与卢克约会进一步为提前约会争论不休

IF 0.4 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION Tyndale Bulletin Pub Date : 2020-11-01 DOI:10.53751/001c.27747
David Seccombe
{"title":"与卢克约会进一步为提前约会争论不休","authors":"David Seccombe","doi":"10.53751/001c.27747","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Alexander Mittelstaedt (2005) has provided new impetus to a long-standing opinion that Luke-Acts was written in the early 60s of the first century AD. Karl L. Armstrong (2017) provides a recent overview of the dating debate and argues that an early date makes best sense of the extensive evidence. This paper suggests three considerations arising from the historical character of the rest of the century which support Mittelstaedt’s and Armstrong’s view. The first: AD 66–98 was a time of intense anti-Jewish sentiment, in which articulation of the nationalistic Jewish hopes expressed in the third Gospel and Acts would have been dangerous, and unlikely for a careful author. Second, it was also a time that ill accords with Acts’ assumption of Jewish legitimacy and its plea for the acceptance of Gentile Christianity. Third, the attention given to the voyage as Acts draws to its conclusion bespeaks an author who knew nothing of the cataclysmic avalanche of events that took place from AD 62–70.","PeriodicalId":23462,"journal":{"name":"Tyndale Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dating Luke-Acts Further Arguments for an Early Date\",\"authors\":\"David Seccombe\",\"doi\":\"10.53751/001c.27747\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Alexander Mittelstaedt (2005) has provided new impetus to a long-standing opinion that Luke-Acts was written in the early 60s of the first century AD. Karl L. Armstrong (2017) provides a recent overview of the dating debate and argues that an early date makes best sense of the extensive evidence. This paper suggests three considerations arising from the historical character of the rest of the century which support Mittelstaedt’s and Armstrong’s view. The first: AD 66–98 was a time of intense anti-Jewish sentiment, in which articulation of the nationalistic Jewish hopes expressed in the third Gospel and Acts would have been dangerous, and unlikely for a careful author. Second, it was also a time that ill accords with Acts’ assumption of Jewish legitimacy and its plea for the acceptance of Gentile Christianity. Third, the attention given to the voyage as Acts draws to its conclusion bespeaks an author who knew nothing of the cataclysmic avalanche of events that took place from AD 62–70.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23462,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tyndale Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tyndale Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.27747\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tyndale Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53751/001c.27747","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Alexander Mittelstaedt(2005)为长期以来的观点提供了新的动力,即Luke Acts写于公元一世纪60年代初。Karl L.Armstrong(2017)对约会辩论进行了最新的概述,并认为早期约会最有利于广泛的证据。本文从本世纪剩余时间的历史特点出发,提出了支持米特尔斯泰特和阿姆斯特朗观点的三点考虑。第一:公元66–98年是一个强烈的反犹太情绪的时期,在这个时期,第三部福音和使徒行传中表达的犹太民族主义希望是危险的,对于一个谨慎的作者来说是不可能的。其次,这也是一个不符合《使徒行传》对犹太人合法性的假设及其接受非犹太人基督教的请求的时期。第三,《使徒行传》结束时对这次航行的关注,让一位对公元62-70年发生的灾难性雪崩事件一无所知的作家感到惊讶。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Dating Luke-Acts Further Arguments for an Early Date
Alexander Mittelstaedt (2005) has provided new impetus to a long-standing opinion that Luke-Acts was written in the early 60s of the first century AD. Karl L. Armstrong (2017) provides a recent overview of the dating debate and argues that an early date makes best sense of the extensive evidence. This paper suggests three considerations arising from the historical character of the rest of the century which support Mittelstaedt’s and Armstrong’s view. The first: AD 66–98 was a time of intense anti-Jewish sentiment, in which articulation of the nationalistic Jewish hopes expressed in the third Gospel and Acts would have been dangerous, and unlikely for a careful author. Second, it was also a time that ill accords with Acts’ assumption of Jewish legitimacy and its plea for the acceptance of Gentile Christianity. Third, the attention given to the voyage as Acts draws to its conclusion bespeaks an author who knew nothing of the cataclysmic avalanche of events that took place from AD 62–70.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tyndale Bulletin
Tyndale Bulletin RELIGION-
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Tyndale Bulletin is a bi-annual peer-reviewed academic journal for biblical scholarship and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
The Uses of ‘Bēlu’ and ‘Marduk’ in Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions and other Sources from the First Millennium BC The Divine Christology of ‘Remember Me’ (Luke 23:42) in Light of Lament An Analysis of the Concept of ‘Peacemaking through Blood’ in Colossians 1:20b: The Graeco-Roman and Jewish Background Why is John’s Apocalypse so Bloody? John’s Use and Subversion of Combat Myths in Revelation 19:11–20:10 An Invitation to a New Era of Biblical Theology: Towards an Old Testament Theology of Hospitality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1