Luke And The Acts Of The Apostles

[Badger]

So you have no point. I knew it.

[hereticzero]

So you have no point. I knew it.

[Badger]

That tells much about you, HereticZero.

[Looking4Answers]

One should not assess Luke by modern standards and expect he measure up.

 

Actually, we should. Not only should we compare Luke/Acts to modern historical standards, but we should expect his work to surpass any modern work of history that we possess!

 

Why? Because according to the Bible, all Scripture comes from the very breath of god! As a result, the Bible is supposed to be, in a sense, an extension of the very being of god. This is one reason the word of god is often difficult to differentiate from god himself. In fact, the Bible even calls Jesus the word.

 

Because the Bible tells us that god is perfect and all-knowing, then one would, by extension, expect his word to also be perfect and that any subject it touched upon would be dealt with in a way in which there was no possibility of error. It would not matter that god used an imperfect tool to write it (a human being) because the perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, eternal god could easily ensure that his tool would get it right.

 

So the problem with any error in Luke/Acts is not about how it compares with modern historical scholarship or even how well it stakes up against historians of his time or before. The problem is the claim of origin from god and the fact that it contains errors and inconsistencies none-the-less.

 

He may not be a great historian or biographer by modern standards, but he still stands among the ancient.

 

But Luke does not really appear to be a historian at all. What real history is he recording? If one is a Christian, then one could suppose that the history he records is that of the life of Christ (Luke) and that of the beginnings of the church (Acts). However, if one does not believe in the Christian god or its church, then this history would seem a fantasy. It would be like reading any ancient text on the formation of their religion, including all the miracles, demons, etc. There may be history within, but that does not make the entire account historical.

 

What is striking about Luke/Acts is that he actually references very few points of history. And the points he references are not accurate. Oh, he may mention a city name, a people group, etc, but that, in and of itself, is not history. I do that same thing just by telling someone where I live and where my dad lives, but I am not writing history. The vast bulk of what is contained in the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts is non-verifiable information about a supposed messiah and the early workings of his followers. And within these stories we have the myths of things like the resurrection of the dead (and not just Jesus, but others like Lazarus), the miraculous healings of many sick individuals and more. In acts we have an angel leading Peter out of jail right past the guards! We have Paul passing around a handkerchief that heals people. We have the very shadow of Paul healing people as he passes by. We have someone getting bored by a long sermon (believable ), falling from a great height and dying (believable) and then being raised back to life by Paul (not believable).

 

In then end, we really don't have a history at all. We have a story being told that happens to include history by virtue of it being a story that takes place within a time frame. Nothing more. This is not much different than reading Michael Crichton's Timeline. There is history in the book, but it is a work of science fiction. Perhaps 10,000 years from now some archaeologist will dig up a manuscript of Timeline, compare its history and see that some of the figures existed, as well as the places, and conclude that it is history ... and that men traveled to other times in other dimensions. Then the debate can ensue about how historical the Apostle Crichton was.

[Abiyoyo]

Why? Because according to the Bible, all Scripture comes from the very breath of god! As a result, the Bible is supposed to be, in a sense, an extension of the very being of god. This is one reason the word of god is often difficult to differentiate from god himself. In fact, the Bible even calls Jesus the word.

 

Because the Bible tells us that god is perfect and all-knowing, then one would, by extension, expect his word to also be perfect and that any subject it touched upon would be dealt with in a way in which there was no possibility of error. It would not matter that god used an imperfect tool to write it (a human being) because the perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, infinite, eternal god could easily ensure that his tool would get it right.

 

So the problem with any error in Luke/Acts is not about how it compares with modern historical scholarship or even how well it stakes up against historians of his time or before. The problem is the claim of origin from god and the fact that it contains errors and inconsistencies none-the-less.

 

Actually, Paul made that notion popular, I believe. L4A, with your experience I would assume you would have a little more flex with the Bible stance in Christianity, compared to popular demand. Little shocked you even countered this argument with this. The Bible was that important to the Jews the same as it was to Muslims. They have Mohammad, Christians have Jesus. Both may be right. One may have been the last seal of the prophets, and the other the great prophet, and to Christianity, the Son of God.

 

The problem is that the Bible has been scrutinized and picked apart for 2000years trying to 'bring messages' for Jesus. I agree with Paul, that all scripture is good for learning and reading. I agree with Peter and Paul, that God is holy, perfect, so we should strive to be perfect in Christ. I agree that not one jot of the law will be gone from the Bible, as Jesus said. But, I do disagree with anyone that says that every word in the Bible is from the mouth of God.

 

It's not and for some reason it is still always proclaimed to be. This confuses me, even in the Ex_C commune. It is a book about other people and their God. As far as Luke and Acts, I agree with Badger, and his sources are the same as mine.

 

If Luke and Acts were still in the same content, yet Christianity failed, and was not currently a main religion; just his books alone would be just as historically comparable to Greek mythology at that time, and we still teach that in schools. The dogmatic nature, and current belief system based around it is the only reason it is discredited by anyone. To historians non partial, it is an accurate account historically that is.

[Deva]

I do disagree with anyone that says that every word in the Bible is from the mouth of God.

 

It's not and for some reason it is still always proclaimed to be. This confuses me, even in the Ex_C commune. It is a book about other people and their God. As far as Luke and Acts, I agree with Badger, and his sources are the same as mine.

 

If Luke and Acts were still in the same content, yet Christianity failed, and was not currently a main religion; just his books alone would be just as historically comparable to Greek mythology at that time, and we still teach that in schools. The dogmatic nature, and current belief system based around it is the only reason it is discredited by anyone. To historians non partial, it is an accurate account historically that is.

 

Its true that some Christians do not think that every word in the Bible is from the mouth of God. However, at least since the 16th century, many Christians think it must be essentially without error. Why? Simply because it sets forth the plan of salvation and the nature of God. The entire future existence of all people for eternity, their salvation, is based upon belief in what is written in the Bible. So you must concede that in the main outlines it must be without error in these matters. It must be inspired by God and a revelation from God.

 

In fact the plan and basis of salvation is so murky, and the book has so many contradictions that Christians can't even agree on this point. Catholics believe in the Bible as interpreted by the Church, whereas Protestants depend on their private interpretation.

 

My question is, why is Christianity so tied to a book? If that wasn't a fact we wouldn't be concerned at all with the historical accuracy of Luke. What makes the book so darn special that people spend their whole lives studying it, repeating prayers from it, memorizing verses - if it isn't God inspired then why?

 

Just because it is currently a "main religion" doesn't mean it will still be one in 500 years. If fact, I doubt it will survive that long unless Church becomes allied with State again and it is through use of force as it was for centuries.

[Looking4Answers]

Actually, Paul made that notion popular, I believe.

 

YoYo, you have your own unique brand of Christianity and, as a result, you reject, as inspired, certain books and accept others. Fine. You don't like all of Paul's teachings, but accept the Gospels ... fine. But you cannot claim anything remotely close to traditional Christianity. My arguments are based on the majority view of Christianity. Whether one is Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, etc, they will all accept Paul's writings as authoritative and develop their own particular brand of doctrine/dogma using the teachings/writings of Paul as much as the Gospels, Acts, the Old Testament and the non-Pauline epistles.

 

L4A, with your experience I would assume you would have a little more flex with the Bible stance in Christianity, compared to popular demand.

 

But its not just popular demand. I am arguing using the concepts of historic Christianity.

 

Little shocked you even countered this argument with this.

 

Then deal with it. And please remember who I was addressing originally. It was not you, but Badger. If I were talking to you about the book of Acts then perhaps I might bring up different arguments because of your particular way of thinking. In any case, just because a particular view is the dominant or popular view does not mean it is right or wrong, but it does certainly allow for it to be argued against.

 

The Bible was that important to the Jews the same as it was to Muslims. They have Mohammad, Christians have Jesus. Both may be right.

 

A statement like that gets you branded a heretic by most Christian groups, by the way. However, the teachings of the Bible (the Christian Bible) would contradict your own statement. According to the New Testament, Jesus is the final word ... the final prophet. This would exclude the Muslim belief of Mohamed being a later prophet.

 

I agree with Paul, that all scripture is good for learning and reading.

 

You may agree with Paul that all Scripture is good for learning and reading, but you do not agree on what is Scripture. So you have a problem. You believe it is good for you, but you don't know what it is.

 

I agree that not one jot of the law will be gone from the Bible, as Jesus said.

 

Do you know what a jot is? Do you, therefore, understand the significance of what is being recorded as the words of Jesus when he states that not a jot or a tittle would pass away until all be fulfilled?

 

But, I do disagree with anyone that says that every word in the Bible is from the mouth of God.

 

With this statement, you diverge from Christianity. You also open a Pandora's Box for yourself because now you become the determiner of what is and what isn't Scripture. I know that you do not find Paul to be an inspired writer, but he does state that all Scripture comes from the very breath of god. So your statement plainly indicates that you disagree with this statement. Fine. However, what criteria do you use to determine what is and isn't from god's mouth? How do you determine what is from the mind of men and what is from the mind of god? And what qualifies you to make such a determination?

 

I am not trying to be facetious. I am seriously asking.

[Looking4Answers]

It is a book about other people and their God. As far as Luke and Acts, I agree with Badger, and his sources are the same as mine.

 

I don't think that anyone here is disagreeing that the Bible (including Luke/Acts) is a book about people and their god. If I were to pick up any holy book from any religion then I would know that I was holding in my hands a book about people and their god. This is true for the Qur'an, the Hindu Vedas or any other holy book.

 

If Luke and Acts were still in the same content, yet Christianity failed, and was not currently a main religion; just his books alone would be just as historically comparable to Greek mythology at that time, and we still teach that in schools.

 

You are missing it, I believe. When we read Homer, we don't assume that the creatures within are real. We do consider what Homer reveals to us about culture and the people of his time, though. I have no problem with people using the Bible for the same thing. We can learn a great deal of the opinion of the writers about such groups as the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Herodians, the Scribes and many other people, including historical figures. But just because these things are within the book does not mean that it is an historically accurate book. Homer's work is not considered historically accurate either.

 

The problem comes from the fact that people still try to use books like Luke/Acts to prove superstition. It would be like me trying to claim that mythical creatures existed because of Homer's writings.

 

In any case, as pointed out by others in this thread, when the author of Luke/Acts touches on history that can be researched (things other than simple place names, etc) then the author makes mistakes. This is not reliable history.

 

The dogmatic nature, and current belief system based around it is the only reason it is discredited by anyone.

 

No. It is discredited because it speaks of unverifiable miracles and speaks of them as if we should take them as actually happening. If the knowable history within the works are not all that reliable, then why should we even consider the unverifiable miracles?

 

To historians non partial, it is an accurate account historically that is.

 

Not really. There are plenty of historians that show that the books of Luke and Acts are not reliable historically. And, again, what little actual history contained in these books is so scanty as to leave someone with the impression of who cares? Again, just because place names are mentioned or historical people ... that does not a history make.

[Badger]

Actually, we should. Not only should we compare Luke/Acts to modern historical standards, but we should expect his work to surpass any modern work of history that we possess!

It would be wrong to expect ancient historians, using different standards, to measure up to modern standards.

 

In then end, we really don't have a history at all. We have a story being told that happens to include history by virtue of it being a story that takes place within a time frame. Nothing more. This is not much different than reading Michael Crichton's Timeline. There is history in the book, but it is a work of science fiction.

Actually it is not a work of science fiction; where do you base that claim? In his book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, Bart Ehrman puts Acts to the genre of general history. "We will see that many of these aspects of ancient histories apply to the book of Acts as a general history." (134) However, according to W. Ward Gasque, the consensus of opinion seems to be that Luke-Acts is historical monograph. (A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, 357) What the exact genre is is debated, and some have even suggested it is an ancient novel. "But juding from the preface to volume one, from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and form the main character themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Church, not a novel." (Ehrman, 134)

 

What is striking about Luke/Acts is that he actually references very few points of history. And the points he references are not accurate.

That reveals your ignorance of the subject. While it's true the vast majority of information in Acts is neither comfirmed nor contested by other sources, Luke's knowledge of backgrounds are remarkably accurate. A Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White declares that "any attempt to reject its (ie. Acts) basic historicity even in matters of details must now appear absurd." (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 189) Colin Hemer was a classicist who spent nearly 25 years in studying the milieu of the early Christianity in Asia Minor and Greece, and wrote a book entitled The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Hemer finds Josephus to be less reliable historian, even when he is talking about events in which he participated as an eyewitness.

[Looking4Answers]

It would be wrong to expect ancient historians, using different standards, to measure up to modern standards.

 

Badger, do you cherry pick your verses from the Bible as much as you cherry pick what people here have said? I made a case that the books of Luke and Acts SHOULD be measured by an even HIGHER standard than even those of modern historians. Why? Because the history of these books is a part of a book that is accepted as the very words of god. As a result, it should be under incredibly intense scrutiny.

 

Actually it is not a work of science fiction;

 

You obviously have trouble reading and following an argument. Let me post my quote again and then we can look at it:

 

This is not much different than reading Michael Crichton's Timeline. There is history in the book, but it is a work of science fiction.

 

The sentence, "There is history in the book, but it is a work of science fiction," was preceded by another sentence: This is not much different than reading Michael Crichton's Timeline. Michale Crichton's book, Timeline, is indeed a work of science fiction. That is what my sentence, "There is history in the book, but it is a work of science fiction," was referring to.

 

Bart Ehrman puts Acts to the genre of general history.

 

Any ancient text, no matter what it is about, is a part of general history. Even a shopping list or a receipt for the purchases of horses from ancient times is a part of general history. As such, then entirety of the Bible is, at least, a part of general history. However, the question really isn't, "Is Luke/Acts considered a part of general history?" The real question is, "Is it a good and reliable history?" The answer is, "No."

 

That reveals your ignorance of the subject.

 

Actually, no. Your posts only demonstrate that you refuse to acknowledge what others have said here in this thread and elsewhere.

 

Luke's knowledge of backgrounds are remarkably accurate.

 

Others here have already pointed out errors in both Luke and Acts from a historical perspective. If you accept errors as remarkably accurate, then you are the one with the problem.

 

In any case, if you read through the books of Luke and Acts, you do find some significant historical references, but they are scanty and, in most cases, they are somewhat (if not completely) in error. The rest of the history is mainly place names, people names and the like.

[Badger]

Why? Because the history of these books is a part of a book that is accepted as the very words of god. As a result, it should be under incredibly intense scrutiny.

And I said it shouldn't; that would be wrong.

 

Any ancient text, no matter what it is about, is a part of general history. Even a shopping list or a receipt for the purchases of horses from ancient times is a part of general history. As such, then entirety of the Bible is, at least, a part of general history."

General history is a specific literature genre among the different kinds of literatures.

The book of Acts is most like this final kind of history, one that traces the key events of a people from the point of their origin down to near the present time, to show how their character as a people was established. Scholars sometimes call this genre "general history." One well-known example, produced at approximately at the same time as Acts, was written by the Jewish historian Josephus. His twenty-volume work, The Antiquities of the Jews, sketches the significant events of Judaism all the way from Adams and Eve down to his own day. (Ehrman, 133)

Others here have already pointed out errors in both Luke and Acts from a historical perspective.

No one had denied those problems; no ancient historian was perfect. But I would say you're committing special pleading if you insist that Luke, in order to be considered as a serious historian, must not have made any errors.

 

In any case, if you read through the books of Luke and Acts, you do find some significant historical references, but they are scanty and, in most cases, they are somewhat (if not completely) in error. The rest of the history is mainly place names, people names and the like.

You can keep claiming that, or read some studies about the subject. It should be remembered that Luke didn't have access to all of the research tools available in libraries today.

 

Aarchaelology and the Book of Acts

The Historical Value of Acts

Is The Acts of the Apostles Historically Reliable? Part 1

Is The Acts of the Apostles Historically Reliable? Part 2

Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts

[Abiyoyo]

No. It is discredited because it speaks of unverifiable miracles and speaks of them as if we should take them as actually happening. If the knowable history within the works are not all that reliable, then why should we even consider the unverifiable miracles?

 

I think this is the meat of the debate at this point, and is the subject for my OP. You just stated here why the book is discredited, and continued to say that 'the works' within it are not reliable. This is the argument. The problem here is that the historical accuracy of Acts is only your opinion with a few others. A minority. Earlier I believe in this thread you made the claim from Wikipedia about the half and half being mentioned. I pointed out that this was the 'opinion' from one person, who wrote a book. I even gave another example from a book, that said the opposite to show that wikipedia source for this should be updated to say 'the majority'; but I assume someone cared more to edit it as a half from a one source view.

 

This is the problem about wikipedia. BUT, what you stated is not correct, but is in fact wrong. Many historians, have made the claims about Acts accuracy historically. So, we are back at square one. And as you stated above, if the works within the books aren't reliable, then why even consider the unverifiable miracles. This is the point L4A. The history within these books are reliable in the historical commune, and I in the OP asked why you would not consider the rest then.

 

Now, if you say, 'Well YoYo, because God hasn't made himself real to me and I just don't believe, then I would have said, Okay L4A. But, you didn't. But then again, the question was in general to invite some thought and conversation, not specifically to you. We will just have to agree to disagree at this point that Acts for you personally, is not a reliable source of history.

[Looking4Answers]

Luke's Historical Accuracy: A Survey:

 

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth. - Luke 1:5

 

This verse tells us that the events that follow take place in the days of Herod, king of Judaea. This would be Herod the Great.

 

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) - Luke 2:1-2

 

According to most historians, the census took place in 6 AD/CE.

 

The problem here seems to be the inclusion of Herod the Great. He died in 4 BC/BCE. That is 10 years before this census! And this presents a problem for those that want to reconcile history with the Bible, particularly the book of Luke. Here is a brief excerpt from WikiPedia on the subject:

 

The Census of Quirinius refers to the enrollment of the Roman Provinces of Syria and Iudaea for tax purposes taken in AD 6/7 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Augustus, when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria, after the banishment of Herod Archelaus and the imposition of direct Roman rule on what became Iudaea Province (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea proper, and Idumea). An account of the census was given by the first century historian Josephus, who associated it with the beginning of a resistance movement that he called the Zealots.

 

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus with this historical census, while the Gospel of Matthew places the birth at least a decade earlier, during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally attempted to reconcile these accounts; most modern scholars, according to Raymond E. Brown, regard this as an error by the author of the Luke Gospel.

 

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

 

Many Christian scholars would attempt to solve this by finding another census ... and earlier one ... but this fails according to history.

 

Most modern scholars explain the disparity as an error on the part of the author of the Gospel, concluding that he was more concerned with creating a symbolic narrative than a historical account, and was either unaware of, or indifferent to, the chronological difficulty. Many suggest that the Gospel of Matthew account is also invented.

 

I am sure that badger and YoYo will attempt to bring into play some of the proposed solutions to this problem, but there is no doubt that this section from Luke (especially when compared to the birth narrative in Matthew) is problematic. No proposed solution works and, as has been pointed out, this passage has been a thorn in the side of theologians for centuries.

[Looking4Answers]

Who Was High Priest During the Days of Jesus Ministry?

 

Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. - Luke 3:2

 

And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. - Acts 4:6

 

The first verse is problematic in that it states that both Annas and Caiaphas were high priests (plural). Israel and Judaism did not have two high priests at the same time:

 

The Great Sanhedrin alone had the right to appoint, or confirm the appointment of, the high priest. His consecration might take place only in the day-time. Two high priests must not be appointed together. Every high priest had a "mishneh" (a second) called the Segan, or "memunneh", to stand at his right; another assistant was the "Catholicos" ("Yad," l.c. 16-17). The right of succession was in the direct, or, the direct failing, the collateral, line, provided the conditions concerning physical fitness were fulfilled (ib. 20; Ket. 103b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim).

 

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen_Gadol

 

The second error is that Annas was high priest during the ministry of Jesus. Annas, according to history, was appointed high priest sometime after 6 AD/CE and then disposed of by about 15 AD/CE. Caiaphas was made high priest in 18 AD/CE and remained so until about 36 AD/CE. This would mean that Caiaphas, not Annas, was high priest during the ministry of Jesus.

 

Josephus Antiquities 18:2:1-2, 4:3 (for a source)

[Looking4Answers]

Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? - Acts 21:38

 

According to history these three events are unrelated one to another.

 

For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. - Acts 5:36-37

 

The problem with this section is the phrase after this man. This tells us that after Theudas arose another man, Judas of Galilee. However, the revolt of Judas of Galilee took place at about 6 AD/CE while the revolt of Theudas is dated at about 44-46 AD/CE! To make matters worse, supposedly Gamaliel is speaking sometime shortly after the crucifixion during the early years of the formation of the church. This would mean that the revolt of Theudas had not taken place yet! This would be a strong indicator that Luke was written sometime well after this revolt and that he was not a decent historian because he didn't know which took place first and did not even know when the revolts actually took place!

 

Theudas (thyū'dăs) (died c. 46 AD) was a Jewish rebel who probably claimed to be the Messiah[citation needed]. His name, if a Greek compound, may mean "gift of God", although other scholars believe its etymology is Semitic.[1] Other scholars claim the name means “flowing with water”.[2] At some point between 44 and 46 AD, Theudas led his followers in a short-lived revolt.

 

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theudas

 

Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around AD 6.

 

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_of_Galilee

[Antlerman]

For those who are interested, I recommend to read Chris Price's online publication Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts and W. Gasque's The Historical Value of Acts.

I appreciate the link. I'll spend some time with it as it's available. As a quick note before I jump more depth into this link, that yes genre is important. What I see Luke's contribution to the Gospel "genre" was in fact with that historian perspective, but "accuracy" is less a fact as the purpose of the texts. You're correct in saying it's not according to modern standards. In fact that is an excellent qualification you make. So much so, that it's unfortunate that most modern Christians evaluate most of the Bible in the light of "modern standards", but in regards to "truth" and "lies", rather than genre. That genre being for a purpose other than "accuracy", of course.

 

My thoughts of Luke are that his interests were in placing the Christian movement into the long history of the Israel for the purpose of imagining the emergence of Christianity as a moral factor for the Roman Empire. It was mythmaking, but using historical language as a vehicle for the message of Christianity. Genre, not historical facts. The problem is when someone today says "Luke was a historian", the suggested meaning is that he was speaking of "facts". That is simply not true. Luke's Gospel was still of the genre of Christian myth, just placing it into a certain historical context for the sake of the myth itself. Fact, were not in mind.

 

Anyway, I'll look at your link as time permits and hopefully we can have a good discussion out of it. Nothing is black and white. Is it?

[Looking4Answers]

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. - Acts 11:28

 

The only recorded famine during the reign of Claudius was estimated to take place from around 46-48 AD/CE. However, this was not a worldwide dearth. In other words, the entire Roman world was not affected by this famine despite what the prophecy of Agabus said. The writer of the book of Acts record of this is incorrect. Or we can look at it this way, if you prefer: Either the writer got it wrong because there was not worldwide dearth during the reign of Claudius or Agabus was wrong. Which would you prefer?

 

Here is a quote on this passage from Acts:

 

Acts 11:28 and 12:25 speaks of a famine under Claudius (41-54 AD). The famine is mentioned in Acts before the death of Herod (12:20-23. Josephus mentions a famine in Jerusalem relieved by the good graces of Queen Helena of Adiabene connected with procuratorship of Tiberius Julius Alexander (46-48 AD). Josephus however locates the famine after the death of Herod. Agabus' prophecy is therefore not precisely placed in the sequences of Acts 11:28.

[Looking4Answers]

My thoughts of Luke are that his interests were in placing the Christian movement into the long history of the Israel for the purpose of imagining the emergence of Christianity as a moral factor for the Roman Empire. It was mythmaking, but using historical language as a vehicle for the message of Christianity. Genre, not historical facts. The problem is when someone today says "Luke was a historian", the suggested meaning is that he was speaking of "facts". That is simply not true. Luke's Gospel was still of the genre of Christian myth, just placing it into a certain historical context for the sake of the myth itself. Fact, were not in mind.

 

And this is important, Antlerman, in my opinion. Because if the book of Luke is going to tell me about the birth of the Messiah, his death and resurrection and if the book of Acts is going to tell me about the formation of the early followers and instruct me in such things as how to be made right with god (repent and be baptized, according to Peter in Acts 2, etc), then I need to know if these books are history or not and, if so, what kind. If they are to be regarded as non-myth history, then the level of scrutiny is different. If they are to be considered myth, then the level of scrutiny may be much less, of course, but the seriousness at which we take their message is also much less. In other words, of the author of Luke/Acts is not conveying truth in his history, then I don't need to be overly concerned about the rest of the message either.

[Looking4Answers]

I found this quote interesting concerning the veracity of the historicity of Acts:

 

it has been established that the author of Acts was ignorant of the epistles of Paul, and even formally contradicts them; that he does not understand certain ancient traditions [e.g. glossolalia]; and above all that his narrative of the first years of the history of the Christian Church, whose founders he is supposed to have known intimately, is pitifully inadequate

 

- Charles Guignebert, Professor of the History of Christianity in the Sorbonne

Jesus, Translated from the French by S. H. Hooke, Professor of Old Testament Studies, University of London, University Books, New York, 1956.

 

Here are some interesting facts:

 

In Acts 23:31, says the soldiers brought Paul from Jerusalem to Antipatris, a distance of some 45 miles, overnight. Thirty miles constituted a suitable days journey whether by land or by sea. Both the numbers involved (two hundred soldiers, seventy horsemen, two hundred spearmen) and the speed of the journey (38 to 45 miles in a night) are exaggerated to emphasize the importance of person being accompanied and the extent of the danger.

[Abiyoyo]

I understand your perspective L4A. And you may 'count' as one of historians that differ in opinion; but the underlining note is that it still has been credited as historical through Historical standards in that era; as historical. It's a two sided gate so to speak.

[Badger]

My thoughts of Luke are that his interests were in placing the Christian movement into the long history of the Israel for the purpose of imagining the emergence of Christianity as a moral factor for the Roman Empire. It was mythmaking, but using historical language as a vehicle for the message of Christianity. Genre, not historical facts. The problem is when someone today says "Luke was a historian", the suggested meaning is that he was speaking of "facts". That is simply not true. Luke's Gospel was still of the genre of Christian myth, just placing it into a certain historical context for the sake of the myth itself. Fact, were not in mind.

I think you're missing the importance of the genre. If we take Acts as historical monograph or general history, we can conclude that Luke meant to write history and to be taken as "speaking of facts." In fact, this is the meaning of his prologue in the volume one; Luke's primary purpose is to provide trustworthy information about the beginnings of Christianity. The exact genre of Luke-Acts is debated, and a major difficulty in reaching agreement is that one must take into account the both volumes. (Hurtado in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 280) We may say Luke's Gospel is kind of ancient biography, but not a myth. Myths relate the events that "are set in a time altogether different from historical time, often at the beginning of creation or at an early stage of prehistory" (Encyclopedia Britannica Online, s. v. "myth") and, as far as I know, were only written in poetic genres; such genre as myth didn't exist.

[Dagan]

it still has been credited as historical through Historical standards in that era

(emphasis mine)

 

This has probably already been said but I should point out that standards were pretty low.

 

Literacy rates were extremely low. Being able to write was an uncommon skill. Only the elite or those with lots of borrowed money from the church could afford to have history written down. And there was no formal training to be a historian, and no sources cited. "Luke" does not say "according to eyewitness Mary, who actually saw Jesus in the garden..." he just states it as fact.

 

Yes, it may be in some people's opinions on par with other historical sources, but there's more to historical studies than just finding a source from that time. Who was Luke's patron? Who paid for him to write the books? Did he have any axes to grind? Those are questions that must be in mind when attempting to read the Bible with any sort of truly historical perspective.

 

I guess that's why so many Christians just choose to believe in the inerrancy of God-breathed scripture.

[Looking4Answers]

Literacy rates were extremely low. Being able to write was an uncommon skill. Only the elite or those with lots of borrowed money from the church could afford to have history written down.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement for a few reasons. Sorry about that .

 

It is an assumption that reading and writing were an uncommon skill. We have to take into account who we are talking about before we make that assumption. If we were talking about the ancient Egyptians, where writing was only for the priestly class, then I would have to agree. But we are dealing primarily with the Jewish nation when we are talking about the creation of the New Testament as well as the Greeks. Several decades before the birth of Christ (I don't have the exact year ... it could have been about 100 years earlier ... would have to look it up) Israel had a public school system of sorts. Because of the Jewish emphasis on learning, reading and writing was a part of their education. The Greeks also emphasized learning and reading and writing were fairly common.

 

There is some evidence that they would use wooden tablets that had an area filled with wax. People could write in the wax with a pointed stylus. While this would not be a permanent means of writing something down, it did allow people to take notes, so to speak, in order to help them commit something to memory.

 

I think we have the misconception that only the modern peoples have been education en mass or that only the peoples of today had the luxury of learning to read and write. But this is not the case. People wrote lists for things to purchase in ancient times. If you bought property a deed was drafted up. Much of this was done on clay because other methods were expensive (papyrus, parchment, ink, etc). Signs were posted in cities and towns. people had to be able to read them. The Romans posted many signs of warning, mile markers along roads, etc.

 

Frankly, it seems that many peoples from many cultures could read and write. I haven't looked into it, but I am guessing that it really wasn't until the Dark Ages that we see so many people that could do neither.

[mwc]

[snip apology]

I like your quotes. Unfortunately for them I have read many ancient historians for myself. I do not find "Luke" to be credible when compared to these other authors.

 

I scanned the very long web page you linked to (I did not look at the PDF since they tend to cause my browser problems) and I could only find one reference to the verses I mentioned:

 

Ancient histories “are vehicles for narrating events worthy of record. . . . Historians [ ] treated events that actually happened and people who really lived; they had historical stories worth telling.”[6] Luke T. Johnson explains why he concludes that the author of Acts was attempting to write history:

 

(1) His prologue tells us that he is writing an “orderly account.” Historians of his age used such language to describe their work. He refers as well to oral and written sources; he knew others had written narratives before him. He had sources; therefore, he regarded them as such, and he used them critically. (2) He tries to relate his story to the broader historical context.

He does this first by providing chronological references for pivotal events (see Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12)

. In addition, he identifies power blocs and governing agents, not only in Palestine (Acts 18:12-17). (3) Above all, Luke has the historian’s instinct for chronology and causality; he makes connections between events, so that a thread of purpose runs through his narrative.[7]

 

I take this to mean that my objections are valid. In two verses "Luke" makes 3 notable mistakes. The title of Pilate, his ignorance regarding co-ruling high-priests and his introduction of a spurious Lysanius into history. The latter two being most problematic for his "chronological references" and not understanding that Lysanius had been killed in 36 BCE and his territory ruled by Varus seems to be a problem for all the items the author offers him praise for here.

 

Luke 1:5 is not usually mentioned but I can't locate a reference to Archelaus as just "Herod" anywhere. So this would mean we're looking at a unique reference, a reference to Herod the Great or a tetrarch "Herod" (though it's unlikely to be "tetrarch" because he makes proper reference to "Herod the tetrarch" in v3:1-2). There are a few references to Archelaus as "king" but properly he was ethnarch (as I'm sure you are aware).

 

Luke 2? Well, I already commented on that. A complete mess and pretty much has its own thread. I won't be bothering with it here.

 

So what else in G.Luke is "Luke" showing his "veracity" on? Not much I would say. References to people and places that cannot be located. Even the latest from 1 CE Nazareth just reinforces that there wasn't a town there. I guess "Luke" decided to do some more "research" before he published Acts?

 

mwc

[mwc]

Literacy rates were extremely low. Being able to write was an uncommon skill. Only the elite or those with lots of borrowed money from the church could afford to have history written down.

I'm going to have to disagree with this statement for a few reasons. Sorry about that .

...

Frankly, it seems that many peoples from many cultures could read and write. I haven't looked into it, but I am guessing that it really wasn't until the Dark Ages that we see so many people that could do neither.

Literacy rates were low but it depends on what is meant by the word. I've seen estimates ranging from 3-10% (with 3% being the general population of the day and 10% being the Jewish population...they had to read the Torah). But being able to read and write could mean lots of things. I think many people would be "functionally illiterate." So, going with the low number, if just 3% could "fluently" read/write a much larger percentage could most likely read "good enough" meaning just what L4A said. They could read basic road signs, warnings and things of that nature in order to just not get into trouble or to know where to go to find things (even to the point of just knowing who to ask to read more things for them). We have these in our own culture (in nearly inverse proportion) so it's no stretch of the imagination to think they existed.

 

mwc