Solo

Where do I speak about "contemporary Lukan scholars", Jeffrey ? I said "the orthodox view of Luke", did I not ? Does that read to you "contempoary Lukan scholars" ? What are you smoking ? Who do you think you can kid with this kind of blather ? Are you denying there have been mainstream traditionalists since Irenaeus in the church who took everything Luke says as factual reporting ? What do contemporary Catholics believe ? You don't know ? I am reading just know a second-string Catholic scholar, somebody by the name of Ratzinger, who absolutely believes that everything Luke says is historical. You are not going to dispute that, are you ?

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

So whom do you count as "orthodox" and who among the orthodox now hold this view.

I think I do if the views of Fitzmyer, Brown, Johnson, Nerye, Wikenhauser, Harrington, M. Mitchel, H. J. Klauck, and Aune -- contemporary Catholics all -- count for anything and if DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU is taken to be representative of how Catholics are to approach scripture.

Yes, he is second string when it comes to biblical studies.

Could we have a quote that show this, please.

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey - check out this thread: Luedemann versus the Pope

Jeffrey Gibson

Is that what I said?

There's no middle ground?

Which is so broadly defined as to be meaningless.

To which, I note, you've added nothing and avoided answering the question which brings the thesis into doubt.

You've misrepresented Pervo's conclusion as well as what Fitzmyer writes about his thesis (BTW, Richard was one of my teachers).


Maybe because in general it's true?

How about because he has taken them seriously but found that the case they have made is wanting?

But why don't you ask him yourself? He may be reached at:

fitzmyja at georgetown.edu

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

To see what? That R is not a biblical scholar and that he is expressing a personal view rather than saying what all Catholics believe?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you really saying that what is expressed in an article on the "agony of Christ" by a writer who not only wrote wrote in 1903, but before the publication of DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, and who was not in dialogue with contemporary Catholic biblical interpreters and the wealth of Lukan scholarship that has been produced since that time, is to be taken as representative of what contemporary Catholics believe regarding Luke?

Jeffrey

Toto

It was my surmise. If it was not what you meant, please say exactly what you meant.

No, there is no middle ground between A and ~A, by definition.

The game that people play is to claim the middle ground for themselves, and paint all whom they disagree with as extremists.

No it's not.

OK, I gave what might be an overly brief summary that omits nuances. Please explain what is wrong with it.

If that were the case, surely he would have written the definitive book that would have converted everyone to Catholicism? Why hasn't that happened?

Because I don't go off on wild goose chases to get answers to rhetorical questions from Christian believers.

Toto

divino afflante spiritu

<gag>

Let's go to the executive summary in wikipedia

How does this change what Catholics are required to believe?

Vorkosigan

I just supplied you with a citation from a piece that not only parodies such introductions but says that there are quite a few, so many in fact that he expects his audience to readily recognize his parody. Please address that.

As for the use of the specific terms I pointed out -- claims of truthfulness -- any perusal of the psuedoPaulines will turn them up. 1 Tim offers

• [asv]Jesus, 2:6who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times; 2:7whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not),
  
  [asv]1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our hope; 1:2unto Timothy, my true child in faith [The speaker is not Paul, but assures us he is]

2 Tim is one long construction of similar exhortations.

• [asv]2:2And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses,

...to give only one. Ancient fiction writers clearly worked in many different ways to give their tales at least a veneer of truth.

Damn! Here five minutes and already you accuse me of bad faith.

In any case, judge, I have already show that it is easy to see the writer of Luke is producing fiction, for we have his sources, and further, he knows he is producing fiction, though he claims he is writing history. Speaking of avoidance, perhaps you or Jeff G. could address that tension between the writer of Luke claiming "certainty" while knowingly altering events, etc.

Vorkosigan

Gamera

I think you are too uncritical of Tacitus and Suetonius. They are both constructing narratives with a political and often personal point. Tacitus in particular consciously contructs stories that involve omens and nostalgia and exemplums of traditional Roman virtues.

These aren't "histories" in the modern sense (and of course even modern histories have an agenda), but carefully constructive narratives with a point to make. In that sense they are just like the gospels, and any categorization that puts "histories" on one side and the gospels on the other are tendentious.