Luke And The Acts Of The Apostles

[Badger]

I am sure that badger and YoYo will attempt to bring into play some of the proposed solutions to this problem

Why should we?

 

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.

Actually, the word αρχιερευς ("high-priest") in Luke 3:2 is singluar and not plural. "Luke thus recognises that there was in fact one high priest in office, but shows his consciousness of the powerful position of the retired high priest; similarly, Jo. Vita 193 can refer to "the high priests." (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 134)

 

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.

This may be misstatement, unless Luke meant that Annas continued to have great prestige and to bear the title high priest after his formal deposition by the Romans and the appointment of Caiaphas.

 

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

You mean according to Josephus, right? But it may well be that here Luke's account is more credible. "The reference to the Egyptian is historically perfecly plausible in Acts 21 and comports with what Josephus suggests in regard to some of the substance and the date - the Egyptian was a figure who appeared and caused trouble during the rule of Felix (AD. 52-59), the end of which period is also the time when Paul is taken into custody in Jerusalem." (Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 237)

 

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!

This is one of the major difficulties and Luke could have made a mistake here. However, it is not entirery impossible that another Theudas is in view.

 

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.

The phrase could be taken as rhetorical hyperbole for the sake of emphasis, but also translated "in the whole Empire," as Witherington points out. (The Acts of the Apostles, 372) "In short, from the point of view of the poor in Judea a drought or famine in Egypt meant trouble for them and many others all over the Empire, and thus in terms of its effect one could well talk about an Empire-wide famine if there was a severe one in Egypt." (372-373)

 

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.

That sounds incredible, true.

[Looking4Answers]

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).

 

However, there are some things that may not be taken into consideration. Each village or town had its synagogue with its rabbi. The rabbi could read and he often had students. Each town also had its priests, who only worked in the Temple during their courses. The priests could read as well. Besides the rabbis and the priests, we also had the scribes, whose function it was to read and interpret the Law. So we haven't dipped very far into the general population yet and already we see a system of people that would be very literate. However, they certainly are a minority when compared to the general population, even though there were a great many priests (and, thus, why they worked in the Temple only during their courses).

 

There were also sects that had reading and writing as a part of their traditions. The Essene at Qumran were such a people. During excavations archaeologists found a multitude of ink wells and they were not only in one place (i.e. a place of writing), but in various places throughout the living areas of the community. So it seems that many in the Qumran society could both read and write. And considering their literature, they probably could read and write well.

 

Again, I mention the wax tablets. In recent archaeological finds, numerous wax tablets have been found. These findings indicate that a form of writing was more common and widespread then previously thought. And it appears, for a variety or reasons, that writing was not just restricted to simple adding for the purchase of goods. Some speculate that disciples of various sects (Jewish and non-Jewish) would carry these wax tablets in order to jot down the wise teachings of their leader. This would also indicate that reading and writing were more widespread then previously thought.

 

When you couple this with the fact that Israel had a form of a public school system (as I mentioned before) then this would also indicate that reading had some significant place in ancient Jewish society.

 

By the way, the signs put up by the Romans weren't just simple road signs. For example, the Greek signs posted within the Temple court yard advising Gentiles to stay out under pain of death were not that simple:

 

 

(sorry ... to lazy to search for a better image )

 

As time goes on and archaeology continues, it seems that they find that ancient cultures were more sophisticated than we tend to give them credit for. Reading a writing goes way back and it was not always only for the elite. Although there were cultures, like the ancient Egyptians, that tried to restrict it to the priestly class, attaching writing to their religion and to witchcraft.

[Looking4Answers]

Actually, the word αρχιερευς ("high-priest") in Luke 3:2 is singluar and not plural. "Luke thus recognises that there was in fact one high priest in office, but shows his consciousness of the powerful position of the retired high priest; similarly, Jo. Vita 193 can refer to "the high priests." (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 134)

 

This is interesting. You use the following Greek word for High Priest: αρχιερευς. However, the actual text has a different ending. I apologize because I don't know how to type Greek in this forum. I will try to transliterate the Greek word: archiereon (yours would be archeireus). I don't know a lot of Greek, so I don't know if the "on" ending makes the word plural or not. For the sake of this post, I will assume the word is in the singular and that is fine because it solidifies a problem with the veracity of Luke. Let's look at the order of the first five Greek words from Luke 3:2 (transliterated here):

 

ep archiereon anna kai kaiapha

 

The translation would be (loosely) as follows:

 

upon/at/during high priest Annas and Caiaphus

 

Words two and three connect the office of High Priest to Annas. And this is what I stated previously:

 

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.

 

So whether there are two high priests in this verse or not, there is still a problem. The problem is that Caiaphus was high priest during the ministry of Jesus and not Annas.

 

I will need to look into whether the Greek word is plural. I simply don't know. However, the KAI that is there connects Caiaphus to Annas pretty tightly (KAI being a word for AND).

 

This may be misstatement, unless Luke meant that Annas continued to have great prestige and to bear the title high priest after his formal deposition by the Romans and the appointment of Caiaphas.

 

If Annas continued to bear the title of High Priest while Caiaphas was High Priest then there would be, in affect, two High Priests and you and I both just covered that that could not be the case.

 

I may get to the rest of your reply, but I am too tired (it's almost 5 AM and I worked most of the night).

[mwc]

27 Now in those days prophets came from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 And one of them, named Agabus, said publicly through the Spirit that there would be serious need of food all over the earth: which came about in the time of Claudius. 29 And the disciples, everyone as he was able, made a decision to send help to the brothers living in Judaea: 30 Which they did, sending it to the rulers of the church by the hand of Barnabas and Saul.

See what happens?

 

Agabus "The Prophet" comes from Jerusalem to Antioch. (v27)

 

He then, through the "spirit" makes his little prediction of a "world wide" famine, right? (v28) Not necessarily. The LXX translates it frequently as "hunger." Or "scarcity of harvest." Sounds like a famine I know but hang with me a second and you'll see the connection.

 

So "the disciples" send help to the "brothers" in Judea with Barnabas and Saul being the go betweens. (v29-30)

 

If there was a "world wide" famine where is the food coming from and why are only those in Judea considered important enough to receive aid?

 

Here's what happened. A crop failure was coming to Judea. Agabus came and made this known. Food was sent back to Judea.

 

When did this happen?

 

According to Josephus:

20.5.2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; [...] Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already.

So...~44-48?

 

Then what about all the other "evidence" for this whole famine? I mean others cite Tacitus and Suetonius and so on.

 

From Tacitus we get this bit from a trial set ~47-48:

The senators were then convoked, and Suilius proceeded to find new victims in two knights of the first rank who bore the surname of Petra. The real cause of their destruction was that they had lent their house for the meetings of Mnester and Poppaea. But it was a vision of the night that was the actual charge against one of them.

He had, it was alleged, beheld Claudius crowned with a garland of wheat, the ears of which were turned downwards, and, from this appearance, he foretold scanty harvests

. Some have said that it was a vine-wreath, of which the leaves were white, which he saw, and that he interpreted it to signify the death of the emperor after the turn of autumn. It is, however, beyond dispute that in consequence of some dream, whatever it was, both the man and his brother perished.

 

From Suetonius' Life of Tiberius there is:

XIX.

During a scarcity of provisions, occasioned by bad crops for several successive years, he was stopped in the middle of the Forum by the mob, who so abused him, at the same time pelting him with fragments of bread

, that he had some (311) difficulty in escaping into the palace by a back door.

He therefore used all possible means to bring provisions to the city, even in the winter

.

Which we can go ahead and cross-reference with Dio book 60 (that no one seems to mention):

10

Claudius was now consul with Gaius Largus

. He allowed his colleague to serve for the whole year, but he himself retained the office for only two months at this time also.

...

11

On the occasion of a severe famine he considered the problem of providing an abundant food-supply

, not only for that particular crisis but for all future time. 2

For practically all the grain used by the Romans was imported

, and yet the region near the month of the Tiber had no safe landing-places or suitable harbours, so that their mastery of the sea was rendered useless to them.

Except for the cargoes brought in during the summer season and stored in warehouses, they had no supplies for the winter; for if any one ever risked a voyage at that season, he was sure to meet with disaster

. 3 In view of this situation, Claudius undertook to construct a harbour, and would not be deterred even when the architects, upon his enquiring how great the cost would be, answered, "You don't want to do it!" so confident were they that the huge expenditures necessary would shake him from his purpose, if he should learn the cost beforehand. He, however, conceived an undertaking worthy of the dignity and greatness of Rome, and he brought it to accomplishment.

So when was Claudius consul with Largus? In 44-48? No. In 42.

 

The great famine that hit Rome did so before the great famine that hit Judea.

 

What did happen around (41/)42 in Judea? Possibly a Sabbath year. And again in 48(/49). They, by law, had to let their land sit. And with all the problems that had already occurred in the region it didn't take a mighty "prophet" to guess that they didn't have enough food stored up to survive an intentional year of letting the land sit. But they had no choice.

 

So Helena sent aid. Lots of it. And luckily for us she goes unrewarded while "Saul/Paul" is the mighty hero of history.

 

mwc

[mwc]

However, they certainly are a minority when compared to the general population, even though there were a great many priests (and, thus, why they worked in the Temple only during their courses).

I did take this into account. I believe that Josephus estimates the temple priests at about 5000 total (I didn't check). That's quite a few.

 

There were also sects that had reading and writing as a part of their traditions. The Essene at Qumran were such a people. During excavations archaeologists found a multitude of ink wells and they were not only in one place (i.e. a place of writing), but in various places throughout the living areas of the community. So it seems that many in the Qumran society could both read and write. And considering their literature, they probably could read and write well.

While there were a considerable number of inkwells that doesn't indicate the number of people that were doing the writing. 50 inkwells indicates that 50 people were capable of writing simultaneously (for example...I'm just making up numbers here for illustration) but does that mean that only 50 of the 1000 members of the community could actually perform this task? It's hard to make that call.

 

Again, I mention the wax tablets. In recent archaeological finds, numerous wax tablets have been found. These findings indicate that a form of writing was more common and widespread then previously thought. And it appears, for a variety or reasons, that writing was not just restricted to simple adding for the purchase of goods. Some speculate that disciples of various sects (Jewish and non-Jewish) would carry these wax tablets in order to jot down the wise teachings of their leader. This would also indicate that reading and writing were more widespread then previously thought.

 

When you couple this with the fact that Israel had a form of a public school system (as I mentioned before) then this would also indicate that reading had some significant place in ancient Jewish society.

 

By the way, the signs put up by the Romans weren't just simple road signs. For example, the Greek signs posted within the Temple court yard advising Gentiles to stay out under pain of death were not that simple:

 

(sorry ... to lazy to search for a better image )

Don't worry about the image. I've seen the Soreg before. It was about 6 feet tall and highly polished. There was essentially a "wall" of them separating the courts. It had Greek and Latin (and I imagine Hebrew) written on it. This was not a Roman sign but a Jewish one. Origin aside they were eye-catching and if you couldn't read you would have known it was a language and should have been able to ask what it meant. It only affected foreigners so non-reading, non-inquisitive Jews would have been just fine anyway.

 

I still think that if something had writing on it that people would have asked if they didn't know and they felt it affected them. After all what you didn't know could kill you.

 

As time goes on and archaeology continues, it seems that they find that ancient cultures were more sophisticated than we tend to give them credit for. Reading a writing goes way back and it was not always only for the elite. Although there were cultures, like the ancient Egyptians, that tried to restrict it to the priestly class, attaching writing to their religion and to witchcraft.

I'll agree with this. Though other cultures DID connect letters to "magic." Even Hebrew. I don't recall which, but it's in one of the apocryphal books where the drawing of the letters has special "secret" meaning (the instructor goes on about the Aleph and such but I don't think ever actually reveals the secret to the reader...guess we need to join up).

 

mwc

[Deva]

Has anyone here considered the credibility given to the historical accuracy of The Acts of the Apostles? If such historical weight is associated with Luke's writing, then should his description of the ''supernatural'' events be credited? The reason I bring this up is because I have been thinking much about the Gospels, Acts, Peter, John's Epistles, Revelations, and keep thinking about how these people where just common people, not theologians. Many ''consider'' John a theologian, yet before Christ, be was a fisherman??

 

I think certain incidents in Acts could have happened, but as a whole it is not credible to me. Theologians do not know who really wrote these books. We don't know if they were common people or not.

 

My issue here. Why are these Gospels looked upon by many here as just copies and pawn offs for religious propaganda of that era? I understand that these Gospels were probably copied over, in conjuncture with each of the other Gospels, but why would they be for some type of agenda, or accurate ''news'' report as some preachers put it?

 

If they were copies and variations that wouldn't necessarily bother me. I don't think it was propaganda in the modern sense of the word. I believe that some of the early churches wanted to establish that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah so they wrote stories to make it appear he had fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament. There were other varieties of early Christianity out there that they were writing against and they were making their case. This is particularly true of the gospels. There was at least a 60 or 70 year gap between the events and the stories.

 

What are your thoughts? Was Luke's, The Acts of the Apostles, a true and accurate depiction of what actually took place?

 

Probably not, and if so, what difference would it make to my life today? An accurate history is still a dead history.

[mwc]

Actually, the word αρχιερευς ("high-priest") in Luke 3:2 is singluar and not plural. "Luke thus recognises that there was in fact one high priest in office, but shows his consciousness of the powerful position of the retired high priest; similarly, Jo. Vita 193 can refer to "the high priests." (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 134)

Ouch. The word is singular (genitive singular masculine to be exact):

epi archiereōs Hanna kai Kaiapha,

Looks like "Luke" is right. "[in the] high priest[hood of] Annas and Caiaphas..." I went for literal. I left the "[in the]" up to the reader. Why? Just so you can have some fun too. It is the same tense as Luke 3:1 meaning it's a present tense form so it must match the tense of v1. I could make the verse more readable by changing the tense and using a word like "Upon" but that's not quite right.

 

So what does it mean when "Luke" clarifies this for us in Acts 4:

6

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.

Or just the first bit in Greek:

kai Annas ho archiereus kai Kaiaphas

That's just "And Annas the high priest and Caiaphas..." in case you're curious (nominative singular masculine in this case). Nothing special except it's far less ambiguous than the other verse.

 

So what's the difference? To keep it simple a nominative can function as a subject. A genitive functions as a description.

 

He then uses the definitive article "ho" to connect "Annas" and "archiereus" followed by another "kai" which simplifies our lives. If the same author wrote these two items then he intended for us to know that Annas was the High Priest at this time. Caiaphas was related but not high priest.

 

And in the textual variants I am aware of this is what I see:

"Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and

John

and Alexander"

"Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and

Jonathan

and Alexander"

He's still the high priest.

 

So how many more ways should we cut this before "Luke" is wrong? Annas was high priest from 6-15 CE. Why does "Luke" recognize Annas? Because he condemns "jesus" whereas Caiaphas only condemns "jesus?" Where does this argument come from? "Luke" shows no reason at all to honor him over anyone else. I know what Josephus has to say about him but I doubt that "Luke" would share those thoughts.

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

Ouch. The word is singular (genitive singular masculine to be exact):

 

epi archiereōs Hanna kai Kaiapha,

 

But that's not what my Greek copy says. It reads as follows:

 

Ep archiereon Anna kai Kaiapha

 

So the difference here is archiereos vs archiereon. Frankly, my Greek is so weak that I don't know the difference .

 

Now this brings up an entirely different problem. There are variant Greek texts!

 

ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα

 

ἐπ' ἀρχιερέων Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα

 

So which one is right? Is it ἀρχιερέως or ἀρχιερέων?

[Antlerman]

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.

Quoting Britanica about defining myth, and to say that Luke isn't because it doesn't place it into the ancient past is hardly authortative. I can find lots of things in Britanica that simply reflect current views. Those views change, and myth studies take more into account than they used to. Gospels are pretty squarely mythological, even if it takes on some unique features. The Gospels in fact do place themselves in the ancient past. "In the beginning was the Word... all things were made through him... the Word became flesh." Luke's Gospel also works to places the Christ figure in a mythological past as well, foretelling his coming, introducing the idea of the Holy Spirit as guiding Jesus like the prophets. Outside of a few unique twists on the genre, it follows the purpose of and the earmarks of mythology far more closely and sensibly, than "miracle" story does. The miracle explanation's greatest challenge is why if it were that, that it should take on so many features of myth like other cultures? It's kind of like denying the age of the earth in favor of miracle creation, then left explaining why God would make it appear so old then. To test our faith??

 

If you look at Luke, even though he starts out with his "historical" theme, he soon leaves behind his opening theme of the Holy Spirit guiding Jesus as he begins copying Mark's Gospel and the Q document into his "history". This is not an attempt to record history. It is an attempt to create a creative story of the Christ for the purpose of religious devotion and faith, utilizing other popular devotional and traditional sources. Mark created his first narrative story of the Christ utilizing various myths, legends, stories, and teachings. Matthew and Luke copied Mark's fiction into their, each spinning and weaving the stories to suit their purposes of supporting themselves and their message to their respective communities. Luke's choice in using the framework of a "historical account" was in fact simply a vehicle for the Christian message. He used his skills as a historian to create a fiction in that genre.

 

Even if Luke believed this to be some unbiased "factual" history, it is clearly laced with myth as is evidenced in the particulars of its evolution. He clearly was not being astute, accurate, and careful as what we would consider to be a "reliable" historian today. So therefore any argument for the Gospel's stories speaking reliably is really made moot. If Luke's account is to be considered "reliable" and therefore the Gospels factual, then you have a lot of problems facing you.

 

Understanding them as mythological, taking layers of earlier myths and weaving them together into a new myth, which themselves were woven together with other such myths, to form as sort of "unified message", and "unified history" myth of the the later church creating a myth of its origins, fit the data far more elegantly and consistently, than some "unique and a class of its own" mythology about Christianity does. Of course it has some unique features. They all do. Just like all humans have unique features, but are all still human beings. The Christian myth is unique in that it's the Christian myth.

[Ouroboros]

...

You mean according to Josephus, right? But it may well be that here Luke's account is more credible.

...

Oh... so Josephus isn't completely credible then? Well, good. The "historians" of that time made mistakes, which means, Luke most likely made mistakes, which leads to: we can't take all that he wrote, or Josephus, or any other historian of that time, to be completely 100% correct. None of them. Take things with a grain of salt, and don't take everything for absolute truths.

[Antlerman]

...

You mean according to Josephus, right? But it may well be that here Luke's account is more credible.

...

Oh... so Josephus isn't completely credible then? Well, good. The "historians" of that time made mistakes, which means, Luke most likely made mistakes, which leads to: we can't take all that he wrote, or Josephus, or any other historian of that time, to be completely 100% correct. None of them. Take things with a grain of salt, and don't take everything for absolute truths.

Except for Christianity of course. That's different. It may look like a myth, read like a myth, sound like a myth, smell like a myth, but it's not a myth. It's not a myth, because it's what we believe, and we're different than the primitives with their myths. Luke is different than the other historians, because the Holy Spirit wrote through him, and the Holy Spirit doesn't get history wrong. And no, that's not a myth itself! Really.

[Ouroboros]

...

You mean according to Josephus, right? But it may well be that here Luke's account is more credible.

...

Oh... so Josephus isn't completely credible then? Well, good. The "historians" of that time made mistakes, which means, Luke most likely made mistakes, which leads to: we can't take all that he wrote, or Josephus, or any other historian of that time, to be completely 100% correct. None of them. Take things with a grain of salt, and don't take everything for absolute truths.

Except for Christianity of course. That's different. It may look like a myth, read like a myth, sound like a myth, smell like a myth, but it's not a myth. It's not a myth, because it's what we believe, and we're different than the primitives with their myths. Luke is different than the other historians, because the Holy Spirit wrote through him, and the Holy Spirit doesn't get history wrong. And no, that's not a myth itself! Really.

Yup.

 

When historians read other "histories" they do thread carefully and don't assume the authors got everything right. So we should apply that to the Bible.

 

However, I think I kind of agree with Badger that Luke (or whoever it was) did intend to write a history. I'm not sure if the author wanted to write a religious book, but I think he maybe did want to write a history, but with a religious spin of course (because I think he probably wrote it with a purpose to prove the validity of his beliefs).

 

But then, if he was successful of getting details right or even if he took it serious enough to write the truth, I can't tell, so we can't assume the writings to be correct. Usually history is a puzzle, put together of many pieces and many sources, to get the whole picture. If the piece doesn't fit where the other pieces do, then that piece isn't kept there. I suspect Luke contains a lot of mistakes and does not fit well into the rest of the puzzle, but that's just my opinion.

[mwc]

So which one is right? Is it ἀρχιερέως or ἀρχιερέων?

Yours is the plural form. Which one is "right" depends on context. They're both "right."

 

I'm using a copy based on the critical texts. I know (I haven't checked) that the Greek Orthodox version has taken some "liberties" here and there so the text flows better (much like an English translation).

 

I looked to see if there were any significant variants for that verse and couldn't find any but that doesn't mean I couldn't have missed something.

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

MWC,

 

I just wanted to let you know that I enjoy your posts. When I argue for a point against you, it is not really against you, but to push and for me to learn. So thank you!

 

Hans,

 

However, I think I kind of agree with Badger that Luke (or whoever it was) did intend to write a history. I'm not sure if the author wanted to write a religious book, but I think he maybe did want to write a history, but with a religious spin of course (because I think he probably wrote it with a purpose to prove the validity of his beliefs).

 

I don't believe it was the intention of the writer of Luke/Acts to write a history. And I think the very words of the text attest to this. Let's look at a the first few verses of Luke as an example:

 

“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” - Luke 1:1-4

 

Please note a few things from these verses:

 

The very first thing that the author points out is that he wanted to set forth and to declare the things that are MOST SURELY BELIEVED by themselves. Yes, he wanted to do it in an orderly or historical fashion, but the intent is not history, but to convey what is believed in order to convince someone to believe likewise.

 

The author then goes on to state that these beliefs were delivered to them by eyewitnesses who were ministers of the word. The emphasis about them being eye witnesses is not purely for a history, but to claim a veracity for the belief that he wants to convey. He then goes on to explain that the author himself has perfect understanding of these things. Again, this is to help persuade his reader that his beliefs are true ones.

 

The author then ends his introduction with the exclamation that his intent is that his reader would know for certain the things he is writing of (i.e. the beliefs).

 

While historical sounding terms are used (set forth in order, eye witnesses, etc) these terms are only there to shore up the belief that the author is trying to push on his reader. This lets us know, right from the very beginning, that the author is interested in telling us about belief. It is, thus, primarily a work to push a religious agenda and not primarily a work of history. As a result, it differs from many historical works.

 

Josephus, for example, did set forth to write history as he understood it. He would certainly include belief and other ideas into his work. He would sometimes even increase numbers (sizes of armies, number killed in battle, etc) in order to make Israel look good (or so it seems), but his primary goal was history despite his other probable ulterior motives. Luke's primary goal is to express proper belief. He may use historical elements to attempt to bring his reader there, but history is not his first goal. Belief is.

 

Acts does not give us as much information about this as the Gospel of Luke does, but since the two books are regarded as companions, we can possibly surmise that the intention is the same. There is a hint of this in the very first verse:

 

The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, - Acts 1:1

 

He references the first document (Gospel of Luke) and then talks about that which Jesus began to both do and teach. This may sound historical, but the emphasis seems to be again on belief. Why? Because the primary goal of the author here is to connect the doings and teachings of Jesus with the events that he is about to talk about in Acts. The doings would be the miracles of Jesus that would be evidence for belief. These would have been covered in the Gospel of Luke. The teachings of Jesus would be the things that Jesus said that would cause one to believe on him as the messiah. Again, these were covered in the Gospel of Luke.

 

Therefore, in my mind, the author of Luke/Acts is writing history as his second purpose (at best). Belief and religion are first and foremost in his mind.

[mwc]

I just wanted to let you know that I enjoy your posts. When I argue for a point against you, it is not really against you, but to push and for me to learn. So thank you!

Thanks. I appreciate that. I actually do the same thing so I can understand where you're coming from.

 

mwc

[Dagan]

...

You mean according to Josephus, right? But it may well be that here Luke's account is more credible.

...

Oh... so Josephus isn't completely credible then? Well, good. The "historians" of that time made mistakes, which means, Luke most likely made mistakes, which leads to: we can't take all that he wrote, or Josephus, or any other historian of that time, to be completely 100% correct. None of them. Take things with a grain of salt, and don't take everything for absolute truths.

Except for Christianity of course. That's different. It may look like a myth, read like a myth, sound like a myth, smell like a myth, but it's not a myth. It's not a myth, because it's what we believe, and we're different than the primitives with their myths. Luke is different than the other historians, because the Holy Spirit wrote through him, and the Holy Spirit doesn't get history wrong. And no, that's not a myth itself! Really.

Yup.

 

When historians read other "histories" they do thread carefully and don't assume the authors got everything right. So we should apply that to the Bible.

 

However, I think I kind of agree with Badger that Luke (or whoever it was) did intend to write a history. I'm not sure if the author wanted to write a religious book, but I think he maybe did want to write a history, but with a religious spin of course (because I think he probably wrote it with a purpose to prove the validity of his beliefs).

 

But then, if he was successful of getting details right or even if he took it serious enough to write the truth, I can't tell, so we can't assume the writings to be correct. Usually history is a puzzle, put together of many pieces and many sources, to get the whole picture. If the piece doesn't fit where the other pieces do, then that piece isn't kept there. I suspect Luke contains a lot of mistakes and does not fit well into the rest of the puzzle, but that's just my opinion.

 

Thanks for so succinctly summing up the process of writing and analyzing history.

 

Christians seem to want to treat the bible as an exception to that rule, because asking those kinds of questions are cracks in the eggshell that can cause the whole thing to shatter if pressed hard enough and I think consciously and subconsciously they know it.

 

I have a friend who likes to say "the bible said it, I believe it and that settles it." Well, no, it doesn't, really, because the bible didn't say it, some anonymous writer who later became known as Luke said it and ... we know the rest.

 

Thanks to L4A and mwc for their contributions on this topic, it's been very informative.

[mwc]

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

I decided to risk a browser crash and take a look at some of these PDF's (so far so good).

 

The top one was okay. It did have at least one place where it referenced a 4th century document as if it were 1st century fact so I kind of "tuned out" around there. Yeah, it's fun to think the emperor's wife was xian and the Jews secretly possessed all them there "holy" doo-dads but...no.

 

The next one is just a book review. The reviewer seems convinced. I guess I should be too.

 

The third caught my eye with this nugget:

I shall hereafter refer to the author as Luke without prejudice to the question of authorship. The view taken here is that

Paul's coworker, Luke, was the author, but a majority of scholars do not accept this tradition

. Nevertheless, the reliability of the narrative is not dependent on whether Luke was actually the writer.

Wasn't someone trying to convince me of something different not too long ago? Maybe I'm just imagining things?

 

mwc

[mwc]

I finished skimming through part 2 and when they acknowledge the problem of old Agabus they resolve it like this:

A second difficulty concerns the worldwide famine prophesied by Agabus (11:28). It has been claimed that there is no evidence of a worldwide famine under Claudius.65 However, in the writings of Suetonius, there are numerous recurring famines in the years 41-54 and the one in Acts could well be among them. To the point that no famine was worldwide, the famous letter of Claudius to Alexandria might provide an answer. He complained of certain Jews stirring up a "universal plague throughout the world." This reference cannot be interpreted literally, but is better understood as hyperbole. Perhaps Luke used it in such a way.

I put more effort into my answer. I should have went with "hyperbole." It would have been easier.

 

So, in the future, when I don't have a good answer for why something is the way it is I'll just insert some answer that just glosses over it.

 

"Oh? You actually found the zombie of Lazarus and he filled you in on all the details? Hmmm. I think he was just being 'glib.' What he meant was it never happened and he just wanted to sell you Amway."

 

mwc'

[Looking4Answers]

I shall hereafter refer to the author as Luke without prejudice to the question of authorship. The view taken here is that Paul's coworker, Luke, was the author, but a majority of scholars do not accept this tradition. Nevertheless, the reliability of the narrative is not dependent on whether Luke was actually the writer.

 

 

Wasn't someone trying to convince me of something different not too long ago? Maybe I'm just imagining things

 

I am pretty sure I made this argument a couple of times myself and was called out on it. Ugh!

[Badger]

Christians seem to want to treat the bible as an exception to that rule, because asking those kinds of questions are cracks in the eggshell that can cause the whole thing to shatter if pressed hard enough and I think consciously and subconsciously they know it.

Not all Christians, however. But I think many critics or sceptics treats the biblical documents as an expection as well, criticizing them more than historians usually do with any other ancient text. You had very good example on your post: "Some anonymous writer who later became known as Luke said it and." It is true that the Gospels and Acts are anonymous. But did you know that the first direct attribution of something to Tacitus appears over 100 years after the writing. Interesting, isn't it.

[Looking4Answers]

But I think many critics or sceptics treats the biblical documents as an expection as well, criticizing them more than historians usually do with any other ancient text.

 

I agree with your statement. I really do. Many will be overly critical of the biblical texts, even when viewed for any historical value they may contain. But I think we need to ask ourselves why this is the case. You see, when we read Josephus, despite his bumps and warts, we realize that no one is taking his Antiquities and swearing upon it under oath. No one is standing in a pulpit on a particular day of the week and telling his listeners that they need to live this way or that or else they will bring down divine wrath upon themselves based on some text from the Jewish Wars. No one is telling people the way to eternal life or damnation is by such and such based off of anything Josephus says or any other historian or historical work. And no one reads Joseph and then invades any supposed Holy Land to slaughter people based on its principles.

 

When you have a book, such as the Bible, that has been used as it has been used over the centuries, it is no wonder that it is scrutinized. In fact, the marvel is that it is not scrutinized MORE!

[Ouroboros]

Not all Christians, however. But I think many critics or sceptics treats the biblical documents as an expection as well, criticizing them more than historians usually do with any other ancient text. ...

Exactly. As it should.

 

Think about it.

 

The history about Plato, Julius Caesar, Alexander the great, Stalin, G.W. Bush, and Napoleon, are interesting and we can learn things from them... but! There's a big "but" here. A very big, stinky, hairy, "but". And that is, none of them require to be believed in, but historians could scrap the knowledge in presence of new evidence. They don't hold to the history of these people as religion! They're not supposed to present the answer to life and eternity. They're not held to be the documents and facts that not only will change our life and future, but our individual souls as well! Religious literature MUST be held to a higher standard. And another reason to it is that it's supposed to be inspired, handed down, written by, given by, breathed by... no one else but the big infallible guy in the sky... God.

 

Do you honestly think that THE DOCUMENT from GOD should be, is, and should not be expected to be nothing more than a mere footnote in history? Why shouldn't God's Literature be of higher quality? To be believed, it must have to be. It can't be less or equal in quality as human works. Simple as that.

 

Would God write his testament and will to the to world on the back on a napkin in a cafe, including a bunch of errors and suspect data? How can God himself fail so miserable to produce artifacts which are same or less of reliability than other documents?

 

If you have a dog, with which you compete at dog shows, do they or do they not require that your dog can behave, look, stand, and obey above and beyond the average dog? Is a competing dog kept to a higher standard than the common house dog? Yes or no? Why should they? Why not let dogs be dogs? The issue is exactly at this point. A religious book that is supposed to be taken as a true document is competing on a different standard than regular historical artifacts. If you don't understand this, then I can only declare Houston, we have a problem.

[Badger]

I'm sorry but I do not understand why a book, that is supposed to be inspired by God, must stand higher critisicm and hader scrutiny than secular texts.

[Ouroboros]

I'm sorry but I do not understand why a book, that is supposed to be inspired by God, must stand higher critisicm and hader scrutiny than secular texts.

Because secular text is supposedly done by man, while holy text inspired by God is supposedly inspired by God. So God doesn't have a higher standard than man? God is like man? God should be held to same or less standard? Interesting.

[Badger]

Because secular text is supposedly done by man, while holy text inspired by God is supposedly inspired by God.

Christians believe that the Bible is written by man, but under God' supervision.