the books of Luke and Acts, stated "Luke is a

> historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact

> trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest

> of historians."



PATRICK

Anyone who has kept up with NT studies over the last century can only laugh
when they hear such as statement. For example, concerning Paul, George Wells
quotes A. J. Mattill as saying that the "dominant" view of Acts'
presentation of Paul, the one which "has succeeded in putting the burden of
proof on others," is the view that in "Acts and the epistles there are two
Pauls, the historical Paul of the authentic epistles and the legendary Paul
of Acts" (Evidence for the Historical Jesus, 165).

Speaking of Luke's geneaology, which lists Joseph, Judah, Simeon and Levi as
sequential ancestors, Joachim Jeremias states in his book "Jerusalem":

"...the custom of using the names of the twelve progenitors of the nation as
personal names did not appear until after the exile [536BCE]...When Luke
cites the names of Joseph, Judah, Simeon, and Levi as descendants six
through nine...this is an anachronism that proves the pre-exilic portion of
Luke's genealogy to be historically worthless."

Do historians of the first rate engage in plagiarism? Luke's gospel
integrates 50% of Mark, who was not even an eyewitness, and who makes a
variety of stupendous errors. Luke also apparently plagiarizes from the play
of Euripedes called the Bacchae. The famous 'conversion' of Paul is a good
example. In ACTS, it is said that Paul hears the voice of Jesus say:

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you, this kicking
against the goads [pros kentra laktizein]" (ACTS 26:15).

In the Bacchae, which is approximately five hundred years older than ACTS,
the situation is parallel. Dionysis, the persected God, says to King
Pentheus, his persecutor:

"You disregard my words of warning... and kick against the goads [pros
kentra laktizoimi]" (line 794).

It is highly probable that 'Luke' has 'borrowed' this from the Bacchae,
because 'Luke' retains the plural form of the noun 'kentra,' which, while
maintaining the meter in the Bacchae, seems out of place in ACTS.

'Luke' also apparently plagiarized the Bacchae when constructing the
jail-break scenes of Peter and Paul. When Peter is imprisoned in Jerusalem,
an angel appears, saying:

"Quick! Get up... And the chains fell away from his wrists. [When they
appraoch the prison gate, it] opened for them of its own accord" (ACTS
12:8,10).

Similarly, when Paul and Silas are imprisoned in Phillipi, "all the doors
burst open and all the prisoners found their fetters unfastened" (ACTS
16:26).

Both scenarios seem to be derived from the Bacchae, where the persecuted
Maenads [followers of Dionysus] find that "The chains on their legs snap
apart ...untouched by any human hand, the doors swing wide, opening of their
own accord" (lines 447-8).

Randel Helms observes that "it really is not surprising that this play
should have had such a lasting effect on Luke's imagination; for it concerns
a young, persecuted and misunderstood deity, the son of Zeus and a mortal
woman (Semele)..." (Who Wrote the Gospels, 91).

Do historians of the first rate contradict themselves? Luke's gospel
presents the ascension as occuring on the same day as the resurrection, on
the Emmaeus road. Acts, on the other hand, describes a forty-day period
seperating the resurrection and ascension. Why do all of the other NT books
fail to mention an ascension at all?

Luke's chronology is confused. George Wells, in his "Historical Evidence for
Jesus," observes:

"Luke is in such complete confusion over the chronolgy of events that
occurred in the first half of the first century as to suggest that he was
not close to them in time. In Acts 5, where the scene is Jerusalem about the
mid-30's, Gamaliel reviews bygone Messianic risings and mentions that of
Theudas. But we know from Jospehus that Theuadas' Messianic promises were
made when Fadus was procurator (AD 44-46) and so could not have been known
to Gamaliel at the time when he is represented as speaking. . . Gamaliel
continues by saying that, after Theudas, there was a Messianic uprising
under Judas the Galillean at the time of the census. Luke knows of only one
census, that under Quirinius (LK 2:1-2) of AD 6-- forty years before
Theudas. In his gospel Luke compounds the muddle by dating this census of AD
6 under Herod, who died in 4 BC" ("The Historical Evidence for Jesus," 119).

Luke as historian of the first rank? I think not. I do not even see any good
reason to believe that Luke wrote the books attributed to him at all.

Sincerely,
Patrick

• Previous message: Acts and the Bacchae repost of Luke as Historian
• Next message: Acts and the Bacchae repost of Luke as Historian
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]