spamandham

If you can think of a good argument why we would not expect mortality in the modern 3rd world to be substantially similar to mortality in the ancient world for typical people, I'm all ears.

...because conditions in Russian orphanages are not similar to typical living conditions of 2000 years ago, and the population therein is not representative of the overall population.

If I provide you a reference, will you accept modern 3rd world demographics as representative of demographics of typical people 2000 years ago, or will you continue to dismiss the validity of the approach? Something tells me it does not hinge on this data point.

show_no_mercy

Do you understand that just because something is "consistent" doesn't mean that it's history? The Iliad is consistent. Does this mean it's history? The Koran is consistent. Does this mean that Jesus didn't die on the cross? That is my point. I asked why is Luke being considered history and your response was that it is "consistent". Consistency does NOT imply historicity. Historicity is established by corroborations - I guess I should have clarified "external" in corroborations.

I can point to any numerous works of fiction that are consistent. By your logic, "Star Wars" is history just because it's consistent.

sschlichter

Your argument that

is not a strong one because Luke inadvertently sheds light on how he knows what is occurring in Herod's household. that is my ONLY point.

sschlichter

No, it doesn't hinge on this point. Even if I agreed with you, it would not make it so, even if it was so, it would not make the existence of two old men a supernatural phenomenon.

show_no_mercy

Luke asserts that he "knows" what's going on in Herod's household. My point is that I'm not taking a fiction writer's word on it without it being corroborated elsewhere.

sschlichter

That is up to you. however, the knowledge of what occurred in Herod's house was available to Luke and this is nto a good reason to come to the conclusion that it is fiction.

show_no_mercy

Me: Luke has the absurdity of Jesus meeting Herod because Jesus was so popular (though this popularity isn't documented anywhere else)
You: Luke knows what's going on in Herod's court
Me: Where is this corroborated at?
You: Luke knows what's going on in Herod's court because Luke knows what's going on in Herod's court
Me: Where is this corroborated at?
You: Luke knows what's going on in Herod's court because Luke knows what's going on in Herod's court

If this is your argument, then there really isn't any rational approach that will be effective, since you are arguing from apologetics, not evidence.

spamandham

Of course it's not supernatural. With this absurd hyperbole, and your unwillingness to engage seriously in arguments regarding demographics, I conclude your are uninterested in serious discussion, so we're done.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

True. If you want to read a bit more on some neat aspects of this, if you haven't already, Richard H. Anderson (who wrote the Theophilus paper I mentioned elsewhere) puts some special attention to Joanna.

Luke 8:3
And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna,
and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

And Joanna is there at the empty tomb as well.

Luke 24:10
It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna,
and Mary the mother of James,
and other women that were with them,
which told these things unto the apostles.

Historically, there is a Joanna who is the granddaughter of Theophilus the high priest, who by Richard's sharing would likely be this same Joanna.

Thus, if these connections are as seems likely (putting aside the various sitting-in-a-room-creating-fiction scenarios) Luke's sources within Herod's group would be quite excellent indeed.

Richard Bauckham also goes into this some, although likely not the Theophilus aspect. I have not seen his specifics and there may be some other scholars with interesting notes.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Greetings show .. towards the end of my previous tour here this was a big discussion. The historicity of Acts is incredibly precise (there is less detail history in Luke and a couple of points of contention). So much so that the anti-history position then insisted that Luke and Acts could not be considered the same author. At that point, I would say the high historicity quotient of Luke is amply demonstrated.

Shalom,
Steven Avery