Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 01-26-2009, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Getting back to the OP...

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW there is one direct quotation of Jesus in Acts at 20:35 where Paul says
It may be significant that this is a saying of Jesus not found in the Gospels.
Possibly Luke chose not to repeat sayings material already in his Gospel.

But if that's the case, then Acts is not necessarily evidence that the apostles didn't know of any sayings of Jesus--it could just be evidence that Luke chose to put nearly all of his sayings material into the gospel section.

But I'm intrigued by the notion that the early apostles were not familiar with the gospel sayings, implying that the specific sayings of Jesus were simply not important to them at the time (or at least, not to Paul, Barnabas, or the Jerusalem group of James and "Symeon" Peter. Suggesting that the importance of the sayings tradition came from a different group.)

But if the paucity of Jesus' sayings in Acts is to be evidence that the early apostles did not know the gospel sayings, then one must assume that Acts is, in some way, an accurate representation of history. Which is quite an interesting claim. What criteria should we use to determine which elemens of Acts are historical, and which are not?

We do have various brief accounts of the life of Jesus in Acts eg chapter 10

Quote:

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

I suspect that the reader is meant to take something like this as a precis of what was supposedly actually said, to be filled out by the reader in the light of the material in Luke.

Andrew Criddle

wordy · 01-26-2009, 02:35 AM

Quote:

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea,

They writer seem to think that people could read in those days. Very few could read.
Nothing was "published". They at most had people who verbally told what they heard others tell them about.

wordy · 01-26-2009, 02:39 AM

Quote:

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea,

They writer seem to think that people could read in those days. Very few could read.
Nothing was "published". They at most had people who verbally told what they heard others tell them about.

How many could read? 10% or 25% at most?

andrewcriddle · 01-26-2009, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Quote:

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea,

They writer seem to think that people could read in those days. Very few could read.
Nothing was "published". They at most had people who verbally told what they heard others tell them about.

"Published" here means proclaimed or uttered. Other translations render this as

Quote:

you yourselves know what happened, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

or

Quote:

ye know; the testimony which has spread through the whole of Judaea, beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached

See acts 10-37 for different translations and an analysis of the Greek.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 01-26-2009, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

But if that's the case, then Acts is not necessarily evidence that the apostles didn't know of any sayings of Jesus--it could just be evidence that Luke chose to put nearly all of his sayings material into the gospel section.

There are many problems with Acts of the Apostles. The book does not appear to be credible, it contains many fictitious and implausible events, but it almost of no use as evidence of the life of Jesus since it would appear that it may have been written well over 100 years after the so-called Jesus.

Irenaeus writing about 150 years after the time of Pilate was the first to mention Acts of the Apostles and a Gospel called Luke.

wordy · 01-26-2009, 06:59 AM

thanks, it is the translation giving me wrong impression. Proclaimed is better or told maybe even better.

Casper · 01-26-2009, 07:10 AM

What other literature has this sort of structure?

The OT certainly doesn't follow that pattern; Jehova is depicted as actually speaking about covenant and law.

RockHopper · 01-26-2009, 10:22 AM

Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Conservative political think tanks.

Now ask yourself why there has not been a billion-dollar think tank dedicated to proving conclusively the historicity of Jesus.

Imagine the political implications: Conservatism wins. Forever.

Why have they not taken this seemingly obvious shortcut to permanent global domination?

bacht · 01-26-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockHopper

Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Conservative political think tanks.

Now ask yourself why there has not been a billion-dollar think tank dedicated to proving conclusively the historicity of Jesus.

Imagine the political implications: Conservatism wins. Forever.

Why have they not taken this seemingly obvious shortcut to permanent global domination?

Conservatism is a fluid label. In 30 CE an "establishment" conservative Jew like a Sadduccee would reject any notion of afterlife/resurrection and probably most of the post-exilic angelology.

A populist conservative like a Zealot would settle for nothing less than the glorious overthrow of Israel's enemies and the elimination of foreign cultural and economic influences.

A sacerdotal conservative like the Qumran group would accept nothing less than a sweeping reform of the temple and its priesthood.

A "conservative" European philosopher of the 16th C following Aristotle would reject any notion of a heliocentric solar system even in the face of empirical proof from scientists like Galileo.

andrewcriddle · 01-26-2009, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

But if that's the case, then Acts is not necessarily evidence that the apostles didn't know of any sayings of Jesus--it could just be evidence that Luke chose to put nearly all of his sayings material into the gospel section.

There are many problems with Acts of the Apostles. The book does not appear to be credible, it contains many fictitious and implausible events, but it almost of no use as evidence of the life of Jesus since it would appear that it may have been written well over 100 years after the so-called Jesus.

Irenaeus writing about 150 years after the time of Pilate was the first to mention Acts of the Apostles and a Gospel called Luke.

Hi aa5874

You've mixed up the attributions. the_cave said that not me.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-26-2009, 06:59 AM	#136
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	thanks, it is the translation giving me wrong impression. Proclaimed is better or told maybe even better.

01-26-2009, 07:10 AM	#137
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	What other literature has this sort of structure? The OT certainly doesn't follow that pattern; Jehova is depicted as actually speaking about covenant and law.

01-26-2009, 10:22 AM	#138
RockHopper Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 22	Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Conservative political think tanks. Now ask yourself why there has not been a billion-dollar think tank dedicated to proving conclusively the historicity of Jesus. Imagine the political implications: Conservatism wins. Forever. Why have they not taken this seemingly obvious shortcut to permanent global domination?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.