FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-07-2008, 12:34 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post

Jeffrey, why don't you read the book instead ?

Wojcik, in addressing the "novelty" of his approach, says: “any proposal for a new method of reading the Christian scriptures has to engage the question why it has not been used before. Perhaps it is because the tradition of biblical scholarship has suffered from what Whitehead calls the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness”. In order to deny the validity of any Gnostic imagination or thought in any document considered to be orthodox, it was necessary to claim that scriptural texts referred to literal facts.” p.9

Jiri
Thanks for the recommendation. But I fail to see how this answers my question, let alone speaks to it. I ask again: Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Do you know or not?

And who is it among contemporary Lukan scholars who claims that "scriptural texts referred to literal facts"?

Jeffrey

Where do I speak about "contemporary Lukan scholars", Jeffrey ? I said "the orthodox view of Luke", did I not ? Does that read to you "contempoary Lukan scholars" ? What are you smoking ? Who do you think you can kid with this kind of blather ? Are you denying there have been mainstream traditionalists since Irenaeus in the church who took everything Luke says as factual reporting ? What do contemporary Catholics believe ? You don't know ? I am reading just know a second-string Catholic scholar, somebody by the name of Ratzinger, who absolutely believes that everything Luke says is historical. You are not going to dispute that, are you ?

Jiri
Solo is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 12:58 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post

Thanks for the recommendation. But I fail to see how this answers my question, let alone speaks to it. I ask again: Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Do you know or not?

And who is it among contemporary Lukan scholars who claims that "scriptural texts referred to literal facts"?

Jeffrey

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.

Quote:
What do contemporary Catholics believe ?

You don't know ? [/url]
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.

Quote:
I am reading just know a second-string Catholic scholar, somebody by the name of Ratzinger,
Yes, he is second string when it comes to biblical studies.

Quote:
who 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
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:02 PM   #43
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Jeffrey - check out this thread: Luedemann versus the Pope
Toto is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:14 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Maybe he has read Fitzmyer?

I gather you are trying to force interpretation into two boxes: absolutely literal history and everything else.
Is that what I said?

Quote:
But I think the more common debate is between those who think that there is some historical basis to Luke-Acts, and those who think that it is an invention.
There's no middle ground?

Quote:
Fitzmyer would certainly fit in the first category.
Which is so broadly defined as to be meaningless.

Quote:
And the purpose of the OP is to examine the question of whether Luke is fictional, based on the prologue.
To which, I note, you've added nothing and avoided answering the question which brings the thesis into doubt.

Quote:
Fitzmyer has just written The Interpretation of Scripture: In Defense of the Historical-Critical Method (or via: amazon.co.uk). He is also the author of Acts of the Apostles (or via: amazon.co.uk) in which he disagrees with Pervo's conclusion that Acts is a historical novel at p. 49.
You've misrepresented Pervo's conclusion as well as what Fitzmyer writes about his thesis (BTW, Richard was one of my teachers).


Quote:
He has also written A Christological Cathechism: New Testament Answers (or via: amazon.co.uk), where on p 10 he argues against a naive fundamentalism and reassures the faithful that "No serious New Testament interpreter, however, would try today to maintain that the gospel stories about Jesus are fabrications out of whole cloth." How can he assert that?
Maybe because in general it's true?

Quote:
Is it because he refuses to take such interpreters seriously?
How about because he has taken them seriously but found that the case they have made is wanting?

But why don't you ask him yourself? He may be reached at:

fitzmyja at georgetown.edu

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:16 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Jeffrey - check out this thread: Luedemann versus the Pope
To see what? That R is not a biblical scholar and that he is expressing a personal view rather than saying what all Catholics believe?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:25 PM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post

Thanks for the recommendation. But I fail to see how this answers my question, let alone speaks to it. I ask again: Who among Lukan scholars holds or propounds the view that Luke is a "straightforward chronicler of historical events"?

Do you know or not?

And who is it among contemporary Lukan scholars who claims that "scriptural texts referred to literal facts"?

Jeffrey

Where do I speak about "contemporary Lukan scholars", Jeffrey ? I said "the orthodox view of Luke", did I not ? Does that read to you "contempoary Lukan scholars" ? What are you smoking ? Who do you think you can kid with this kind of blather ? Are you denying there have been mainstream traditionalists since Irenaeus in the church who took everything Luke says as factual reporting ? What do contemporary Catholics believe ? You don't know ?
Are you really saying that what is expressed in an article on the "agony of Christ" by a writer who not only wrote wrote in 1903, but before the publication of DIVINO AFFLANTE SPIRITU, and who was not in dialogue with contemporary Catholic biblical interpreters and the wealth of Lukan scholarship that has been produced since that time, is to be taken as representative of what contemporary Catholics believe regarding Luke?

Jeffrey
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:30 PM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Maybe he has read Fitzmyer?

I gather you are trying to force interpretation into two boxes: absolutely literal history and everything else.
Is that what I said?
It was my surmise. If it was not what you meant, please say exactly what you meant.

Quote:
There's no middle ground?
No, there is no middle ground between A and ~A, by definition.

The game that people play is to claim the middle ground for themselves, and paint all whom they disagree with as extremists.

Quote:
Which is so broadly defined as to be meaningless.
No it's not.

Quote:
. . .You've misrepresented Pervo's conclusion as well as what Fitzmyer writes about his thesis (BTW, Richard was one of my teachers).
OK, I gave what might be an overly brief summary that omits nuances. Please explain what is wrong with it.

Quote:
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto
Is it because he refuses to take such interpreters seriously?
How about because he has taken them seriously but found that the case they have made is wanting?
If that were the case, surely he would have written the definitive book that would have converted everyone to Catholicism? Why hasn't that happened?

Quote:
But why don't you ask him yourself? He may be reached at:

fitzmyja at georgetown.edu

Jeffrey
Because I don't go off on wild goose chases to get answers to rhetorical questions from Christian believers.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 01:35 PM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

divino afflante spiritu

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pius XII
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order "to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work."[1] This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonder herefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness.
<gag>

Let's go to the executive summary in wikipedia

Quote:
Divino Afflante Spiritu is an encyclical letter issued by Pope Pius XII on September 30, 1943. It inaugurated the modern period of Roman Catholic Bible studies by permitting the limited use of modern methods of biblical criticism.[1] The Catholic bible scholar Raymond E. Brown described it as a 'Magna Carta for biblical progress'.[2]
How does this change what Catholics are required to believe?
Toto is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 05:12 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

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.

As for the use of the specific terms I pointed out -- claims of truthfulness -- any perusal of the psuedoPaulines will turn them up. 1 Tim offers
  • [asv]Jesus, 2:6who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times; 2:7whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not),

    [asv]1Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Saviour, and Christ Jesus our hope; 1:2unto Timothy, my true child in faith [The speaker is not Paul, but assures us he is]

2 Tim is one long construction of similar exhortations.
  • [asv]2:2And the things which thou hast heard from me among many witnesses,

...to give only one. Ancient fiction writers clearly worked in many different ways to give their tales at least a veneer of truth.

Quote:
the answer -- which both Toto and Michael seem to have been avoiding giving you --is no.
Damn! Here five minutes and already you accuse me of bad faith.

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
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 04-07-2008, 06:28 PM   #50
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post

Josephus records flying chariots as if it were factual.
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. They are both constructing narratives with a political and often personal point. Tacitus in particular consciously contructs stories that involve omens and nostalgia and exemplums of traditional Roman virtues.

These aren't "histories" in the modern sense (and of course even modern histories have an agenda), but carefully constructive narratives with a point to make. In that sense they are just like the gospels, and any categorization that puts "histories" on one side and the gospels on the other are tendentious.
Gamera is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:50 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.