Luke And The Acts Of The Apostles

[Badger]

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?

Meyer is just one example of those historians that took more positively view toward Luke than Tübigen party.

 

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.

"One of the purposes of my study," writes Gasque, "is to indicate precisely why a large number of scholars take this positive view toward the history in Acts, in spite of the arguments to the contrary. The individual critic has the right to his personal point of view, but it is uncritical to dismiss the conclusion of other serious scholars without giving them a fair hearing." (5)

[Badger]

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

My position? Well then. Luke intended to write history, not fiction, and shows to be competent historian. In the vast majority of cases where his information can be checked, he is reliable. However, I am not sure should we give him the benefit of the doubt. Being supernaturalist, who belief in Jesus' resurrection, I can accept the possibility of miracle and even more so in this context. Still, I'm not going to argue for historicity of miracle stories in Acts, but I think Knox's argument has some weight.

[Looking4Answers]

Luke intended to write history, not fiction, and shows to be competent historian. In the vast majority of cases where his information can be checked, he is reliable.

 

What? We showed you a few places from Luke/Acts that can be checked and turned out to be flat out wrong. So how is it that Luke is reliable and a competent historian?

[Badger]

And not all of them were serious errors, or errors at all. But are you trying to say to be competent means to be infallible?

[Antlerman]

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?

Meyer is just one example of those historians that took more positively view toward Luke than Tübigen party.

That's great. 1800's. That was my point. 1800's. Does time and data not matter? Have we made no discoveries since then that shed any light? No improved techniques in scholarship?

 

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.

"One of the purposes of my study," writes Gasque, "is to indicate precisely why a large number of scholars take this positive view toward the history in Acts, in spite of the arguments to the contrary. The individual critic has the right to his personal point of view, but it is uncritical to dismiss the conclusion of other serious scholars without giving them a fair hearing." (5)

This doesn't address my point. Yes of course that's his point. That's my point. He could likely be casting this in a light that presents a somewhat skewed conclusion, making it look like others support his points of view when in reality when you look at the information critically a different sort of reality is what you see. Hence why I specifically called you on this:

 

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.

I went to length to explain it before and will repeat it in case my point by chance got missed. The suggestion is that all historians agree with his conclusions. That's how you seem to wanting to use it. That's what I mean by playing loose and fancy with quotes. That he is recognized as a notable historian does not at all mean he was right! Many notable people can be wrong. And moreover, he was working from what he knew in the 1800's.

 

Should I quote Gerald Massey as an expert on Egyptology who claimed the whole NT is a direct copy of Egyptian deities? I of course wouldn't because we've gained a bit more knowledge since then that shows where he was off on those conclusions.

[mwc]

My position? Well then. Luke intended to write history, not fiction, and shows to be competent historian.

Okay. I understand.

 

This would probably come from G.Luke 1:

1 As a number of attempts have been made to put together in order an account of those events which took place among us, 2 As they were handed down to us by those who saw them from the first and were preachers of the word, 3 It seemed good to me, having made observation, with great care, of the direction of events in their order, to put the facts in writing for you, most noble Theophilus; 4 So that you might have certain knowledge of those things about which you were given teaching.

And Acts 1:

1 I have given an earlier account, O Theophilus, of all the things which Jesus did, and of his teaching from the first,

The author, "Luke," references "us" several times. He mentions creating an "account" of those things that took place among "us." This would seem to indicate he was a participant.

 

However, in v1 he mentions that others (here it says "a number of attempts" but that may be better said as "numerous attempts") have been made at this task. In v2 he continues by saying "As they were handed down to us by those who saw them from the first..." He excludes himself as an eye-witness in v2. In v3 he states that "having made observation" which could be said "followed faithfully" (or metaphorically "diligently").

 

So what does all that mean? There were a "numerous attempts" to write an "ordered account" (v1) of what was "handed down" by the "eyewitnesses" who saw them from the beginning (v2). He then "diligently" writes the account in order (v3).

 

That's it. He supposedly writes out the story in its proper consecutive order based on the information handed down from elsewhere (more unidentified sources).

 

The introduction to Acts does not insert him into that history/narrative. That is assumed from the "we" passages. The "us" is his community (I'm hesitant to simply say "christians" since that's likely too broad).

 

In the vast majority of cases where his information can be checked, he is reliable.

Where is he unreliable?

 

However, I am not sure should we give him the benefit of the doubt.

Where might you have doubts about him?

 

Being supernaturalist, who belief in Jesus' resurrection, I can accept the possibility of miracle and even more so in this context. Still, I'm not going to argue for historicity of miracle stories in Acts, but I think Knox's argument has some weight.

You'll have to be more specific because I believe Knox dates Acts to mid-2nd century and if I understand you correctly this is something you reject.

 

Nonetheless, I truly doubt you wish to pursue this or we'll have to argue the validity of passages such as:

A poor man who was blind, and another who was lame, came both together before him, when he was seated on the tribunal, imploring him to heal them [747], and saying that they were admonished (450) in a dream by the god Serapis to seek his aid, who assured them that he would restore sight to the one by anointing his eyes with his spittle, and give strength to the leg of the other, if he vouchsafed but to touch it with his heel. At first he could scarcely believe that the thing would any how succeed, and therefore hesitated to venture on making the experiment. At length, however, by the advice of his friends, he made the attempt publicly, in the presence of the assembled multitudes, and it was crowned with success in both cases [748].

It seems as if Suetonius in his histories thought that Vespasian performed a supernatural deed or two as well. To dismiss it out of hand here but accept it elsewhere would almost seem like special pleading.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Say, I just had a thought. I just challenged Rayskidude to an Arena debate with me. I'd like to see two Arena debates at the same time. I hereby nominate MWC and Badger to do a one on one in the Arena. I can officiate if you wish if I have no debate myself. I certainly would enjoy this between you two. Any interest?

[Badger]

That's great. 1800's. That was my point. 1800's. Does time and data not matter? Have we made no discoveries since then that shed any light? No improved techniques in scholarship?

I don't think there is much, if anything, different that would cast doubt on Luke. My knowledge is limited, of course.

 

The suggestion is that all historians agree with his conclusions. That's how you seem to wanting to use it. That's what I mean by playing loose and fancy with quotes. That he is recognized as a notable historian does not at all mean he was right! Many notable people can be wrong. And moreover, he was working from what he knew in the 1800's.

I think you're taking it too seriously. Of course he might be wrong!

[Badger]

Say, I just had a thought. I just challenged Rayskidude to an Arena debate with me. I'd like to see two Arena debates at the same time. I hereby nominate MWC and Badger to do a one on one in the Arena. I can officiate if you wish if I have no debate myself. I certainly would enjoy this between you two. Any interest?

He is going to bash me. Sorry but I'm still doing my search on these things. I have no knowledge enough to debate anyone.

[Badger]

This would probably come from G.Luke 1:

What? Are we talking about the authorship of Luke-Acts? I find it plausible that the author was Paul's companion, and probably the "Luke."

 

Where is he unreliable?

You and L4A listed some good examples, while I would say not all of them are necessarily errors.

 

Where might you have doubts about him?

He reports supernatural miracles, but those stories can't be backed up. C. K. Barrett said, "Where there is no parallel source judgement must often be suspended. We find ourselves obliged to say: We cannot prove that it happened in the way Luke describes, but if it did not it must have happened in a similar way or the result could not have been what it was - the result that a Christian church came into being in Jerusalem, and that in tentative, diverse, uncoordinated ways it spread out into Mediterranean world." This is what I'm also thinking.

 

You'll have to be more specific because I believe Knox dates Acts to mid-2nd century and if I understand you correctly this is something you reject.

I mean this from the page 3

While admitting there has been much exaggeration, W. L. Knox has argued that "Paul could not appeal to the miracles wrought by the Spirit of God among the Galatians (Gal. 3:5) as a desperate argument to prevent his readers from going over to Judaism, if he knew that the answer would be that his readers had never heard of any such miracles. Similarly he could hardly have spoken so 'boastfully' of what Christ had done through him in way of sings and wonders, if in fact there had bee none (Rom 15:18)."

[mwc]

What? Are we talking about the authorship of Luke-Acts? I find it plausible that the author was Paul's companion, and probably the "Luke."

I was speaking on the portions of both texts where the author makes reference to his motive. In G.Luke he states he is creating a (consecutively) ordered account from the information passed along by eyewitnesses. In Acts there is a "recap" after which he simply continues his account. If the belief that these two books are from the same author and are to be treated as a single unit then why should I not consider Acts a continuation of the "ordered account" that consisted of information given to them by those earlier eyewitnesses? Why should I assume that this second text is now supposed include the author himself seeing how he excluded himself in the first volume?

 

As for what you are saying about "Luke." I take it to mean you believe that Dr. Luke wrote the texts. This belief has put into disfavor for some time and there's no real reason to think that this anonymous text should be attributed to him. There's nothing stopping you from continuing in this of course but you'd do just as well thinking Imaginarus, the stable hand turned missionary, authored it as well.

 

He reports supernatural miracles, but those stories can't be backed up. C. K. Barrett said, "Where there is no parallel source judgement must often be suspended. We find ourselves obliged to say: We cannot prove that it happened in the way Luke describes, but if it did not it must have happened in a similar way or the result could not have been what it was - the result that a Christian church came into being in Jerusalem, and that in tentative, diverse, uncoordinated ways it spread out into Mediterranean world." This is what I'm also thinking.

If I'm to understand correctly (as I do not have access to the journal article), since no one bothered to copy Suetonius' story about Vespasian that means that the supernatural event regarding Vespasian did not occur?

 

So, since the synoptics all "borrowed" from one another (and/or a common source or sources) this means that those supernatural events probably did happen? So we're back to multiple attestation equating to truth? So perhaps there was a Phoenix? They admit it could be spurious since the timing was off but you never know.

 

Since most, if not all, of the "supernatural events" of the Acts (and the non-gospels actually) have only a single attestation that means we can safely discount them just as we do with Vespasian. No matter who the author is since we have agreed that we need to look at each item from the author individually no matter what their performance on other matters. This simplifies our lives since it leaves only the gospels and perhaps a few miscellaneous items to examine. And it would seem that withing the gospels that only items that have the "parallel source" should we really have to take a close look at since, again, single attestations for such accounts can be dismissed (again citing Vespasian).

 

I mean this from the page 3

While admitting there has been much exaggeration, W. L. Knox has argued that "Paul could not appeal to the miracles wrought by the Spirit of God among the Galatians (Gal. 3:5) as a desperate argument to prevent his readers from going over to Judaism, if he knew that the answer would be that his readers had never heard of any such miracles. Similarly he could hardly have spoken so 'boastfully' of what Christ had done through him in way of sings and wonders, if in fact there had bee none (Rom 15:18)."

Okay. Knox has a footnote on his statement which helps considerably (I'm retyping this by hand so I hope there's no typos):

By 'miracles' are meant surprising cures of diseases, etc.; I am not concerned to discuss the limits within which 'miracles' are or are not possible, or how far 'miracles' are 'a reversal of the laws of nature'.

He basically accepts that "something" happened (within the realm of reality from what I can tell) and then blew up to legendary proportion. So someone would suffer a phychological trauma and that later turned into the "miracle" story. This explanation is no different from what I have heard before (and what Hans and AM have essentially argued in their own ways).

 

Taking both Knox and Barrett together to me this means that by "parallel" they are not referring to "parallel" stories in the sense of the synoptics but "parallels" in general. As Knox points out there are "parallels" today with those that occurred in the ancient texts. So we can in effect "know" what the "miracle" truly was and how it was performed. This can range from various "healings" to mental traumas (including Saul's own blindness). We can certainly cross these off the "supernatural" list. This is touching closely on what Hans had been talking about when it veered off into aliens (a point missed I believe).

 

But all I really see in the quote from Barrett is "If nothing truly magic happened then something that just looked like magic happened because a church formed in Jerusalem and moved into the world." That's not the strongest endorsement of anything really. I'm not even sure if any of us can actually disagree very strongly to that statement. Of course something happened. But if it wasn't truly magic then it's not really worth discussing to this extent. "Fake" magic has happened since there's been magic. It's the only magic there is.

 

mwc

[Badger]

As for what you are saying about "Luke." I take it to mean you believe that Dr. Luke wrote the texts. This belief has put into disfavor for some time and there's no real reason to think that this anonymous text should be attributed to him.

If the author was unknown we should expect to find a more prominent figure identified as the author or different candidates. However, the external evidence is unanimous in attributing the Acts to Luke. I have not seen any good reason yet to reject the traditional view. That there are a sort of conflicts between Acts and "historical Paul" seems to be true, but I'm not convinced that this proves Luke could not be the author.

 

Since most, if not all, of the "supernatural events" of the Acts (and the non-gospels actually) have only a single attestation that means we can safely discount them just as we do with Vespasian. No matter who the author is since we have agreed that we need to look at each item from the author individually no matter what their performance on other matters. This simplifies our lives since it leaves only the gospels and perhaps a few miscellaneous items to examine. And it would seem that withing the gospels that only items that have the "parallel source" should we really have to take a close look at since, again, single attestations for such accounts can be dismissed (again citing Vespasian).

That is exactly my point. There is no way to back up these stories.

[mwc]

If the author was unknown we should expect to find a more prominent figure identified as the author or different candidates. However, the external evidence is unanimous in attributing the Acts to Luke. I have not seen any good reason yet to reject the traditional view. That there are a sort of conflicts between Acts and "historical Paul" seems to be true, but I'm not convinced that this proves Luke could not be the author.

Here is where "Luke" gets mentioned by Paul in Philemon:

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and

Luke

, my fellow workers.

He gets two other mentions but those are in contested letters. Though one, or allowing all three, mentions aren't much to base authorship upon. It's all from tradition. Unfortunately we aren't privy to how "Luke" was initially "elected" to the position of author and so we just accept that they accepted it. Much how we do many other "facts."

 

That is exactly my point. There is no way to back up these stories.

Supernatural events can be safely left out.

 

So what is left?

 

It would appear that we would need to try to understand the "history" to see if it is plausible. It may be set in the proper "setting" but does it make sense?

 

For example. Saul and Paul are supposed to be the same character. So Saul is present at the temple when Stephen is stoned. He works for the temple and the priests. Later, he is at the temple and brought up on the charge of bringing the foreigners into the temple. He has no idea how to properly defend the charge. This leads to a series of trials and his removal to Rome. How can someone who studied under and worked for the temple priests be so ignorant of temple operations and procedure? The setting is technically correct but the story makes no sense. It is simply there to propel him to his ultimate fate at Rome.

 

This is much like a television court drama where the setting and even some of the procedure is correct but it would never truly work in real life. It is there to get us from the start of the show to the end. I notice this quite a bit when it comes to IT related issues. It's all so very close but it would never accomplish anything in the real world. It drives the story. You could go out and buy most of the equipment. It's usually real. You could set it all up. You can even sometimes issue the commands. And when you were done you would have accomplished nothing. It simply doesn't go together. But to the layman it sure seems realistic. I know a number of people that have asked me over the years if such things were possible and I had to assure them they were not (and some of these things were quite absurd so I was shocked I was even asked).

 

So in case you're wondering I'm not asking about the specific idea of calling to go before Caesar or anything like that. I'm speaking to the "episode" as a whole. Why is it that S/Paul, who we are to believe has a background in "the temple," fails to understand temple politics and simply uses the occasions for very similar speeches?

 

mwc