Here is the promised summary of the papers from the recent three day symposium at KU Leuven entitled, “Luke on Jesus, Paul and Christianity: What Did He Know?” Again, most of these presentations will likely be published in a proceedings volume late in 2015. I sent out a draft of these summaries to the presenters and received slight corrections from some. Additional corrections from the other presenters are most certainly welcome.
Christoph Heil of Graz showed that Q does not really fit the description of a “narrative Gospel” and explored the ways in which Luke sought to improve upon the narrative deficiencies of Q.
Manfred Lang of Halle-Wittenberg, using a definition of a “source” as a text used to gain knowledge of the past, contended that Acts only clearly shows the use of the LXX as a source. In other words, Luke was more of a theologian than an historian.
Andries Zuiderhoek of Gent explored ancient practices of munificence and showed how Luke’s depiction of Jesus simultaneously draws upon these conventions and subverts them regarding the inclusion and treatment of the poor as recipients of benefaction.
Vadim Wittkowsky argued that parallels between Acts 12 and Mark reflect not merely a literary but also a personal relationship between the evangelist Luke and the evangelist Mark.
John Kloppenborg of Toronto showed how Luke’s geographical knowledge varies widely, from non-existent or vague in Palestine, to modest on the Levantine coast, to superb on the Eastern Aegean coast. This knowledge runs parallel to that of several ancient geographers and maps, making them possible sources of some or much of Luke’s geography.
Dan Smith of Huron University College contended that the various speech-events in Acts, a series of failures and successes, collectively picture Christianity as an esteemed philosophy at home in prominent cultural centers but not in synagogues.
Cilliers Breytenbach of HU-Berlin drew upon epigraphical evidence regarding Roman roads to show how the so-called Southern Galatian hypothesis is not necessary to make sense of the geographical dilemmas between Paul’s travels in his letters and in Acts.
My presentation was next, but I provided in a previous blog post a full abstract of the paper and a summary of the conversation that followed.
Tom Phillips of Claremont School of Theology argued that Acts obtained the idea of Paul’s citizenship in response to Pliny the Younger and his pioneering legal precedent regarding the treatment of Christian citizens. He also pointed out how Pliny’s influence may unravel other knots in Acts, including the geographical problems and oddity of the Spirit’s instruction to avoid Bithynia.
Giovanni Bazzana of Harvard focused on continuities and discontinuities between ethics of wealth and poverty in Q and Luke. While both texts represent a sub-elite class, a shift from village to urban settings occurs from Q to Luke. Luke also incorporates Jewish topoi of almsgiving.
Michelle Christian of the University of Toronto showed how ancient numerical and accounting practices lend insight into Luke 19:12-27 and Acts 19. Both reflect a Lukan tendency to exaggerate (rather than diminish) numbers in a way typical of the large-scale accounting practices of elites. This contrasts with Luke’s depiction of actual coinage and precise amounts when speaking about persons of lower social classes.
Jens Herzer of Leipzig argued that close affinities exist between Acts and 2 Timothy and Titus, similarities that suggest Luke as amaneunsis of the two latter texts and his identity as traveling companion of Paul. 1 Timothy should instead be understood as a later composition unrelated to this author.
Markus Oehler of Vienna thoroughly analyzed the references to places throughout Luke and Acts, comparing the two. Among the more notable observations was that the location and character of the upper-room is quite ambiguous and that caution should be exercised in regard to a geographical analysis when theological concerns are foremost.
Dieter Roth of Mainz, in anticipation of his soon-forthcoming critical edition of Marcion’s Evangelion, demonstrated that some of the recent arguments of Vinzent and Klinghardt are detached from that text. He hinted that Marcion’s text may show a working knowledge of the redacted/canonical text of Luke, which runs counter to Tyson’s anti-Marcionite hypothesis.