Luke And The Acts Of The Apostles

[Looking4Answers]

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 a standard historical text does not demand anything from its reader. It does not expect anything, ask you to change anything or condemn you to an eternity in hell for not accepting its teachings. As a result, the reader is free to read it and accept/reject what they please (for good and valid reasons or for reasons that aren't) without consequence.

 

The Bible, on the other hand, claims to tell you the only truth about god, the only truth about salvation, the only way to eternal bliss and condemns all that fail to believe its message to hell (whatever that means <- said based on some other comments in this thread). With claims like that, every aspect of the book should be under a higher scrutiny, including its history.

[Dagan]

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.

 

Yes, but not for the reasons you're trying to imply.

 

Most people who study ancient literature know about the concept of pseudepigrapha, the ancient practice of attributing your work to someone else in order to give it "street cred." The fact that this might extend to Tacitus is not surprising. But what is interesting is that some Christians can point out these kinds of flaws in Tacitus but go on the defensive if the authorship of portions of the bible is questioned.

 

And I don't think critics and skeptics treat the bible as an exception, unfairly picking on it more than other historical sources. I think they are right to scrutinize it so closely. No one uses Tacitus to convince you to give the church 10 per cent of your income, to only marry fellow Christians, to hate homosexuals, to go door to door annoying your neighbours on Saturday. The bible has been used in ways which have profoundly affected and continue to affect billions of lives, and it deserves close scrutiny.

[Ouroboros]

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.

Like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Harry Potter, Qur'an, Lord of the Rings, and all the Donald Duck comics? What's the difference?

 

And if God supervised... damn he's very bad supervisor. He didn't make sure the details were right. He didn't care. He told Luke, "just wing it."

[mwc]

I'm just wondering since it has been introduced...

 

What if a document "appeared" (as it were) from an unknown author. It had some reasonable history within it. At the same time it had some questionable material. Like what? It introduced people, events and locations unknown to others. He also gets some items wrong. It also had a fairly heavy amount of "superstitious" material.

 

Given the above would historians simply, given the "good" material, insert into the time line the questionable material as well? Give this unknown author the benefit of the doubt? He did, after all, appear to perform adequately with the material that could be verified. Perhaps he should just be trusted in his entirety overlooking any anomalies?

 

What if the anonymous author is then shown to have shared a large portion of (half of) his text with two other anonymous authors? Would that call into question his ability? His integrity? His purpose? The origin of the remaining half?

 

Should an anonymous author that performs on par with a known author be treated at the same level of respect?

 

Should each claim by each author be examined independently and judged on its own merit?

 

These sound like easy to answer questions but I'm not so certain. Maybe I'll be surprised.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

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.

Of course higher criticism in the academic sense is not about being particularly more scrutinizing. It's merely an approach to literary analysis. From Wiki:

 

Historical criticism or higher criticism is a branch of literary analysis that investigates the origins of a text: as applied in biblical studies it investigates the books of the Bible and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question. In Classical studies, the new higher criticism of the nineteenth century set aside "efforts to fill ancient religion with direct meaning and relevance and devoted itself instead to the critical collection and chronological ordering of the source material,"[1] Thus higher criticism, whether biblical, classical, Byzantine or medieval, focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where.

 

But as far as the amount of energy spent focusing on this piece of literature, well that would have to do with the fact of it prominece as a cultural artifact. Not because people are bent on disproving God or something.

 

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.

Well, see that's a problem. I don't agree people should approach the texts with the intent of "proving it wrong". I believe they should approach it seeking understanding of its formation as a work of literature. One has a political agenda, such as studying it to "prove it right!" is likewise driven by some ideology rather than the pursuit of understanding. I prefer to let knowledge of what it is inform people. From there they can view it however they wish.

 

But the minute you say this was written "under God's supervision", you have cast it into a light that is hardly interested in it as literature! You've mythologized it as a religious object. You are applying no criticism of it, not seeking to understand it as a work of literature. You have tainted any and all things with this stain which will invariably limit and direct you to supporting conclusions.

 

Moreover, you have just set the book as a religious object in the place of injuring faith. To tell the devotee that their God supervised the writing means it has to of absolute necessity the highest imaginable standards possible, and then some by a factor of say "infinity." God as supervisor ensures absolute flawlessness, else God is incapable of perfection, or unwilling, in which case the book shouldn't be considered that important since it wasn't to God. So it better work flawlessly, you'd better see no cracks, no contradictions, no fabrications, no errors of history, translation, etc., or the book and all in it is thrown own the window as part of a false belief. Such is its fall when it's placed on the pedestal of religious devotion and belief. The alternative is to forbid its examination. Which has been tried already.

 

In your efforts to prove God, you destroy him. Sure you don't want to rethink that premise about God supervising it? Saying God was the editor of that book allows him to be examined as such. You might find leaving God out of it serves faith a little better.

[mwc]

We need one of those nifty little Wikipedia link icons like I've seen on some other sites since it seems to get referenced so much.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

We need one of those nifty little Wikipedia link icons like I've seen on some other sites since it seems to get referenced so much.

 

mwc

I wonder if Mr. Wiki get's royalties for hits? Oh well, I'm just lazy and it works well enough for simple references like these.

[Badger]

Of course higher criticism in the academic sense is not about being particularly more scrutinizing. It's merely an approach to literary analysis.

Yes, I know what "higher criticism" means, but I wans't using words in that sense.

 

But the minute you say this was written "under God's supervision", you have cast it into a light that is hardly interested in it as literature!

Quite the contrary. If it is written under God's supervision, then it's even more interesting as a literature.

[Badger]

Having read Gasque's book "A history of the interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles," I find it interesting that classicists, historians of antiquity, and archaeologists, who were experts and honored in their field, regarded Luke as competent, but of course not infallible, historian. It would be very easy to claim that they just proved what they already believed, but surely that wasn't the case with Ramsay. Such claim would also require we know what they believed, but anyway it would be ad hominem.

[Skankboy]

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

Then I'd say for a perfect being, he's a pretty crappy editor.

[Ouroboros]

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

Then I'd say for a perfect being, he's a pretty crappy editor.

He's perfectly crappy.

[Antlerman]

Of course higher criticism in the academic sense is not about being particularly more scrutinizing. It's merely an approach to literary analysis.

Yes, I know what "higher criticism" means, but I wans't using words in that sense.

In talking about literary scrutiny, understanding the use of Higher Criticism in that context as meaning Higher Criticism of literature (like form criticism, etc), is a natural conclusion. You should avoid using a technical term in a technical context if you mean it colloquially. Personally, I never use the word "myth" for instance in any colloquial sense of "lie" or "fabrication". I always mean it as a category of story. The Gospels are mythology, for instance. Paul's letters contain mythology, and so forth.

 

But the minute you say this was written "under God's supervision", you have cast it into a light that is hardly interested in it as literature!

Quite the contrary. If it is written under God's supervision, then it's even more interesting as a literature.

Interesting in a mythological context, yes. Like setting the stage for the movie The Blair Witch Project, that this was a found camera of missing people. Created quite the emotional context for the story. But to say God is the co-author, or supervisor, or editor as a point of citing authority now departs from "more interesting" to logic fallacies that are detrimental to its otherwise mythological mystic. Hence, why I said what I did.

 

How many here are here as a result of this house cards collapsing with the first breeze created by knowledge? Surest way to kill God is to make him available for examination.

 

 

Having read Gasque's book "A history of the interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles," I find it interesting that classicists, historians of antiquity, and archaeologists, who were experts and honored in their field, regarded Luke as competent, but of course not infallible, historian. It would be very easy to claim that they just proved what they already believed, but surely that wasn't the case with Ramsay. Such claim would also require we know what they believed, but anyway it would be ad hominem.

And I can cite a list of scholars who conclude otherwise. I've often said Conservative scholarship is really more an act of digging into the texts for the purpose of religious support. I'm personally more attracted to those scholars who discover the unexpected as a result of their efforts. That opens the door for understanding, rather than just support for what you already have concluded through faith.

 

Different approach to life I guess. I welcome my views being challenged to the core. It's thrilling to learn. For others it may not be so thrilling, or perhaps quite discomforting, and for them they have their sources they turn to for support in what they prefer to accept or believe. There's always a market there for people to 'minister' to those sorts of needs. Typically it's not meant to be examined too closely though, otherwise you have all sorts of apologetics that have to take place to defend it. And that can create that Houses of Cards that fails those who look for something more than just support for their beliefs.

 

At least that's my story.

[Dagan]

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

Then I'd say for a perfect being, he's a pretty crappy editor.

He's perfectly crappy.

 

[Badger]

And I can cite a list of scholars who conclude otherwise.

I could too, but those scholars who had different opinion were largely German philosophers and theologians, not historians or classicists; whose works, by the way, were virtually ignored by German critics.

 

I've often said Conservative scholarship is really more an act of digging into the texts for the purpose of religious support. I'm personally more attracted to those scholars who discover the unexpected as a result of their efforts. That opens the door for understanding, rather than just support for what you already have concluded through faith.

As I said, that's very easy claim (or excuse) to make; but it may be nothing but ad hominem. Anyway, you should be attracted to William Ramsay, who started his research with a very different opinion.

[Badger]

Eduard Meyer (1855-1930) was an eminent German historian. In the word of Gasque, he "is recognized by all historians as one of the greatest masters of the whole range of ancient history which the world of scholarship has ever produced." (158) The third volume of his work Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums is devoted largely to a study of the Acts, and Meyer's conclusions are similar to those of Ramsay.

In the tradition of the historians Meyer judges Luke's historical work to be, in general, reliable, though not infallible. The author - who is most certainly the traditional "Luke" (III, 23-27

et passim

) - is in the best tradition of the Greek historians (III, 7, 15,

et passim

). His careful selection of the material to suit his own point of view, which has given the critics so much trouble and has caused them to disparage him as historical writer, is, infact, one of the strongest proofs that he conceived of his own task in terms of that of a historian (III, 15n.

et passim

). In spite of his weaknesses, of all the biblical writers Luke deserves the title of "the historian"

par exellence

. This, argues Meyer, is a judgement with which any historian would agree. (Gasque, 160)

[mwc]

Gah. This is tedious. Fine. "Luke" is beyond reproach. Whatever. Thread after thread of citing what other people think of other people.

 

What point can you make beyond a bunch of guys went on a bit of a walkabout at some approximate time and telling their tales?

 

We have people doing missionary work today. Walking about. Telling the same basic stories. It doesn't make the stories they tell any more true than it did then. No matter how accurately they're journey may be recorded.

 

I don't know if that's your point or not but I just can't take this anymore.

 

If I just agree with you will you make your point?

 

mwc

[Looking4Answers]

MWC,

 

You hit on what has been going through my mind as well. I believe I touched on this thought earlier in this thread, but I am not sure. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Luke is a competent historian. So what? What does he have to contribute to history? There is some historical contribution in that we learn some things about the thought processes of the early church ... what they believed, what they taught, etc. And that is useful, to be sure. But what else is really given us in Luke/Acts? Place names? We know about them already. Names of people? We not only know about them, but Luke/Acts does not give us any additional historical information that we did not already have from other sources. At least not anything that can be verified. So what does Luke/Acts add to our historical knowledge? What information does it shore up so that we can feel more confident to include the information in our history books?

 

And in-between the history, we have these religious stories ... tales. Nothing is much different here from anyone else's religious history. Myth coupled with history in order to add credibility to the religious story. In fact, if these recognizable pieces of history were not included, then the myth would be rejected by most people.

 

When I read Luke/Acts I find it little different than reading a sci-fi/fantasy book that uses references to real places and people in order to help the reader suspend disbelief and enjoy the story.

 

I am half tempted to go through Luke/Acts, strip it of the supposed sayings of Christ (no way to prove he actually said the things recorded therein), the deeds recorded therein that supposedly Christ did, remove the supposed personal information (sayings, deeds, etc) of people that cannot be verified as having really existed or having done what was recorded ... and then seeing just what history is left. And then seeing if there is any significance in the remaining parts.

[Dagan]

And then seeing if there is any significance in the remaining parts.

 

And the answer would be "nothing" from Luke, and from Acts, left over would be a few tidbits of information about how Romans kept religious fanatics under house arrest, a colourful account of adventure on the high seas including what shitty boats the Romans must have had to get shipwrecked so often and an enlightening look at how first-century church drama was no different from church drama today.

[centauri]

Gah. This is tedious. Fine. "Luke" is beyond reproach. Whatever. Thread after thread of citing what other people think of other people.

 

It reminds me of the last episode of Seinfeld, when the court reporter described the number of character witnesses that tesified against Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer.

Geraldo, it just went on and on and on, into the night.

[Antlerman]

So what? What does he have to contribute to history? There is some historical contribution in that we learn some things about the thought processes of the early church ... what they believed, what they taught, etc. And that is useful, to be sure. But what else is really given us in Luke/Acts? Place names? We know about them already. Names of people? We not only know about them, but Luke/Acts does not give us any additional historical information that we did not already have from other sources. At least not anything that can be verified. So what does Luke/Acts add to our historical knowledge? What information does it shore up so that we can feel more confident to include the information in our history books?

What Luke gives us as a look into history it to witness a shift in the focus of early Christianity to establish the role of later bishops as part of the line of apostolic tradition. There were lots of beliefs swirling about spawned from the Jesus movements, and Luke's fiction, or "creative history" if you prefer, is about created the myth of some sort of unified belief under the apostles on the day of Pentecost. The history bit that we actual learn about is the later desire by those who created the myth of the apostles to claim some sort of direct line of authority back to Jesus.

 

Acts reveals the struggles of the proto-orthodox Christians in establishing authority over the "heretic" Christians they were in competition with. It's a masterful work of fiction created for a purpose. The apostles took on the same type of myth that was given to Jesus: preaching a message, performing miracles, dying a martyr's death, etc. So just like the Narrative Gospel's reveal a real history behind the scenes, "Luke's" creative works do also.

 

BTW, who said anything about German scholars?

[Badger]

No, it isn't tedious; it's interesting.

[mwc]

No, it isn't tedious; it's interesting.

You didn't say anything!

 

Even when I agreed with you the conversation did not move forward. You have nothing to actually say.

 

mwc

[Badger]

You have nothing to actually say.

Nothing more than I have already said (especially post #109)

[mwc]

You have nothing to actually say.

Nothing more than I have already said (especially post #109)

Then I believe I will have to somehow take up this discussion with Ward Gasque since this appears to be your position.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Eduard Meyer (1855-1930) was an eminent German historian. In the word of Gasque, he "is recognized by all historians as one of the greatest masters of the whole range of ancient history which the world of scholarship has ever produced." (158) The third volume of his work Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums is devoted largely to a study of the Acts, and Meyer's conclusions are similar to those of Ramsay.

When you cite an 'authority' from the 1800's as a sort of definitive word on the matter, do you take into account that what we are aware of today through archeology and discoveries puts a whole lot more considerations on the table to work with than someone from the 1800's had? Besides, quoting Gasque's saying that he "is recognized by all historians as..." seems to be what you hang a lot on here. The focus would of necessity turn to Gasque in making this sort of statement you are citing as some sort of authoritative declaration. I can't recall at this moment if it was you I caught playing loose and fancy with quotes of other people, but if so this might in fact be that case here as well.

 

Even if he "is recognized by all historians as one of the greatest masters of the whole range of ancient history which the world of scholarship has ever produced", as Gasque chooses to paint it, this does not mean he is agreed with by today's standards! Recognizing someone's scholarship and contributions in the past, does not mean that how they thought has defined once and forever as the definitive word on the matter. Hell no. In fact it is a simple matter of fact that not ALL do accept his conclusions today, simply by virtue of we have more information now. My radar is telling me I'm hearing quotes out of context to lead someone to conclusions that are not supported by the context.

 

Recognizing someone as a great master of something in the past, does not mean the buck stops there. Unless of course you wish to mythologize it by saying God supervised him?

 

I could bother to pick up this book written by Gasque (who if I'm not mistaken holds a Master's degree in Theology), but I'm pretty sure I'll see what I'm suspecting here. I've seen enough of these sorts of "experts agree..." type of Evangelical literature.