lpetrich

Richard Carrier also notes that -- Luke is claiming that he's recording what's been handed down to him; he does not claim to be comparing various accounts to try to find the truth behind them.

Do you mean "hearsay"?

DCHindley

Ipet,

How then did he come to think he had come to a "perfect understanding of all things from the very first"?

The author of Luke's admission that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us," plus the fact that the author of Luke feels the need to create his own account so that Theophilus could "know the certainly of those things, wherein [he] hast been instructed," tells us that these pre-existing accounts did differ in specific details of order, and that the author of Luke thought he had got it figured out exactly right.

DCH

Jeffrey Gibson

The best recent discussion of this topic is the essay by Loveday C. A. Alexander entitled "The Preface to Luke and the Historians" in her Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (or via: amazon.co.uk)

(see too her The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1-4 and Acts 1.1) (or via: amazon.co.uk).

I suppose it's too much to expect that people here who are speaking "authoritatively" on this topic, but who have not read anything on it other than Carrier's essay (if even that) might stop posting, especially to tell us what the "truth of the matter" is, until they've looked at what Alexander has to say?

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon

Specifically, he seems to be addressing Holding's claims about Luke's value on discussing the Resurrection. On the question of Luke's worth as a historian, Carrier writes:

[Luke] was certainly better than average--though, like all other ancient historians, for each detail he was only as reliable as his sources...

... it is certainly true--as all commentators agree--that this is the only book in the New Testament that actually belongs to the genre of history. Luke alone claims to have written a history (a diagesis...pragmatô, "narrative of events," Luke 1:1). Luke alone claims to have done the work of a historian for the purpose of establishing an accurate account (Luke 1:2-3). Luke alone employs any of the distinct markers of the historical genre (such as fixing dates, e.g. Luke 3:1). And Luke's preface consciously mimics those of known histories, and is an important marker of that genre--a marker absent from all other Gospels...

... The first set of evidence Hemer presents does confirm that Luke possessed good skills and knowledge and thus was a very competent historian when it came to public and general facts. But it does not prove he was a critical historian, since one does not need to be critical to simply look up public records or local histories and use what they say, or to draw on your own or others' general knowledge of regional details...

... All the elements that lead us to trust an ancient historian are missing from Luke. Therefore, Luke cannot be elevated to their level.[21] He may well be an accurate historian. But that does not make him a critical historian...

So: as a historian, Luke was "certainly better than average". He "may well be an accurate historian", but "that doesn't make him a critical" one.

Amaleq13

One could certainly argue that, yes, it is too much to expect the participants in this discussion to read a book that is "out of print" with "limited availability" before proceeding.

Is it too much to expect an individual who has read this book to share what he or she considers relevant?

wavy_wonder1

Seconded.

Finis,
ELB

Jeffrey Gibson

Wow. You do not read out of print books? And you are saying that the only books that anyone here should read are only those that are in print? Do you never use a library?

And in any case, is Acts in Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles really out of print?

No, it's not. But it's irrelevant since the point that I was making is that we have posters here who have not read it -- or anything besides Carrier, if even that -- on what ancient historians did or did not do and what ancient historians thought or showed was good historiography, and yet still feel that they are knowledgeable, and can speak authoritatively, about ancient historiography and whether Luke was a competent ancient historian.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to back this claim up by giving me the names of the people you are referring to as "Christian apologists" and, more importantly, provide me with quotes from their discussions of Luke as historian that shows that they actually do what you say they do, and as frequently as you say they do it.

With thanks in advance,

Jeffrey

Steven Carr

How does that work? How does having standards as low as people around you mean you are not working to a low standard?


If ancient mathematicians, in general, thought that pi was 4,then if an ancient mathematician used pi as 4 in a formula, we should still accept his mathematics as correct,and accept the guy as a great mathematician?

After all, other historians and mathematicians were using standards long abandoned by modern historians and mathematicians. The mere fact that somebody has low standards means nothing if the people around him also had low standards? Really?

Josephus mentions his sources frequently, among them: Berosus, Jerome, Mnaseas, Nicolaus, Manetho, Moschus, Hesiod, Menander, Dios, Herodotus, Megasthenes, Philostratus, 1 Maccabees, Polybius, Strabo, Livy, etc.

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us what the nature and extent of your knowledge actually is? Would you please name the NT scholars whose works you have read?

Jeffrey