Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 05-03-2013, 02:54 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Toto.
I had no idea you had such opinions.
Nothing I said was intended to deny your right to your views.
You are aware, however, that there are people who argue that the concluding verses in Luke 24 contradict and thus disprove other gospel versions of the Resurrection?
Or perhaps you were just reminding me that the ordinary canons of historiography preclude acknowledging supernatural events? Yes, thus by definition the Resurrection was not a historical event, rendering my Post #59 irrelevant.

Toto · 05-03-2013, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Thanks for the clarification, Toto.
I had no idea you had such opinions.

You had no idea that someone on a Board devoted to the promotion of atheism would think that the Resurrection could have been a historical event? Perhaps you are confused about where you are.

Quote:

Nothing I said was intended to deny your right to your views.
You are aware, however, that there are people who argue that the concluding verses in Luke 24 contradict and thus disprove other gospel versions of the Resurrection?

I know that there are people who spend a lot of time on Biblical contradictions.

Quote:

Or perhaps you were just reminding me that the ordinary canons of historiography preclude acknowledging supernatural events? Yes, thus by definition the Resurrection was not a historical event, rendering my Post #59 irrelevant.

The ordinary canons of historiography do not absolutely preclude supernatural events, but it would take a lot more evidence to convince us that a few ancient documents that met the minimal standard of not contradicting each other too much.

Just like it would take a lot more evidence to convince us that the gospels contained eyewitness testimony than what you have laid out.

Clivedurdle · 05-03-2013, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Literary mimesis; Odyssey, Illiad, Aeneid and Acts of the Apostles

lickerpoet

Any student of the Greek language during Biblical times was familiar with Homer's Odyssey and Illiad. It was the "D*ck and Jane" book of those times. (sorry Homer)

The Greek language was taught by reading Homer; so any Greek writer in the New Testament time frame would have a strong foundation in Homer.
Virgil rewrote/continued the story of Aeneas, in Latin, in the Aeneid.
Both Virgil and Homer were writing nationalistic founding myths.

The author of Luke-Act draws and reshapes Hellenistic prototypes ranging from the trial of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (Plato's Apology), through Peter's escape from the prison of Herod (Euripides's Bacchae), to the good people of Lycaonia mistaking Barnabas and Paul for Zeus and Hermes (Ovid's Metamorphoses).

The Odyssey and Illiad were "super shapers" of Hellinistic thought. The author of Luke-Acts would not have been immune to this influence. Before you next read the Acts of the Apostles, brush up on your Homer and Virgil. You might also read Marianne Bonz's effort to show that Luke-Acts was dependent on Virgil's Aeneid (The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000]).

If Luke-Acts was drawn from previous epics; if you can allow this doubt of origin of this portion of the New Testament, then perhaps you can look at all Biblical scripture without the burden of faith.

If you read and re-read, study and re-study, only your same texts, all that you will discover are your same truths.

http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-404643.htm

andrewcriddle · 05-04-2013, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Literary mimesis; Odyssey, Illiad, Aeneid and Acts of the Apostles

lickerpoet

Any student of the Greek language during Biblical times was familiar with Homer's Odyssey and Illiad. It was the "D*ck and Jane" book of those times. (sorry Homer)

The Greek language was taught by reading Homer; so any Greek writer in the New Testament time frame would have a strong foundation in Homer.
Virgil rewrote/continued the story of Aeneas, in Latin, in the Aeneid.
Both Virgil and Homer were writing nationalistic founding myths.

The author of Luke-Act draws and reshapes Hellenistic prototypes ranging from the trial of Peter and John before the Sanhedrin (Plato's Apology), through Peter's escape from the prison of Herod (Euripides's Bacchae), to the good people of Lycaonia mistaking Barnabas and Paul for Zeus and Hermes (Ovid's Metamorphoses).
.................................................. .......

http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-404643.htm

None of these putative examples, (whether valid or not), are taken from Homer or Virgil.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-04-2013, 12:47 AM

But the argument is that Homer and Virgil are like the air you breathe, or water you drink. He then continues with specifics that are also influenced by Homer!

Why did you cut the critical bit of the argument?

Quote:

The Odyssey and Illiad were "super shapers" of Hellinistic thought. The author of Luke-Acts would not have been immune to this influence. Before you next read the Acts of the Apostles, brush up on your Homer and Virgil. You might also read Marianne Bonz's effort to show that Luke-Acts was dependent on Virgil's Aeneid (The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000]).

andrewcriddle · 05-04-2013, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But the argument is that Homer and Virgil are like the air you breathe, or water you drink. He then continues with specifics that are also influenced by Homer!

Why did you cut the critical bit of the argument?

Quote:

The Odyssey and Illiad were "super shapers" of Hellinistic thought. The author of Luke-Acts would not have been immune to this influence. Before you next read the Acts of the Apostles, brush up on your Homer and Virgil. You might also read Marianne Bonz's effort to show that Luke-Acts was dependent on Virgil's Aeneid (The Past as Legacy: Luke-Acts and Ancient Epic [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000]).

If the claim is that every Greek writer of that period would have been influenced in some way to at least some extent by Homer then this is probably true but not very interesting.

If the claim is that Acts was strongly influenced by Homer in some specific way then it would be helpful to give some examples.

(IIUC Bonz's argument is that Luke-Acts is influenced by ancient epic as a genre particularly in its Virgilian form. I don't think she is arguing that specific episodes in Acts are based on specific episoded in Virgil. See The Gospel according to Homer and Virgil )

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 05-04-2013, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Scholarly Opposition
Karl Olav Sandnes, the most vocal of MacDonald's critics, objects that MacDonald's "reading of both Mark's Gospel and Acts assumes a readership with an in-depth as well as extensive familiarity with the Homeric epics. This implies that the curriculum of encyclical studies had penetrated into the Christian movement to an extent which the present study has not confirmed. Ancient education was designed for the upper strata of the population."[3] Thus, Sandnes argues deductively: Since such familiarity with Homer was limited to the upper stratum of society, and since the authors of Mark and Luke-Acts (nor their audiences) are not believed to belong to this stratum, then the authors of Mark and Luke-Acts simply could not have imitated Homer in the way MacDonald suggests.

MacDonald's response has been threefold. First, a more sure decision about the education of the authors of Mark and Luke-Acts would result from an inductive approach to the question, rather than Sandnes' deductive approach. Second, access to Homer was not restricted to the cultural elite. According to a first century ce writer, "From the earliest age, children beginning their studies are nursed on Homer's teaching. One might say that while we were still in swathing bands we sucked from his epics as from fresh milk. He assists the beginner and later the adult in his prime. In no stage of life, from boyhood to old age, do we ever cease to drink from him."[4] Finally, MacDonald notes that Sandnes does not offer any other explanation for the parallels between the New Testament writings and Homer.[5]

Margaret M. Mitchell has also published a critical response to MacDonald's work on Homeric imitation within the New Testament.[6] MacDonald addresses Mitchell's critiques, as well as earlier criticism from Sandnes,[7] in an article titled, "My Turn: A Critique of Critics of 'Mimesis Criticism.'"[8]
[edit]Implications for Historicity of Jesus

MacDonald's arguments for the mimetic nature of the Gospel narratives have influenced how some view the question of the historicity of Jesus. Some have taken the extremist position that all of the Gospel narratives are exclusively the byproduct of the Evangelists' literary imagination, influenced by Homer and the Septuagintal narratives, and not historical memory. Perhaps this is due to a misunderstanding of MacDonald's claim that the Gospel of Mark was an "intentional fiction." MacDonald believes that such a stance is taking matters too far, although he himself holds to a minimalist view of the Historical Jesus.[9] This debate is usually generated in non-academic circles, such as YouTube video blogs.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimesis_Criticism

aa5874 · 05-04-2013, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If the claim is that every Greek writer of that period would have been influenced in some way to at least some extent by Homer then this is probably true but not very interesting.

If the claim is that Acts was strongly influenced by Homer in some specific way then it would be helpful to give some examples.

(IIUC Bonz's argument is that Luke-Acts is influenced by ancient epic as a genre particularly in its Virgilian form. I don't think she is arguing that specific episodes in Acts are based on specific episoded in Virgil. See The Gospel according to Homer and Virgil )

Andrew Criddle

Acts of Apostles specifically claimed the resurrected Jesus ascended in a cloud and that the promised Holy Ghost did come down from heaven on the day of Pentecost.

Surely, Acts of the Apostles is a compilation of mythological events and the author must have been influenced by the existing belief in Jewish, Greek and Roman Myths.

It is of extreme interest to me that Acts of the Apostles is compatible with the Myth Fables of Homer.

The mere fact that Acts of the Apostles is part of the Jesus cult Canon is proof that Mythology was accepted as history by the Jesus cult itself.

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

05-03-2013, 02:54 PM	#61
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Thanks for the clarification, Toto. I had no idea you had such opinions. Nothing I said was intended to deny your right to your views. You are aware, however, that there are people who argue that the concluding verses in Luke 24 contradict and thus disprove other gospel versions of the Resurrection? Or perhaps you were just reminding me that the ordinary canons of historiography preclude acknowledging supernatural events? Yes, thus by definition the Resurrection was not a historical event, rendering my Post #59 irrelevant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.