TedM

Hi Spin. Isn't this a matter of degree? Isn't there pretty decent agreement among experts as to the provenance and dating of the gospels? Doesn't the support within Christian literature of these things and authorship also have some bearing? Isn't the idea of what constitutes a 'basis for any history' rather subjective? Isn't it relevant what historians themselves have to say on the matter?

I'm not pretending to have any answers, but I am not inclined to dismiss them as being useless historically when there are SOME historical parameters widely accepted, and MANY historical details corroborated. I know that fictional accounts do the same thing, but to me there is a huge difference between the common examples (Sherlock Holmes, Superman) that such comparisons seem wholly unconvincing. The primary difference is the amount of corroboration internally -- in conjunction with the presentation of much material in the context of a growing religious movement. I think it takes very sophisticated conspiracy schemes to explain this whereas the simplest explanation is that they reflected general events that occurred.

I read Acts recently and much of it struck me as likely to have been intended as a historical account. There are a lot of names and places mentioned that seem of little value unless they were historical, and I find the 'we' passages to be significant also. Can anyone here recommend an internet link that explains why Acts is not considered by some (perhaps a small minority?) to contain much real history? I don't consider a few seeming contradictions or some Josephus influence to be very significant objections, so am not sure why Acts seems so easily dismissed and ignored by many folks here.

Thanks, Ted

Toto

I would recommend Richard Pervo The Mystery of Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk) or any of his other books.

I think you will find that evangelical scholars cling to the idea that Acts contains some history, but secular or liberal Christians find little if any historical value. The issue is quite contentious. Christians seem to be willing to admit that the gospels are primarily theological, but if Acts is not reliable, the whole edifice of the early church looks very shakey.

The main problem seems to be that Acts' view of Paul is so different from the Paul of the letters, and the general intent of Acts seems to be to portray a united Christian movement, when we know that there were fierce disagreements among different sects and factions.

And note that this has little to do with Jesus mythicism. Most of the scholars who reject the historical value of Acts believe in a historical Jesus.

TedM

Thanks, but I was hoping for a good online article of say 5-10 pages..


I don't think it is very different, but obviously others do.

Acts makes it very clear that there were fierce disagreements and Paul was highly disliked by many Jews, and Jewish believers. However, as a historical reference it didn't get into the nitty gritty details like the letters of Paul do. That wasn't its purpose, so I don't see that as a strong point against historicity at all. Plus is anyone really surprised that it would smooth things over some? But, if it was written in the late 2nd century, where are the references to all of those future competing movements--Marcion, Valentinus, etc.? Not even a hint, I don't think.

Anyway, that's why I want to read up some more--to see whether all of the arguments are of that ilk, and how they address the names/places that seem highly corroborative without trying to be so, and the we references.

Noted.

spin

Let's see, do they know provenance? No. Do they theorize as to provenance, yes. Dating, do they know, well down to a hundred years, so no. Anonymous? Absolutely. Core content unsupported outside the christian tradition, sadly true.

Religious experts' opinions are as good as they are able to put aside their religious beliefs on what they are opining about.

All that's certainly the desire of religious experts. I tend to work on notions of what can be said about the past based on evidence, rather than what one accepts as subjectively reasonable.

There are frequently examples in which simplicity is of little help. Consider the testimony of two contrary witnesses of an otherwise unknown event. Obviously, both cannot be correct. What happens though if you only have one of those witnesses? You need more than a bald story.

Do you think what strikes you as what is intended is necessarily reality?

You don't know anything about what came before the text that you are commenting on, so it is hard for you to make judgments on a reality behind the text, when you don't know how many literary or other transmission steps away from any possible history the narrative lies.

TedM

Many of the opinions of the experts are based on 'evidence' taken from a large body of knowledge of multiple disciplines, but no doubt influenced by beliefs/world views..It's rare for anyone to avoid that bias.


You have pointed out the situation where there are problems. An example might be the stark differences in the birth accounts between Luke and Matthew. Yet, even those accounts share things in common, and in common with Mark and John. So..there exists corroboration unlike what is found by sole authors of books like Superman and Sherlock Holmes mysteries. The two are in completely different leagues unworthy IMO of any serious comparison.



Of course not. But at any given moment my mind and intuition is all I've got. I don't leave it there though--that's why I am seeking out more info about the arguments against Acts. What I've seen so far is rather weak.




Well, I know a little bit. And I am aware of some of the arguments for authenticity. The strongest for me is that the evidence points to the writer of Acts not having Paul's epistles to use as a guide--ie he never mentions that there were any such letters, and there are a number of complications (ie seeming contradictions) with the letter contents. Despite some claims to the contrary, I find that conclusion to be strong. YET there is a huge amount of corroboration between them. This suggests to me that they were written independently of each other and the explanation for corroborating details is most likely to be that of shared historical truth. Shared belief/tradition isn't reasonable because of the level of detail. The 'fictional romance novel' perspective also fails to address this argument adequately. Is there a good counter-argument to the independence of Acts and Paul's epistles? I haven't seen one.

For anyone reading, I'll keep the following request:

spin

You've missed the target of my comment. Consider the situation where you only have one of those two accounts I mentioned above. It's not the fact that they are in conflict so much as that you cannot rely on the coherence of a single source in an appeal to simplicity. It would instead be reliance on ignorance. You can only come to grips with the historicity of a text through outside corroboration of its core narrative. Without that corroboration all you have is a story.

Yet that mind and that intuition is insufficient to determine historicity.

There is no historical analysis here. Merely assertions, tendentiousness as to what you find to be strong or what is most likely and the limits of your knowledge. And who between us has talked about a "fictional romance novel"? No-one knows the relationship between the latter part of Acts and the Pauline corpus other than that the relationship is not simple and straightforward. History involves connections to the real world. Manipulating the contents of texts will almost certainly have nothing to do with history. History can deal with hooking textually based narratives into the past through connections found in epigraphy. We know more about the historicity of Sumerian rulers of a few millennia prior to the gospel era than we do of figures in the core of the gospels, because of epigraphy. We know more about the historicity of poorly preserved texts such as Tacitus and Suetonius than we do about the gospels because of the vast amounts of epigraphy in the form of inscriptions and coins.

Once such works are generally shown to contain historical information, they in turn can be used to text the historical content of other works and so a body of historical knowledge is built up. Without the epigraphy to kickstart a qualitative analysis of works such as Tacitus, their value is left uncertain.

You can twiddle the contents of a text as much as you like, but you will get no closer to corroborating any historical content that text may hold.

aa5874

There is very little corroboration of the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

1. The writing of ALL the Pauline letters themselves are without corroboration in Acts.

2. The fundamental chronology of the Pauline travels to and from Jerusalem is not corroborated in Acts.

3. The Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus to the Pauline writer is not corroborated in Acts.

4. The claim by the Pauline writer that the resurrected Jesus was seen by over 500 persons is not corroborated in Acts.

5. The claim by the Pauline writer that he personally saw the resurrected Jesus is not corroborated in Acts---Paul was blinded when he heard a voice.

6. The claim by the Pauline writer that he only met Peter and the Lord's brother is not corroborated in Acts.

7. The claim by the Pauline writer that he did not consult with flesh and blood is not corroborated in Acts.

Astonishingly, Acts of the Apostles does not or hardly supports the Pauline letters.

TedM

Yes, agree..sorry I didn't address that..seemed rather obvious.


What is 'core'? Is the claim of his mother having the name Mary not a 'core' component? There is multiple corroboration of that. So, while we may say there is no reason to conclude that Herod really did kill the babies, do we throw out the part that calls his mother's name Mary too, or do we keep that part because of the multiple corroboration by other writers? Scholars give weight to that. Makes sense to me that they do.



Do you want historical analysis to the exclusion of logical inferences?


Neither, but it is one of the claims by skeptics.

Logical inferences can be made from the fact that the relationship if 'not simple and straightforward'. Can you think of good reasons why 'Luke' would have journeys that don't seem to match the epistles if he had them right in front of him to work with?


I hear you, but if the most logical answer to an analysis of 2 works is that they were independent of each other, and yet they contain a lot of corroborating information, what is one to do with that? Ignore it?

What do YOU do with it Spin? Do you ignore it?

TedM

I believe, aa, if you would research the areas of corroboration instead of the areas you think are lacking corroboration you might see that you are wrong in this assertion. The FACT is that there is a HUGE amount of corroboration between the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

It's not subject to debate. It's FACT.

aa5874

What facts are you talking about?

I have actually shown the facts.

There is very little or no corroboration of the Pauline letters in Acts.

In fact, in the Pauline letters it appears that Paul was accused of lying.