Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Huon · 11-07-2009, 11:56 AM

Jeffrey, about your post #28 :
I was speaking of :
The Preface to Luke's Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies)

My mistake.

Now, about :
Acts In Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplem) :

Product Description :

The collection begins with Loveday C. A. Alexander's classic analysis of the literary codes governing the preface to Luke's two-volume work, in which she challenges the dominant consensus that the language and structure of the preface evoke the generic conventions of Greek historiography. That insight opens up the possibility of reading "Acts" alongside other ancient literary genres: the lives of the Greek philosophers, the Greek novels of Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus, Roman itineraries, Greek and Jewish apologetic, and Latin epic.

The reader will understand...

How much of a historian was Luke?

Toto · 11-07-2009, 12:14 PM

A little explanation - I suspect that this was not deliberate, but Jeffrey's original post had two amazon links. However the first one, to the 2007 work, was obscured by some strange formatting tags. The second link, to the monograph, shows up as out of print. I discovered this when I standardized the amazon links, so things should be clearer now.

Note that the book published in 2007 is a collection of essays, most of them earlier.

There is an SBL review of Alexander's book here:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5963_6341.pdf

Unfortunately, most of the material on Luke as a historian is not online as far as I know. Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight has a good brief summary of the changing view of Luke the Historian, Luke the Theologian, Luke the entertaining story teller. The short answer is that Luke was probably not trying to write history. But this is all highly contentious with evangelical scholars.

aa5874 · 11-07-2009, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[TABLE].....The short answer is that Luke was probably not trying to write history. But this is all highly contentious with evangelical scholars.

But, the answer is the complete opposite.

The author of Luke, as found in the NT, claimed he wrote his Gospel using eyewitnesses.

The author of gLuke wanted Theophilus to believe that he was writing history or the certainty of those things in which he was instructed.

aa5874 · 11-07-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

According to James Dunn in 'Beginning from Jerusalem (or via: amazon.co.uk)', Luke did not even have access to Paul's letters, which means he was pretty much out of the loop as far as Christianity was concerned, not being copied in on important documents.

That is an indication that Paul was after Luke.

One does not need to be in any loop to have heard PAUL preaching somewhere in the Roman Empire in one of his churches or in a synagogue.

And according to the Church, the author of Luke traveled and preached with Paul all over the Roman Empire.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-07-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Jeffrey, about your post #28 :
I was speaking of :
The Preface to Luke's Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies)

My mistake.

Thanks for saying so.

But even this book IS in stock and as NEW at Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk) as well as elsewhere (see here and here)

And it's available on Google Books.

So what was your point?

And where is the answer to my question about whether your too are seemingly claiming that list members, let alone list members who claim to have some expertise on a topic, should only be expected to have read books on that topic that are currently in print?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-07-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A little explanation - I suspect that this was not deliberate, but Jeffrey's original post had two amazon links. However the first one, to the 2007 work, was obscured by some strange formatting tags. The second link, to the monograph, shows up as out of print. I discovered this when I standardized the amazon links, so things should be clearer now.

Thank you for noting this. And as far as I can recall, I did not cite Amazon UK, as your editing of my post suggests you did.

In any case, in the light of this, Stephen Carr (who, curiously, seems to have edited his recent post referring to Dunn, where he did not do what he chided me for not doing, and now, in violation of his own strictures, gives even less of a bibliographical reference than he did before) owes me an apology.

Quote:

Note that the book published in 2007 is a collection of essays, most of them earlier.

There is an SBL review of Alexander's book here:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5963_6341.pdf

Unfortunately, most of the material on Luke as a historian is not online as far as I know.

So what? Are you actually saying that those here who claim expertise on Luke and ancient historiography -- and claim as well an authoritative knowledge of what Classicists and NT scholars have been saying on this matter -- should be be given breaks when their claim is shown to be wanting because they couldn't find something on line? This certainly isn't the tack you take with Peter Brown.

Quote:

Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight has a good brief summary of the changing view of Luke the Historian, Luke the Theologian, Luke the entertaining story teller.

So does his commentary on Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk) -- which, by the way IS in print and IS widely available.

Jeffrey

storytime · 11-07-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Story,

His claim to historicity is in the words I have underlined below: "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (i.e., eyewitnesses and "priests" entrusted with a sacred tradition).

Ancient historians generally preferred first hand accounts or at least primary records of events (logs, diaries, official dispatches, etc), then second hand accounts from those trusted to give an accurate account, and only fall back on legend or popular tradition if the former are not available.

The author of Luke claims, and may even sincerely believe, he has used "eyewitness" accounts and church tradition accurately preserved by "ministers of the word." Even more, he also boasts that he has understood them "perfectly." At least he is confident he has figured out what "really" happened. We can be sure he used either Mark & Q, or Matthew & oral tradition, meaning he considers these sources to fall under the categories of "eyewitness" or "tradition accurately preserved by authoritative figures."

Acts really should be examined separately from Luke. It is not a slam dunk assumption that the authors are the same (as you have indeed indicated), although the author of Acts surely thinks of himself as the spiritual successor to the author of Luke if he is not the same man. Acts, far more than Luke, shows a detailed knowledge of the events of the period he speaks about, but does not even hint at his sources. Maybe he thinks the statement about sources in Luke is enough, but again there is no mention about specific sources.

The issue has to be whether the author(s) of Luke & Acts is(are) correct in these assumptions (that his sources are eyewitnesses, or preserved accurately).

FWIW, not all ancient historians identify their specific sources.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Lk.1:1-4
(1) "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
(2) Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
(3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
(4) That thou mightest know the certainity of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

There is no historical evidence in this, as, what is being transferred is a belief of the few at that time. Luke simply passes along heresy and doesn't need anything else, no proof, to confirm the beliefs already existing. And those beliefs wherein Theophilus had been instructed. Maybe Theophilus was beginning to doubt the story?

Thank you. I agree with your assessment.

storytime · 11-07-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Lk.1:1-4 "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
(2) Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
(3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
(4) That thou mightest know the certainity of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

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.

Quote:

There is no historical evidence in this, as, what is being transferred is a belief of the few at that time. Luke simply passes along heresy and doesn't need anything else, no proof, to confirm the beliefs already existing. And those beliefs wherein Theophilus had been instructed. Maybe Theophilus was beginning to doubt the story?

Do you mean "hearsay"?

Yes, thank you.

I prefer "here-some-say" aka here-say, as in "ye have heard that it hath been said", and the critiquing of that as saying "but now I say this unto you". It seems 'here-say' was an acceptable form of opinion in interpretation until something better came along.

storytime · 11-07-2009, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Quote:

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

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

Well, I haven't read it, and I don't care to read it, or I may read it later, I don't know, as I'm not intending an indepth scholarly study, and yet, I feel knowledgeable enough to form an opinion about Luke. :Cheeky:

aa5874 · 11-07-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Did Richard Carrier make a fair assessment of Luke as a historian?

I think a more germane would be a question whether Luke saw himself as 'a historian' and consequently whether it makes sense to compare him to the likes of Suetonius.

For myself, I had doubts on that score ever since I researched the verb πληροφορέω in the first verse of the preamble. Luke could not have meant it in the sense of 'things that transpired (and were recorded)'. He speaks of things that were 'accomplished' or better 'fulfilled' or 'fully assured' (cf. Col 12:4). This of course also qualifies the ἐν ἡμῖν as 'among us (who are) believers'. In that sense he speaks of the 'eyewitnesses' (αὐτόπται) in v. 1:2; they are not witnesses to historical events but spiritual events and specifically the resurrection. Actually the term is explained by Luke's allegory of the Emmaus encounter. The two followers are accosted by Jesus but they do not recognize him because their eyes (i.e. the organ with which one is said to witness) were 'seized', i.e. they were prevented from seeing to what one may see only with faith. It is only when they invite the stranger into their house and break bread with him (for the metaphorically challenged, and/or televangelist prodded, this means, 'when they let Jesus into their hearts') they 'eyewitness' the glory of the Lord.

This does not make much sense. The author of gLuke is writing about events that supposedly took place on earth, not in heaven.

Immediately after the preamble to Theophilus, the author begins his history from the days of Herod king of Judea

Lu 1:5 -

Quote:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Judea was on earth, not in heaven, while king Herod lived.

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

11-07-2009, 11:56 AM	#31
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Jeffrey, about your post #28 : I was speaking of : The Preface to Luke's Gospel (Society for New Testament Studies) My mistake. Now, about : Acts In Its Ancient Literary Context: A Classicist Looks at the Acts of the Apostles (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplem) : Product Description : The collection begins with Loveday C. A. Alexander's classic analysis of the literary codes governing the preface to Luke's two-volume work, in which she challenges the dominant consensus that the language and structure of the preface evoke the generic conventions of Greek historiography. That insight opens up the possibility of reading "Acts" alongside other ancient literary genres: the lives of the Greek philosophers, the Greek novels of Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus, Roman itineraries, Greek and Jewish apologetic, and Latin epic. The reader will understand... How much of a historian was Luke?

11-07-2009, 12:14 PM	#32
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A little explanation - I suspect that this was not deliberate, but Jeffrey's original post had two amazon links. However the first one, to the 2007 work, was obscured by some strange formatting tags. The second link, to the monograph, shows up as out of print. I discovered this when I standardized the amazon links, so things should be clearer now. Note that the book published in 2007 is a collection of essays, most of them earlier. There is an SBL review of Alexander's book here: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5963_6341.pdf Unfortunately, most of the material on Luke as a historian is not online as far as I know. Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight has a good brief summary of the changing view of Luke the Historian, Luke the Theologian, Luke the entertaining story teller. The short answer is that Luke was probably not trying to write history. But this is all highly contentious with evangelical scholars.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.