Steve Reece – författare

At the end of several of his letters the apostle Paul claims to be penning a summary and farewell greeting in his own hand: 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, cf. Colossians, 2 Thessalonians. Paul’s claims raise some interesting questions about his letter-writing practices. Did he write any complete letters himself, or did he always dictate to a scribe? How much did his scribes contribute to the composition of his letters? Did Paul make the effort to proofread and correct what he had dictated? What was the purpose of Paul's autographic subscriptions? What was Paul's purpose in calling attention to their autographic nature? Why did Paul write in large letters in the subscription of his letter to the Galatians? Why did he call attention to this peculiarity of his handwriting?A good source of answers to these questions can be found among the primary documents that have survived from around the time of Paul, a large number of which have been discovered over the past two centuries and in fact continue to be discovered to this day. From around the time of Paul there are extant several dozen letters from the caves and refuges in the desert of eastern Judaea (in Hebrew, Aramaic, Nabataean, Greek, and Latin), several hundred from the remains of a Roman military camp in Vindolanda in northern England (in Latin), and several thousand from the sands of Middle and Upper Egypt (in Greek, Latin, and Egyptian Demotic). Reece has examined almost all these documents, many of them unpublished and rarely read, with special attention to their handwriting styles, in order to shed some light on these technical aspects of Paul's letter-writing conventions.

At the end of several of his letters the apostle Paul claims to be penning a summary and farewell greeting in his own hand: 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Philemon, cf. Colossians, 2 Thessalonians. Paul’s claims raise some interesting questions about his letter-writing practices. Did he write any complete letters himself, or did he always dictate to a scribe? How much did his scribes contribute to the composition of his letters? Did Paul make the effort to proofread and correct what he had dictated? What was the purpose of Paul's autographic subscriptions? What was Paul's purpose in calling attention to their autographic nature? Why did Paul write in large letters in the subscription of his letter to the Galatians? Why did he call attention to this peculiarity of his handwriting?A good source of answers to these questions can be found among the primary documents that have survived from around the time of Paul, a large number of which have been discovered over the past two centuries and in fact continue to be discovered to this day. From around the time of Paul there are extant several dozen letters from the caves and refuges in the desert of eastern Judaea (in Hebrew, Aramaic, Nabataean, Greek, and Latin), several hundred from the remains of a Roman military camp in Vindolanda in northern England (in Latin), and several thousand from the sands of Middle and Upper Egypt (in Greek, Latin, and Egyptian Demotic). Reece has examined almost all these documents, many of them unpublished and rarely read, with special attention to their handwriting styles, in order to shed some light on these technical aspects of Paul's letter-writing conventions.

Steve Reece proposes that the author of Luke-Acts was trained as a youth in the primary and secondary Greek educational curriculum typical of the Eastern Mediterranean during the Roman Imperial period, where he gained familiarity with the Classical and Hellenistic authors whose works were the focus of study. He makes a case for Luke’s knowledge of these authors internally by spotlighting the density of allusions to them in the narrative of Luke-Acts, and externally by illustrating from contemporary literary, papyrological, and artistic evidence that the works of these authors were indeed widely known in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of the composition of Luke-Acts, not only in the schools but also among the general public.Reece begins with a thorough examination of the Greek educational system during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods, emphasizing that the educational curriculum was very homogeneous, at least at the primary and secondary levels, and that children growing up anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean could expect to receive quite similar educations. His close examination of the Greek text of Luke-Acts has turned up echoes, allusions, and quotations of several of the very authors that were most prominently featured in the school curriculum: Homer, Aesop, Euripides, Plato, and Aratus. This reinforces the view that Luke, along with other writers of the New Testament, lived in a cultural milieu that was influenced by Classical and Hellenistic Greek literature and that he was not averse to invoking that literature when it served his theological and literary purposes.

Steve Reece proposes that the author of Luke-Acts was trained as a youth in the primary and secondary Greek educational curriculum typical of the Eastern Mediterranean during the Roman Imperial period, where he gained familiarity with the Classical and Hellenistic authors whose works were the focus of study. He makes a case for Luke’s knowledge of these authors internally by spotlighting the density of allusions to them in the narrative of Luke-Acts, and externally by illustrating from contemporary literary, papyrological, and artistic evidence that the works of these authors were indeed widely known in the Eastern Mediterranean at the time of the composition of Luke-Acts, not only in the schools but also among the general public.Reece begins with a thorough examination of the Greek educational system during the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods, emphasizing that the educational curriculum was very homogeneous, at least at the primary and secondary levels, and that children growing up anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean could expect to receive quite similar educations. His close examination of the Greek text of Luke-Acts has turned up echoes, allusions, and quotations of several of the very authors that were most prominently featured in the school curriculum: Homer, Aesop, Euripides, Plato, and Aratus. This reinforces the view that Luke, along with other writers of the New Testament, lived in a cultural milieu that was influenced by Classical and Hellenistic Greek literature and that he was not averse to invoking that literature when it served his theological and literary purposes.

For over 2500 years many of the most learned scholars of the Greek language have concerned themselves with the topic of etymology. The most productive source of difficult, even inexplicable, words was Homer’s 28,000 verses of epic poetry. Steve Reece proposes an approach to elucidating the meanings of some of these difficult words that finds its inspiration primarily in Milman Parry’s oral-formulaic theory. He proposes that during the long period of oral transmission acoustic uncertainties, especially regarding word boundaries, were continually occurring: a bard uttered one collocation of words, but his audience thought it heard another. The consequent resegmentation of words and phrases is the probable cause of some of the etymologically inexplicable words in our Homeric texts.

This monograph identifies forty proper names in Luke-Acts whose meanings are significant in their narrative contexts. About half of these names are also used in various types of verbal wordplays. Is the name of the recipient of both of Luke’s works, Theophilus “Loved by God,” used meaningfully? Is the name of Eutychus “Fortunate,” who survives a fall from a third-story window, significant in the context of this story? Does the common appearance of the name Rhoda “Rose” in New Comedy contribute a comical element to her role as an ineffective door keeper? Luke’s literary practice in his treatment of names appears to be fundamentally different from that of other New Testament writers. Why is this the case?