John Kesler

Here is how Richard Carrier summarizes the issue in "Luke and Josephus":

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Lets start at the ending and work our way up.

Hmmm...

Does this pass for rigorous vocabulary and stylistic analysis in skeptic-land ? Are these rare oddball Greek words ? How many words in the accounts ?

Does this impress you John ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

A second century author.

Yiu cannot show that Acts is historically accurate. There are parts that are probably accurate, because they were based on existing sources, especially Josephus. But the main characters of Saul/Paul and others cannot be verified in other sources. The incidents have too much in common with popular literature of the time (the earthquake that providentially lets the men out of prison, eg.)

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

You are missing the main point of Lucan historicity. There is a degree of detail about the times and places, the buildings and titles and governmental relationships and names and positions, that is essentially astounding. One that would be virtually impossible to have gotten right many years later by a fiction writer.

This is why it was necessary, when attacking Luke's historicity, to try to pretend that it was not one author involved in Luke-Acts, since Acts is so replete with Mediterranean region historic specifics.

Details that cannot be related to Josephus at all, who is wrongly given credit (as in this thread) for a couple of details one of which supposedly Luke got wrong by 40 years . A rather laughable claim when you look at the names and histories closely. In the big picture this is irrelevant to the overall historicity, in the small picture it is simply a nonsensical claim that Luke thought a 45 AD Thadeus of Josephus was four decades earlier !

Shalom,
Steven Avery

John Kesler

Interesting that you you chose to ask about one sentence at the end of the paragraph, while ignoring the bulk of the argument. In isolation, the similarity of vocabulary might not seem significant. But given that Luke repeats the incorrect sequence of the two men and uses the same words, yes, it does impress me.

dog-on

Acts was written post 150 as part of the Paulian reformation.

The writer alos happened to be the editor of the Marcionite work, later known as Luke.

These two works were used to pull any claim of authority from the Marcionites by making Paul subserviant to the "Jerusalem" apostles and to codify, in scritpure, the church's claim of authority through Apostolic succession...

spamandham

If *we*, 2000 years after the fact are able to independently confirm certain aspects of Luke/Acts, what is particularly amazing about an author 2000 years ago knowing a little bit of contemporary history as well? If the external evidence exists today, then it also existed 2000 years ago, and presumably, was not yet in ruins.

Steven Carr

And, of course, from Acts 2 onwards, there is not a single mention of Judas, Thomas, Barabbas, Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Simon of Cyrene, Mary, Martha, Joanna, Salome, Jairus, Joseph of Arimathea etc etc.

As soon as there is 'outstanding' evidence, all these Gospel characters vanish as though they had never been, not even to be mentioned by Christians.

Vinnie

Are you saying Lucan material was not used until 180 or that the name Luke is not seen attached to this gospel before 180? The attribution could be pushed a bit before Irenaeus considering it occurs in two Roman sources (Iren, Muratorian Fragment) and one from Alexendria (A Clement) all around the same time.

That is not likely. At any rate, you should read Athenagoras's two works. He has a lengthy argument for the resurrection of the dead but not a single mention of Christ, Jesus, Christian etc. You wouldn't even know he was a Christian by this Greek philosophical work if not for the Plea for Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, where likewise, many details are not mentioned. It must be seen in that Greek philosophical works, "quoting the scriptures" or gospels is not going to win you any points.

The author you reference may be a different kin of Christian but that does not mean he has not heard of Jesus' resurrection. I haven't read the work in question but think he may be another Athenagoras (greek philosopher) judging by his name....

Arguments summarized:

THree I cited initially:

1) Dependence on Josephus
2) Dependence on Mark and the priority of Luke which mentions events ca. 70 C.E.
3) Inconsistencies between Acts and Paul's own letters indicates removal from the time period.

4) Fits well in 2d century where other Acts are found.

5) To me, one notorious indirect “internal evidence” piece that Acts is a late script is Matthew 16:17-19 [I will give you the keys to bind & loose], a passage inserted much later sometime in the second century, NOT present in the other two synoptic gospels. Correlating that foreign passage with Peter’s elevated status in Acts [decades after he had gone] will tell us that Acts is an essay to promote peace between Paul and Peter’s factions, very indisposed with each other for many decades after Pentecost. It’s Irenaeus who declared that the [Catholic] Church had been founded by those two major actors in Acts, Peter & Paul. Not only Peter!!… The church went then from mess to mess and never recovered the original blueprint.

None of these evidences pushes Acts past 110 IMHO. It could be dated later but none of them seem to necessitate a very late date. Dating Luke-Acts from 80-110 seems to be standard fare. They push up to the upper end for sure, but much later becomes inconsistent with the amount of sources in the middle of the second century that use the works.

Vinnie

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham If *we*, 2000 years after the fact

You do realize that technology has made a lot of information very available that was not even available a few hundred years ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham are able to independently confirm certain aspects of Luke/Acts, what is particularly amazing about an author 2000 years ago knowing a little bit of contemporary history as well?

Have you personally looked at the "little bit" .. e.g. did you read Sir William Ramsey carefully ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery