Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 04-07-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Where do I speak about "contemporary Lukan scholars", Jeffrey ? I said "the orthodox view of Luke", did I not ?

So whom do you count as "orthodox" and who among the orthodox now hold this view.

Why is it important whom I consider orthodox ? Why are you flying off on this insane tangent ? The statement in my post concerned Wojcik's view of exegetical literalism as it relates to Luke. You wanted a reference to it. I gave you a reference to it. We are done !

Quote:

I think I do if the views of Fitzmyer, Brown, Johnson, Nerye, Wikenhauser, Harrington, M. Mitchel, H. J. Klauck, and Aune -- contemporary Catholics all -- count for anything and if DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU is taken to be representative of how Catholics are to approach scripture.

That's very nice, Jeffrey, but the issue here is this: would any of these exegets say the story of Jesus walking with his disciples to Emmaus was not an actual historical event that took place the third day after the crucifixion ?

Quote:

[Ratzinger] absolutely believes that everything Luke says is historical. You are not going to dispute that, are you ?

Could we have a quote that show this, please.

Jeffrey

Sure:

Quote:

[For] it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but it is based on history, history that took place here on this earth. The factum historicum is not an interchangeable symbolic cipher for biblical faith, but the foundation on which it stands: Et incarnartus est - when we say these words , we acknowledge God's actual entry into real history.
Joseph Ratzinger : Jesus of Nazareth, p. xv

It can't get any more absolute than that, can it ?

Jiri

judge · 04-07-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

So..if they were common can you give an example from ancient literature. That is what I have ben asking since the OP.

I just supplied you with a citation from a piece that not only parodies such introductions but says that there are quite a few, so many in fact that he expects his audience to readily recognize his parody. Please address that.

You supplied me with a piece from Lucian which you claim parodies intoductions such as that of Luke.
However what you have not done is provide one of these introductions to demonstrate this. Perhaps these introductions are not so much like luke at all?
How can we tell unless we see one?

(snip)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

In any case, judge, I have already show that it is easy to see the writer of Luke is producing fiction, for we have his sources, and further, he knows he is producing fiction, though he claims he is writing history. Speaking of avoidance, perhaps you or Jeff G. could address that tension between the writer of Luke claiming "certainty" while knowingly altering events, etc.

Vorkosigan

Well we actually don't know these things with any...er...um...certainty

. Yes we have well developed theories but none of them are set in stone. We do the best we can with at times, what little we have to go on.
There could be many possibilities. Maybe Mark was wrong and Luke re-checked things more thouroughly? If this is what you are getting at I'm not sure.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-07-2008, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So whom do you count as "orthodox" and who among the orthodox now hold this view.

Why is it important whom I consider orthodox?

Because you were the one who made the claim.

Quote:

That's very nice, Jeffrey, but the issue here is this: would any of these exegets say the story of Jesus walking with his disciples to Emmaus was not an actual historical event that took place the third day after the crucifixion ?

To quote you, why don't you read them to see.

Quote:

Sure:

Quote:

[For] it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but it is based on history, history that took place here on this earth. The factum historicum is not an interchangeable symbolic cipher for biblical faith, but the foundation on which it stands: Et incarnartus est - when we say these words , we acknowledge God's actual entry into real history.
Joseph Ratzinger : Jesus of Nazareth, p. xv

Umm, I see nothing in this which shows that R is speaking about Luke, let alone that he claims that everything in Luke is historical or that Luke was a "straightforward chronicler of historical events".

It can't get any more absolute than that, can it ?

About what? About Luke?

Jeffrey

judge · 04-07-2008, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Yes he does, (Wars 6.5,3) (or at least he records it was reported), and tacitus records the same event (Histories, Book 5, v. 13), , however for the most part they record history as we do today.

It does not seem to be that "A few facts aided the credibility of fiction back then, rather than fiction throwing facts into question as it would today", but rather for the most part they just recorded the facts as one would today and on the odd occaision report that men claimed to see something quite odd.

I think you are too uncritical of Tacitus and Suetonius.

Thanks,

point taken.

Solo · 04-08-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:
[For] it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but it is based on history, history that took place here on this earth. The factum historicum is not an interchangeable symbolic cipher for biblical faith, but the foundation on which it stands: Et incarnartus est - when we say these words , we acknowledge God's actual entry into real history.
Joseph Ratzinger : Jesus of Nazareth, p. xv

Umm, I see nothing in this which shows that R is speaking about Luke, let alone that he claims that everything in Luke is historical or that Luke was a "straightforward chronicler of historical events".

He speaks also about Luke. Don't play headgames, Jeffrey, you know the Catholic doctrine of scriptural unity. God entered into history (i.e. into historical fact) and all the gospels reported on it. Luke belongs to the sacred scripture. There is no space in the Catholic dogma for compromises on this issue. Even if Divino Afflante Spiritu admitted the historical-critical method, it would be only within the confession. This is the same thing as saying, "we'll admit historical facts as long as the facts conform to the doctrine".

This approach is wrong-headed. The confession of faith should be independent of historical facts because it has nothing to do with historical facts; it has to do with who we are. You do not ask people to believe in Jesus Christ because you can guarantee them "facticity" of the resurrection. Because you can't ! You are either deluded or Dostoyevski's Grand Inquisitor.

Jiri

Alf · 04-09-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

... except that in the modern world historians don't throw in the occasional odd absurdities. So I don't see how it can be claimed they were like modern historians.

I think what he means is that they wrote in a very dry, pedantic style (first this happened, then this happened, then this happened etc.). That is very different from the gospels, which are written in the form of narratives, with characters interacting with one another, dialogue, rising action, falling action, climaxes, denouments, symbolism etc.

And the author knowing what certain characters did when they were alone or what they thought or dreamt etc...

Yep - sounds more like fiction than history to me.

Alf

judge · 04-09-2008, 02:18 PM

[QUOTE=Alf;5261793]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

And the author knowing what certain characters did when they were alone or what they thought or dreamt etc...

Yep - sounds more like fiction than history to me.

Alf

It doesn't sound like either, in the strict sense. It seems that these were merely the stories that people reported, that were known. If these stories were being passed on orally, as actual events, then it wouldn't really surprise us if they had elements like this.

judge · 04-09-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I was merely arguing that Josephus and others did write history much like we do today, albeit with the occaisional odd event reported.

... except that in the modern world historians don't throw in the occasional odd absurdities. So I don't see how it can be claimed they were like modern historians.

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO (or claim to)? Should that be left out of his biography?

spamandham · 04-09-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Didn't Jimmy Carter see a UFO (or claim to)? Should that be left out of his biography?

Jimmy Carter is not a modern historian.

Alf · 04-10-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It doesn't sound like either, in the strict sense. It seems that these were merely the stories that people reported, that were known. If these stories were being passed on orally, as actual events, then it wouldn't really surprise us if they had elements like this.

Sorry but you are wrong there. It really sounds like a novel or a story that someone just made up. Those stories are full of information that the author cannot possibly know if it was a real story describing a true event.

If I told you about this guy Joe and just before he died he dreamt a special dream and I give you details of that dream and tells you that unfortunately he never managed to tell anyone about that dream before he died. Then you would know I was just making it up - why is that? Now, read the bible stories and you will likewise see that they are just making shit up for EXACTLY THE SAME REASON.

Alf

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.