Basic Methodology For Dating Ancient Documents

[falemon]

1)  How does one determine the difference between a text purporting to be historical?  And one purporting to be mythical?

 

2)  If the text passes a criteria of purporting to be historical, then one proceeds to test it according to historical criteria.

 

3)  If it doesn't then pass historical testing, then we don't have to take it seriously.

 

There is a criteria for every judgment.  It is simply irresponsible to pass judgment at any phase of investigation without first being self-conscious of the standards by which we are rendering judgment.

 

By whatever standard one judges-- one implicitly concedes to being judged.

 

 

Getting late again.  Busy day tomorrow.  Will be back on in about 18 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

Yes it's claiming to be historical, yet it can still be the case that the bible was fabricated by men.

 

Also there is much debate on when it was written since it appears to reference later texts, though when it was written is of no consequence.

 

Simple fact of the matter is that there were many documents written at that time with conflicting accounts, so why should I accept the gospel of John and not the gospel of Judas? who says that Jesus instructed him to give him up so that he could be the sacrifice!

 

If we are to accept your chosen books as historical documents, then we must treat the Gospel of Judas, First Apocalypse of James, and the Letter of Peter to Philip as equal historical accounts.

 

And yet still, I have no reason to accept this account of reality nor any other religion's accounts.

 

If Jesus is the Son of God, then so too is Sun Myung Moon. So too are the mormons right, as are Jehovah's witnesses. This is just too ridiculous, I can't write any more, I'm going to bed!

[♦ ficino ♦]

1)  How does one determine the difference between a text purporting to be historical?  And one purporting to be mythical?

 

2)  If the text passes a criteria of purporting to be historical, then one proceeds to test it according to historical criteria.

 

3)  If it doesn't then pass historical testing, then we don't have to take it seriously.

 

There is a criteria for every judgment.  It is simply irresponsible to pass judgment at any phase of investigation without first being self-conscious of the standards by which we are rendering judgment.

 

By whatever standard one judges-- one implicitly concedes to being judged.

 

 

Getting late again.  Busy day tomorrow.  Will be back on in about 18 hours.

 

Best wishes,

 

Steve

Ah, back to the "purporting" again, plus the other stuff already posted and rejected multiple times. I am inclined to think that SteveBennett is a troll, more sophisticated than those who usually come here. Even the continual bolding and oversize fonts raise suspicion. I'm wondering whether he's planning to continue posting the same shit, starting more threads, etc. until he's banned, at which point he'll announce elsewhere, "They couldn't refute me so they banned me."

[mymistake]

 

Special pleading means deviating from established criteria.

 

 

 

Well, I found your problem.  If you don't know what the phrase means it leads to trouble.  

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special_pleading

 

 

 

 

Name one document from antiquity where:

 

1)  The author's explicitly stated purpose is to make a record of contemporary events

2)  With regard to such a narrow subject matter as the book of Acts focuses on (Paul and the persecution of the earliest followers of Christ) and then

3)  Leaves out such watershed events (after 64 A.D.) which are consistent as the book of Acts leaves out.

 

You don't know the author's original intent because you don't have a copy of the work that is older than the fourth century and all surviving copies have been heavily edited.  Sorry but you can't tell where the author's explicitly stated purpose was added, removed or changed by the many revisions and rewrites from men who lived later.  Furthermore Paul's death and the Roman war were events that we rather unpleasant which would be good reason to end the story on a high note.

 

 

 

If one were consistent with your ad hoc analogy, one could (unilaterally) turn the established dates for when Tacitus or Philo wrote their various works and histories upside down by publishing one's own copies 2000 years later.

 

My comment isn't ad hoc.  You should learn what these phrases mean before you use them.  You lose credibility when you wrongly label other with fallacies they do not use.  I seriously doubt the dating of Philo or Tacitus were written by the SteveBenett criteria.

 

 

That is an absurd basis for a special pleading.

 

I didn't use special pleading.  Every writer, ever single one, must choose to stop writing at some point.  There is no exception.  So picking an ending point is a general event that happens in writing.

 

Whats more, is, Luke's style of writing is an incredibly formal greek (consistent with legal research in a Roman Court of law). It is no small feat to simply copy such a clearly well educated, and sophisticated author's writing style-- in fact, the fingerprints of interpolations are all over some certain documents.  But totally absent in Luke's writings.

 

There is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, consistent with your idea.

 

Every story ever written is consistent with my idea.  Every single one of them conforms to my generalization.  Even "The Never Ending Story" has an ending point chosen by the author.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Whats more, is, Luke's style of writing is an incredibly formal greek (consistent with legal research in a Roman Court of law). It is no small feat to simply copy such a clearly well educated, and sophisticated author's writing style-- in fact, the fingerprints of interpolations are all over some certain documents.  But totally absent in Luke's writings.

Contrast Willis Barnstone, The Restored New Testament. A New Translation with commentary… (New York [Norton] 2009) 89 n. 63: “… the brief, clearly interpolated prefaces to Luke and Acts by one, or more probably two unknown apologists. In artificial formal Greek speech, fathoms apart from the fluent and dramatic speech of the gospels, the author or authors unconvincingly claim a Lukan authorship for both books.” [bolded by F]

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=CakJchHfN1QC&pg=PA90&dq=gospel+of+luke+"formal+greek"&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CmXuUuadGYylsATKz4CQBg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=gospel%20of%20luke%20"formal%20greek"&f=false

 

Barnstone follows standard methodology, Bennett does not.

[Guest SteveBennett]

I think the key is that one needs to set rules for analogies.  If one doesn't take a step back and set rules for an analogy, then any analogy will simply be ad hoc in nature (special to the arguers purposes).

 

Before we can make an analogy to the book of Acts, the book we are comparing it to has to:

 

 

1) Claim to be drawing from contemporary primary sources available to it's author at the time the document was written (as Luke does).

2) Explicitly or implicitly state the subject matter that the book intends to make a record of (as Luke does).

3) Establish that key information consistent with said subject matter is missing (as Luke's second book is missing everything after 64 A.D.-- even though these events are consistent with Luke's subject matter).

 

---

 

But think about it.   There is really one thing that puts an end to this whole idea of deviating from basic internal dating techniques. And that is external dating techniques-- archaeology.

 

You see Luke claimed to be drawing from contemporary primary sources that only someone from his day would have had access to.  This is a testable claim that archaeology is instrumental in falsifying or corroborating.

 

For example,

 

1) Consider the fact that Luke, in Acts 28:7, calls Publius "the chief official of the island."  Scholars, for years, laughed at this, saying "there is no such title."  And, indeed, they were justified to say this. . . because no primary sources (from ancient Rome) ever mention any such a title. . . until . . .

 

Inscriptions were unearthed that gave the title of the leader of Malta "the first man of the island."

 

Luke knew about this titles existence while the scholars didn't.  Why? Because Luke had access to this primary source before any archaeologist ever dug it up.

 

"Ok" you'll probably say, "someone in the 2nd century would have access to that title even if we didn't until very recently.  That doesn't prove Luke was writing in the 1st century rather than the 2nd century."

 

Well. . . that might fly with some people. The problem, though, is the incredible specificity throughout Luke's details.  Luke makes testable claim after testable claim after testable claim on even incredibly minor, trivial details.

 

But this, to my mind, really puts an end to it:

 

-------------

 

 

2) Consider the fact that Luke, in Luke 3:1, references "Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene."  Scholars, for decades, laughed at this as well, saying that the only "Lysanias of Abilene" to ever exist was a King (not a tetrarch) who was executed by the order of Mark Anthony in 34 B.C.

 

That's the the thing about testable claims. . . if you make even one mistake (on any tiny detail), people are quick to discredit you.

 

Well. . . then we dug up this inscription:

 

“For the salvation of the Lord’s imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanius the Tetrarch.”

 

And, this time, not only is Luke vindicated, but we also know the specific range of dates that this inscription was written.  Because the title "Lord's Imperial" was only ever given to the Emperor Tiberias and his mother Livia. Which means the inscription must have been made somewhere between 14 A.D. and 29 A.D.

 

There was a second Lysanius of Abilene that Luke knew about, but we didn't, until recently.  This would explain why Luke saw fit to add the extra title "tetrarch" (in order to prevent any confusion with Lysanius the King).

 

----

 

Summary

 

In order to avoid a conclusion that Luke was obviously writing during the first century, one would have to argue that Luke went back and gathered all of these quintessential (but testable) details an entire two or three generations removed from them.

 

That's simply absurd.  The more removed a historian gets from the original events, the more general and less specific the facts that they record become.

 

Luke is clearly a first rate historian-- and it is a travesty to history for any of us to offend historical methods (both internal and external) by dating his writing after 64 A.D.  It violates lex parsimoniae.

 

No, the reason Luke exhibits such incredible attention to so many tiny, testable details is because he is not addressing a general audience, but a very specific audience that would have been concerned with such minutia-- the Roman Court (by way of Paul's lawyer, Theophilus). That hypothesis doesn't violate lex parsimoniae.  

 

In fact its explanatory scope and power is far reaching in the sheer number of facts that it explains.  

 

In contrast, one is forced to make a series of ad hoc explanations if one insists on a 2nd century authorship.

[falemon]

 

 

But this, to my mind, really puts an end to it:

Emphasis mine.

 

Your mind does not decide for my mind. Simple FACT is, it could have been written in the second century, and like I said before, even if it was written in 66AD, that doesn't make the doctrine real.

 

Really all you've pointed out is that he knew what was known at the time. Bravo. He and everyone from that era deserves a medal and a standing ovation!

 

 

 

So what you're saying is, if I write things that really did happen to day, then ADD lies, the lies are also true because I've referenced things that did happen? Is that what you're saying? because it's exactly what you're saying about the gospels. You are saying, because one thing is true then all of it is true.

 

Even the Egyptians are known to have fabricated details on battles.

 

You have to appreciate that your reasoning and perspective is not our reasoning and perspective. We don't have any faith in the religion, so we don't make those leaps that you do. Simple as that. You make leaps.

[mymistake]

I think the key is that one needs to set rules for analogies.  If one doesn't take a step back and set rules for an analogy, then any analogy will simply be ad hoc in nature (special to the arguers purposes).

 

 

 

Where did you get your ideas about logic?  You have a pattern of misusing fallacy terms.  And you have not removed special pleading from your own arguments.  Analogies are for explanations.  They take two different things that have a trait in common for the purpose of illustrating the thing in common.  Because analogies used different objects all analogies fail at some point.  If you want a rule for analogies: don't use them in formal debate.  They are only slightly helpful in informal situations because the exact point of where the analogy fails crops up for those who didn't realize the two different objects had something in common.

 

 

You see Luke claimed to be drawing from contemporary primary sources that only someone from his day would have had access to.

 

And yet the author of Luke didn't realize that roman censuses didn't work the way he described or that the census he described didn't happen, or that Quirinus was not governor while Herod was king.  Unless you think the author of Luke lied.  These blunders are perfectly consistent with a second century author trying his best to give a story a first century setting.

 

 

 

Luke knew about this titles existence while the scholars didn't.  Why? Because Luke had access to this primary source before any archaeologist ever dug it up.

 

Which is also consistent with a second century author giving his story a first century setting.  

 

 

 

Well. . . that might fly with some people. The problem, though, is the incredible specificity throughout Luke's details.  Luke makes testable claim after testable claim after testable claim on even incredibly minor, trivialdetails.

 

Many of which fail.  But the author of Luke failing at tests doesn't make you question this author.  

 

 

 

That's simply absurd.  The more removed a historian gets from the original events, the more general and less specific the facts that they record become.

 

The author of Luke tells us:

 

Luke 1:1-3

 

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ 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,

 

 

Luke is clearly a first rate historian . . . 

 

No.  Luke wrote a religious text, not a history.  His purpose in writing is so that Theophilus may know the certainty of these things and so join the religious sect.

 

It is no coincidence that your secret agenda in writing all your words is so that we ex-Christians may know the certainty of these things and so join the religious sect.

[Guest Marty]

 

That's simply absurd.  The more removed a historian gets from the original events, the more general and less specific the facts that they record become.

 

 

Yet a myth will do exactly the opposite, which is get bigger and grander with more miraculous details as time marches on.  This is exactly what we see in the NT texts when they are arranged in order of the dates they were written.

[florduh]

Children! Steve said this is a tutorial. Professors don't like it when the class talks back while they're teaching!

 

Why oh why can't you all just accept what he's teaching and ignore what history, academia and science have to say. Is that too much to ask?

[mymistake]

 

 

That's simply absurd.  The more removed a historian gets from the original events, the more general and less specific the facts that they record become.

 

 

Yet a myth will do exactly the opposite, which is get bigger and grander with more miraculous details as time marches on.  This is exactly what we see in the NT texts when they are arranged in order of the dates they were written.

 

 

Especially if we look beyond the Catholic cut-off point with the Gospel of John.  The Jesus myth was great for stories and authors went wild with it for centuries.

[centauri]

 

The problem, though, is the incredible specificity throughout Luke's details.  Luke makes testable claim after testable claim after testable claim on even incredibly minor, trivial details.

 

But this, to my mind, really puts an end to it:

Ignoring the problems can put an end to anything.

Luke gives a vastly different birth narrative than Matthew, gives conflicting information regarding the genealogy of Jesus, conflicts with John and Matthew on the crucifixion and resurrection, and manages the miss the biggest event in history where dead people rose and walked into Jerusalem.

BTW, how do you test a claim about angels visiting shepherds?

 

Luke is clearly a first rate historian-- and it is a travesty to history for any of us to offend historical methods (both internal and external) by dating his writing after 64 A.D.  It violates lex parsimoniae.

Then Matthew is a liar.

You can't call one a first rate historian without refuting the claims of another gospel writer. 

[falemon]

To add to contradiction, you have contradicting accounts of Jesus' trial. Explain that in a blog post, I need something to laugh at today.

[♦ ficino ♦]

1) Consider the fact that Luke, in Acts 28:7, calls Publius "the chief official of the island."  Scholars, for years, laughed at this, saying "there is no such title."  And, indeed, they were justified to say this. . . because no primary sources (from ancient Rome) ever mention any such a title. . . until . . .

 

Inscriptions were unearthed that gave the title of the leader of Malta "the first man of the island."

 

Luke knew about this titles existence while the scholars didn't.  Why? Because Luke had access to this primary source before any archaeologist ever dug it up.

I don't buy this. What scholars laughed? The inscription to which you refer is quoted all over the place as from Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, which was a collection published in Germany in the first part of the 19th century.

 

But this, to my mind, really puts an end to it:

 

-------------

 

 

2) Consider the fact that Luke, in Luke 3:1, references "Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene."  Scholars, for decades, laughed at this as well, saying that the only "Lysanias of Abilene" to ever exist was a King (not a tetrarch) who was executed by the order of Mark Anthony in 34 B.C.

 

That's the the thing about testable claims. . . if you make even one mistake (on any tiny detail), people are quick to discredit you.

 

Well. . . then we dug up this inscription:

 

“For the salvation of the Lord’s imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanius the Tetrarch.”[/size]

 

And, this time, not only is Luke vindicated, but we also know the specific range of dates that this inscription was written.  Because the title "Lord's Imperial" was only ever given to the Emperor Tiberias and his mother Livia. Which means the inscription must have been made somewhere between 14 A.D. and 29 A.D.

 

There was a second Lysanius of Abilene that Luke knew about, but we didn't, until recently.  This would explain why Luke saw fit to add the extra title "tetrarch" (in order to prevent any confusion with Lysanius the King).

 

----

Even worse. Who are these scholars who, over decades, were laughing? The tetrarchy of Lysanias (note spelling) was mentioned by Josephus, Antiquities 18.237 and in the prologue to AJ]/i] 19. In bk 18, J. talks about Gaius Caligula, right after the death of Tiberius, as deciding to give the tetrarchy to Agrippa, and in bk. 19, the emperor Claudius confirms this.

 

We have no reason to accept your claim that scholars were laughing at the book of Acts over these two points. No scholar, whether believer or skeptic in religion, should have found any problem.

 

These are not instances of archaeology's exploding skeptics' doubts about the historicity of these claims in Acts. Acts makes references to people and places that also crop up in extrabiblical sources. We already know this.

 

So your trimphant announcement that archeology proved the skeptics wrong and the Bible right is so far without basis.

 

Your failure to master the material, however, casts doubt on your claims to methodological sophistication. Your method in these cases looks more like pulling stuff off [bad] websites.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Children! Steve said this is a tutorial. Professors don't like it when the class talks back while they're teaching!

 

Why oh why can't you all just accept what he's teaching and ignore what history, academia and science have to say. Is that too much to ask?

My entire childhood and youth were wasted sitting through church services and boring sermons; does this clown seriously think I'm going to sit quietly through his pontifications?

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

1) Consider the fact that Luke, in Acts 28:7, calls Publius "the chief official of the island."  Scholars, for years, laughed at this, saying "there is no such title."  And, indeed, they were justified to say this. . . because no primary sources (from ancient Rome) ever mention any such a title. . . until . . .

 

Inscriptions were unearthed that gave the title of the leader of Malta "the first man of the island."

 

Luke knew about this titles existence while the scholars didn't.  Why? Because Luke had access to this primary source before any archaeologist ever dug it up.

I don't buy this. What scholars laughed? The inscription to which you refer is quoted all over the place as from Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, which was a collection published in Germany in the first part of the 19th century.

 

But this, to my mind, really puts an end to it:

 

-------------

 

 

2) Consider the fact that Luke, in Luke 3:1, references "Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene."  Scholars, for decades, laughed at this as well, saying that the only "Lysanias of Abilene" to ever exist was a King (not a tetrarch) who was executed by the order of Mark Anthony in 34 B.C.

 

That's the the thing about testable claims. . . if you make even one mistake (on any tiny detail), people are quick to discredit you.

 

Well. . . then we dug up this inscription:

 

“For the salvation of the Lord’s imperial and their whole household, by Nymphaeus, a freedman of Lysanius the Tetrarch.”[/size]

 

And, this time, not only is Luke vindicated, but we also know the specific range of dates that this inscription was written.  Because the title "Lord's Imperial" was only ever given to the Emperor Tiberias and his mother Livia. Which means the inscription must have been made somewhere between 14 A.D. and 29 A.D.

 

There was a second Lysanius of Abilene that Luke knew about, but we didn't, until recently.  This would explain why Luke saw fit to add the extra title "tetrarch" (in order to prevent any confusion with Lysanius the King).

 

----

Even worse. Who are these scholars who, over decades, were laughing? The tetrarchy of Lysanias (note spelling) was mentioned by Josephus, Antiquities 18.237 and in the prologue to AJ]/i] 19. In bk 18, J. talks about Gaius Caligula, right after the death of Tiberius, as deciding to give the tetrarchy to Agrippa, and in bk. 19, the emperor Claudius confirms this.

 

We have no reason to accept your claim that scholars were laughing at the book of Acts over these two points. No scholar, whether believer or skeptic in religion, should have found any problem.

 

These are not instances of archaeology's exploding skeptics' doubts about the historicity of these claims in Acts. Acts makes references to people and places that also crop up in extrabiblical sources. We already know this.

 

So your trimphant announcement that archeology proved the skeptics wrong and the Bible right is so far without basis.

 

Your failure to master the material, however, casts doubt on your claims to methodological sophistication. Your method in these cases looks more like pulling stuff off [bad] websites.

 

Having checked the inscription establishing the title of the Roman superintendent of Malta, and having thought more about SteveB's discourse on archaeological proof that there was a tetrarch Lysanias at the time of Tiberius, I conclude that

 

SteveBennett is a fraud, either little-time or big-time, I am not sure which.

 

SB says that scholars scoffed at Acts 28:7 because it gave a title to Publius that was otherwise unknown, i.e. "first [man] of the island." He goes on to say that we did not know of this title from other sources "until very recently."

 

A google search showed many references to an inscription that mentions the title, "first [man] of the Maltese" (Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum 5754, reedited in Inscriptiones Graecae XIV.601). The entry in CIG cites early publications of this inscription. The beginning of it, showing the title, was first published in --

 

drumroll --

 

the year 1536!

 

It has been republished and made the subject of comment repeatedly since. There is also a Latin inscription, discovered in the 1700s, giving the same title (CIL X.7495). Note however that even conservative scholar F.F. Bruce acknowledges that it is not clear from context whether "first of" should be connected to "the Maltese" or to "those who bestowed benefactions..." This isn't a problem, really.

 

The problem now is:

 

WHERE did Bennett get his information about these inscriptions?

 

SB did not get it from primary sources. If he had at least consulted the printed collections of inscriptions from Malta and nearby islands, he would have known that these inscriptions were not discovered "very recently" but CENTURIES AGO.

 

SB's rule, that one must base one's conclusions on primary sources, is one that he does not always observe.

 

I have seen no record of scholars deriding the phrase "first man of the island" in Acts 28:7 as a mistake. I am forced to wonder where SB got this information about scholars. If from some website or secondary source: bad, didn't use a primary source. If he made it up...

 

SB's claim that we only knew of Lysanias' tetrachy "very recently" is, as I said, worse, since it's already twice in Josephus.

 

SB DID NOT USE PRIMARY SOURCES, or he would have checked Josephus, the first obvious author to consult. His claim that the recent archaeological find "vindicates" Luke is pitched under a construction that makes it either laughable or fraudulent. I have not even bothered to hunt down the inscription to which he refers.

 

It's been interesting to look up these inscriptions, but there are more pressing demands on my time. Researching further announcements made by trolls is not pressing.

[Ravenstar]

Ficino.. good work!

[Guest SteveBennett]

He goes on to say that we did not know of this title from other sources "until very recently."

.

.

.

.

SB's claim that we only knew of Lysanias' tetrachy "very recently" is, as I said, worse, since it's already twice in Josephus.

 

 

I'm perfectly willing to amend my first statement by saying "we didn't know about the title 'first man of the island' until 1500 years after Luke wrote."  It really is a trivial point, but to be fair and honest-- I'm compelled to concede it because that's what the fact really is.  And I thank you for the correcting me.

 

But, as to the second statement.  I actually have to return the favor of correcting you. Josephus is referring to Lysanias of Abila-- A king who was executed by the order of Mark Anthony in 34 B.C.

 

Josephus is not referring to Lysanias the tetrarch of Abiline (there are two Lysaniases). One Lysanias has a tetrarchy (because he is a King), the other Lysanias is a tetrarch.

 

We didn't learn about Lysanias the tetrarch of Abiline until the inscription was dug up.  And we know the inscription has to be dated somewhere between 14 and 29 A.D.

 

 

Again, I'm perfectly willing to admit when I made a mistake of relying too heavily on imprecise terms like "until recently."  I made a mistake of relying too heavily on a secondary source when stating this, and I accept your correction that I did this.  One reason I enjoy these conversations, is because dissent allows one to "clean up" such loose terms.  And often it pulls out the real thrust of how the facts speak for themselves.

 

And that is the point I would focus on.  The thrust of the facts that no one disputes, I think, speak for themselves.

 

In other words, leaving internal dating methods aside, external dating methods show Luke is in a position to be able to record such minutia that we, now, require archaeological finds for.

 

No, the reason Luke exhibits such incredible attention to so many tiny, trivial, but still testable details is because he is not addressing a general audience, but a very specific audience that would have been concerned with such minutia-- the Roman Court (by way of Paul's lawyer, Theophilus).

 

Either way (even if I'm mistaken as to Luke's target audience) the farther removed one gets from the actual facts (especially in ancient times), the more incredible it becomes to accomplish recording and distinguishing between such trivial details.

 

Both internal as well as external dating methodology give us a date prior to 64 A.D. for Luke's two works.

[mymistake]

SB,

 

The author of Luke could not know and would not have cared in what order archeologists would have dug up stones over a millennia after Christ was to return.  Your reasoning is flawed.  An author of Luke who is trying to impress a specific audience does not make him first century.  Whenever the author was writing he would have simply relied on whatever records were available.  The reader was in the same time as the author and would have the same general quality of records.  And the author of Luke got several events wrong (I'm not even talking about all the events with magic and mythical beings; I mean the mundane events the author botched).  Nobody disputes that the story of Acts ends prior to 64 AD but that doesn't mean that it was written prior to 64 AD.  There are strong indicators that the books of Luke and Acts were written much later.  The Book of Luke often copies the Book of Mark almost word for word.  Both Luke and Acts borrow heavily from the writings of Josephus.  That you reject the contrary evidence and focus on only the tiny fraction that helps your case only shows that you are not being objective.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Whenever the author was writing he would have simply relied on whatever records were available.  The reader was in the same time as the author and would have the same general quality of records. 

 

And what records were those? Where is Luke going to go to gather all of the minutia that Luke records?

 

Did someone else record all of that minutia for him in relation to these events so that he could, then, go back and incorporate those sources into his document?

 

If so. . . who?  Where? What?

 

No such sources exist that I am aware of.  

 

If one says "Josephus" or "Tacitus" then why does Luke differentiate (for example) between Lysinias the King (who had a tetrarchy) And Lysinias who was a tetrarch?

 

 

Certainly Josephus never makes any such distinction. And much of what Luke records (like Lysinias the tetrarch) can not be found in any sources prior to Luke.  

 

The fact that no such sources prior to Luke, anywhere, make this distinction as Luke does means that Luke wouldn't have had any sources by which to justify making this distinction if he were writing in the second century.  The same is true for many of the vast amounts of detailed minutia that Luke includes in his two books.

 

Your idea simply doesn't add up.  It requires too many violations of lex parsimonia.

 

It's basically saying "Luke is only going to great lengths so as to purposefully try and appear as though he is writing before 64 A.D."

 

One can do that with literally anything if they really want to.  Does the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy only go to show how deep the conspiracy goes?

 

And yes I agre (no one I know would debate it). Luke clearly did draw from Mark and Mathew as sources.  So if Luke wrote before 64 A.D., then these two sources would be dated even earlier.

[Guest SteveBennett]

Look.  One has to remember that Luke doesn't have an internet.    Paper was expensive.

 

No one is going to pass on all of the trivial details that Luke records from the first century on into the second century.

 

To argue that Luke is writing in the second century, one would have to show a previous source that records all of the details from the first century that Luke records.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No one is going to pass on all of the trivial details that Luke records from the first century on into the second century.

Like the trivial detail of jesus' birth occurring during the reign of King Herod while Quirinius was governor of Syria?  Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius didn't become governor until 6CE.  Jesus could not have been born with Herod and Quirinius both in power; an entire decade separated their respective reigns.  As trivial details go, that one's a doozie.

[mymistake]

 

Whenever the author was writing he would have simply relied on whatever records were available.  The reader was in the same time as the author and would have the same general quality of records. 

 

And what records were those? Where is Luke going to go to gather all of the minutia that Luke records?

 

Did someone else record all of that minutia for him in relation to these events so that he could, then, go back and incorporate those sources into his document?

 

If so. . . who?  Where? What?

 

No such sources exist that I am aware of.  

 

If one says "Josephus" or "Tacitus" then why does Luke differentiate (for example) between Lysinias the King (who had a tetrarchy) And Lysinias who was a tetrarch?

 

 

Certainly Josephus never makes any such distinction. And much of what Luke records (like Lysinias the tetrarch) can not be found in any sources prior to Luke.  

 

The fact that no such sources prior to Luke, anywhere, make this distinction as Luke does means that Luke wouldn't have had any sources by which to justify making this distinction if he were writing in the second century.  The same is true for many of the vast amounts of detailed minutia that Luke includes in his two books.

 

Your idea simply doesn't add up.  It requires too many violations of lex parsimonia.

 

It's basically saying "Luke is only going to great lengths so as to purposefully try and appear as though he is writing before 64 A.D."

 

One can do that with literally anything if they really want to.  Does the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy only go to show how deep the conspiracy goes?

 

And yes I agre (no one I know would debate it). Luke clearly did draw from Mark and Mathew as sources.  So if Luke wrote before 64 A.D., then these two sources would be dated even earlier.

 

 

Try to keep in mind that the Roman Catholic Church tried to destroy any record that questioned their legitimacy.  That might very well be the reason we don't have access to the other sources that went into Luke and Acts.  And no, nobody is claiming Luke is trying to appear like anything or there was conspiracy.  You are reading too much into it.  Do you not understand that 64 AD was as far away from the first century as 1964 is from the 21st century?   Lex parsimonia actually means something.  You can't just toss that phrase around.  Can you identify a single application of it?  All writers must end their story somewhere.  I would think you would want to keep Occam's Razor far away from the Holy Ghost.  

 

Edit:

Both Mark and Matthew were written after the Roman Jewish war and the destruction of the temple.  I doubt Luke drew upon Matthew, but rather both Luke and Matthew used the same source.

 

 

Look.  One has to remember that Luke doesn't have an internet.    Paper was expensive.

 

No one is going to pass on all of the trivial details that Luke records from the first century on into the second century.

 

To argue that Luke is writing in the second century, one would have to show a previous source that records all of the details from the first century that Luke records.

 

Nope.  To argue that Luke was writing in the second century all one needs to do is point out that Luke was using material from the Roman Jewish war, the fall of the Temple and the works of Josephus.  Okay Luke found out a few interesting details and included them.  Try to remember that those details might have only been forty or fifty years old at that point.  It isn't that hard to get information about forty or fifty years ago.  Romans kept records and archives.  Maybe the carvings didn't need to be dug up yet because they were still standing in the not-yet-ruins that were still a living city.

[MerryG]

 

No one is going to pass on all of the trivial details that Luke records from the first century on into the second century.

Like the trivial detail of jesus' birth occurring during the reign of King Herod while Quirinius was governor of Syria?  Herod died in 4BCE and Quirinius didn't become governor until 6CE.  Jesus could not have been born with Herod and Quirinius both in power; an entire decade separated their respective reigns.  As trivial details go, that one's a doozie.

 

 

Steve, you should (finally) address Prof's issue. Please.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm compelled to concede it because that's what the fact really is.  And I thank you for the correcting me.

You are welcome.

 

But, as to the second statement.  I actually have to return the favor of correcting you. Josephus is referring to Lysanias of Abila-- A king who was executed by the order of Mark Anthony in 34 B.C.

 

Josephus is not referring to Lysanias the tetrarch of Abiline (there are two Lysaniases). One Lysanias has a tetrarchy (because he is a King), the other Lysanias is a tetrarch.

 

We didn't learn about Lysanias the tetrarch of Abiline until the inscription was dug up.  And we know the inscription has to be dated somewhere between 14 and 29 A.D.

 

 

Again, I'm perfectly willing to admit when I made a mistake of relying too heavily on imprecise terms like "until recently."  I made a mistake of relying too heavily on a secondary source when stating this, and I accept your correction that I did this.  One reason I enjoy these conversations, is because dissent allows one to "clean up" such loose terms.  And often it pulls out the real thrust of how the facts speak for themselves.

 

And that is the point I would focus on.  The thrust of the facts that no one disputes, I think, speak for themselves.

 

In other words, leaving internal dating methods aside, external dating methods show Luke is in a position to be able to record such minutia that we, now, require archaeological finds for.

 

No, the reason Luke exhibits such incredible attention to so many tiny, trivial, but still testable details is because he is not addressing a general audience, but a very specific audience that would have been concerned with such minutia-- the Roman Court (by way of Paul's lawyer, Theophilus).

 

Either way (even if I'm mistaken as to Luke's target audience) the farther removed one gets from the actual facts (especially in ancient times), the more incredible it becomes to accomplish recording and distinguishing between such trivial details.

 

Both internal as well as external dating methodology give us a date prior to 64 A.D. for Luke's two works.

I apologize for not reading your earlier post carefully enough. I read it as vindication of Luke's use of the title, tetrarch, and not king, for Lysanias at 3:1. I should have realized that you were seeking to vindicate, against the skepticism of unnamed scholars, Luke's reference to a second Lysanias as alive in 29 CE, when the first Lysanias had been assassinated in 36 BCE.

 

On this I shall try to be brief - not easy for ficino.

 

1. I've had fun with fonts, picking up your example. I think it's legitimate to request at this point that we all drop the enlarged fonts and frequent bolding. If we're going to have serious discussion, we don't need them; they introduce a level of tone that is not helpful.

 

2. I appreciate your acknowledging above that you relied on secondary sources for what you said about the inscriptions you adduced. In fact, I've found many Christian websites in which the Nymphaeus inscription is presented exactly as you quote it, complete with the same misspelling of Lysanias' name.

I ask, therefore, that you drop your pronouncements about standard methodology and your demands that people restrict themselves to primary sources; e.g. as you demanded of Kris re Exodus. I don't think any of us knows demotic Egyptian, let alone hieroglyphics - if you do, please say so. I don't think you know Greek, since you haven't replied to my post in Attic Greek. So we use translations, for starters. And if we eschew the results of research of professionals, we easily go down many dead-end paths. It does not follow that I seek to ban primary sources!

 

3. I don't think I can devote more time now to Josephus. I only say that earlier scholars should have been cautious about insisting that there was only one Lysanias, since Josephus in the Antiquities clearly talks about a tetrarchy of Lysanias, not a kingdom, for the period 37-41 CE - as though there was a Lysanias the tetrarch.

Your distinction, incidentally, between the first Lysanias' having a tetrarchy because he is a king, and the second Lysanias' being a tetrach, betrays confusion. A tetrarchy was originally a fourth of a kingdom. The first Lysanias had been made king of the Itureans, not mere tetrarch, by Antony (Dio Cassius 49.32), some years before Antony had him executed. Scholars should have smelled a rat in Josephus if they noticed that "kingdom" (BJ 2.215) is "tetrarchy" in AJ.

---------------

edited to add: in other words, I think one could/should have inferred from AJ 18-19 that there was a Lysanias tetrarch, to hold the "tetrarchy of Lysanias" at least in the time of Tiberius, and that this would not be the same man as the king Lysanias, whose execution had been reported back in Book 15.92. So I am not prepared to admit that only from archaeology could one know of Lysanias the tetarch, nor that L's mention in Luke 3:1 helps demonstrate a date of composition before 64 CE.

---------------

 

4. The Nymphaeus inscription actually does not prove that Lysanias the tetrarch was still alive in 29 CE. Nymphaeus only identifies himself as a freedman of L. If Lysanias had freed N. before his death, N. could still alive in the time of Tiberius and Livia. Note that the Oxford Biblical Studies site maintains caution about drawing conclusions from that inscription:

http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e1172

 

5. Your statement that the information from the Nymphaeus inscription came to light "very recently" again shows that you did not do your homework. That inscription was first published in 1752 by Richard Pococke (Inscriptiones Antiquae, Graecae et Latinae, ch. 1, n. 2, p. 1 - cited in Frederic Louis Godet, A Comm. on the G. of St. L., tr. by E.Smallwood, 1875, 169).

 

6. There is another inscription, which mentions the sons of Lysanias. I haven't hunted it down.

 

7. Like many websites I looked at, you did not identify any scholars who laughed at or attacked Luke's accuracy. I suspect you didn't consult any. Godet does refer to Strauss and Keim as skeptics about Luke 3:1 (p. 168). They were writing in the mid-nineteenth century.

 

8. I don't have a problem accepting that it's likely there was a second Lysanias, a tetrarch, perhaps grandson of the earlier king.

 

9. The issues of Lysanias or "first man of the island" do not contribute to establishing 64 CE as terminus ante quem for Luke. I note that in fact, the title given in Acts 28:7 does differ from that found in the inscriptions, which have "of the Maltese," not "of the island" as Luke does. But I do not push this latter point.

 

Now, if you'll work on answering:

 

RedneckedProf on Quirinius

BAA on Gen. 1:1

me on interpolated prologues in Luke & Acts, Tyre, and if you feel like it, unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus' imminent return (not a question for archaeology, of course)

and others (can't remember all, so many threads going at once)

[centauri]

Luke clearly did draw from Mark and Mathew as sources.  So if Luke wrote before 64 A.D., then these two sources would be dated even earlier.

If Luke "clearly" drew from Matthew as a source, he ignored what Matthew taught and the history he recorded.

That's the 800 lb gorilla in the room.

You've yet to address the fact that Luke and Matthew do not agree on key issues such as the birth narrative, the genealogy of Jesus, the events related to the crucifixion and resurrection, and Luke ignored the biggest event in history, the dead saints rising from their graves and walking into Jerusalem, where unlike Jesus, they were seen by many people.

This monumental event was sparked by the death of the god-man and is vital in establishing that his death was a trigger point for ushering in a new era of spiritual "reality".

Yet, Luke amazingly leaves this out of his wonderfully detailed accurate history.

You can date Luke to any early year you prefer but that doesn't solve the problem of contradictions and glaring omissions on the part of Luke.

BTW, claims about paper being expensive (the old J.P. Holding bromide), don't hold much credibility in a "reality" where dead people are raised and miracles are performed on a regular basis.

God would have no problem making sure the writers had enough paper to write on.

That is, if all the hoopla about faith and the power of the Holy Spirit is genuine.