Grog

Carrier used far too much space on minor points, imo.

Grog

There is also this, from the Life of Josephus.

Steven Carr

All has been revealed. The secret is so simple that I am ashamed that I did not spot it before. The stupidity of me.....

Bart now says on his blog http://ehrmanblog.org/peter-as-literate/ the following -.' But someone probably did “make up” the account.'

It is genuine when trying to sell books saying Jesus existed, and made up when trying to sell books saying lot of the NT was forged.

It is quite simple really. But I was too dumb to see it. Shows you I am not a scholar.

andrewcriddle

Chariton, Chaereas and Callirhoe may be dependent on Plutarch's Life of Theseus. If so a date of c 100 CE seems about right. (It can't be much later, the other 2nd century CE novels are probably influenced by it. )

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman says in his book that Luke made up those speeches in Acts. He cites them because they indicate an early belief that Jesus only became "son of God" after his death and exaltation. This is a Christology counter to Luke's own, so Ehrman calls it an exemplar of an authentic pre-Lukan belief, but does not say they are actually authentic speeches. merely representative speeches.

Steven Carr

Well, that is all over the place.

If Luke made up those speeches in Acts, how does Ehrman know that regarding Jesus as the 'Author of Life' was representative of what the very earliest Christians believed?

How did Jesus get from 'crucified criminal' to 'the Author of Life'?

'Author of Life' is quite a grandiose title for somebody that Ehrman swears blind nobody at that time thought of as divine, who only became Son of God after his death and exaltation and who was never thought of as having preexisted (until later).

How did Ehrman think on page 113 that his proof text that Jesus was 'the Author of Life' refuted any claim that Jesus was said in the speeches of Acts to be divine?





Ehrman says these speeches contain 'very ancient material , much earlier than the Gospels'.



Is this code for 'Luke made them up'?


Ehrman says these speeches are based '....not on Luke's fertile imagination, but on oral traditions.'


Is this code for 'Luke made them up'?


Ehrman says these speeches contain 'oral traditions from much earlier times that are now found in their written form in Acts'?


Is this code for 'Luke made them up'?

Diogenes the Cynic

He says they are prior to Luke because they are of a lower Christology than Luke and they are dissimilar to Luke. The argument is that Luke would not invent a de novo Christology which is both lower and dissimilar to his own for the purposes of these speeches, so he must have inherited these traditions in some form.

aa5874

But, who is arguing that gLuke is an early Jesus story???

We know that events in gLuke were made up no matter how early or late gLuke was written.

1. The conception of Jesus was made up in gLuke or its sources.

2. The Angelic heavenly announcement of Jesus to the Shepherds were made up in gLuke or its sources. .

3. The baptism story with the Holy Ghost Dove and the voice from heaven was made up in gLuke or its sources. .

4. The MIRACLES of Jesus were made up in gLuke or its sources.

5. The Transfiguration was made up in gLuke or its sources.

6. The Trial of Jesus in gLuke is NOT plausible.

7. The resurrection was made up in gLuke or its sources.

8. The Post resurrection visit was made up in gLuke or its sources.

9. The eating of Food by the resurrected Jesus was made up in gLuke or its sources.

10. The ascension of Jesus was made up in gLuke or its sources.


The Jesus story in gLuke was made up regardless of the sources.

hjalti

Right. The lines of evidence Ehrman offers for the earliest Christology being adoptionism are, if I recall correctly:

1. The speeches in Acts.
2. The supposedly pre-Pauline material in Rom 1:3-4

My problem with this is that even though you have earlier material in Acts, Act is so late (let's say ~115 CE) that it's hard to go from there all the way back to the beginning without some good reasons. And a decent case can be made for #2 being part of a non-Pauline interpolation.

And meanwhile Ehrman says that in the famous (pre-Pauline?) hymn in Philippians we have Jesus already pre-existing "in the form of god" as some sort of an angel. That sounds like high Christology to me.

Steven Carr

In other words , Luke 'made them up', to quote you...

And Ehrman proves they are 'lower' than Luke's Christology by prooftexting a passage which says Jesus was the 'Author of Life'.

How does calling Jesus 'the Author of Life' promote a 'low' Christology?

Most people when they proof-text something follow the traditional method of quoting a passage that supports their predetermined conclusions. Not Bart....

Strange that in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman says the speeches in Acts reflects perfectly Luke's view of Jesus as the first Christian martyr.

Here is Bart patiently explaining how Luke's fingerprints are all over Acts - promoting Luke's view of Jesus as a 'righteous martyr'.

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/ehrman-pres.html

'So too Luke has changed the confession of the centurion. No longer does it indicate a profession of faith in the Son of God who has died ("Truly this man was the Son of God," Mark 15:39); now it coincides with Luke's own understanding of Jesus' death, for here the centurion proclaims, "Truly this man was innocent" (Luke 23:47). The death of Jesus in Luke-Acts is not a death that effects an atoning sacrifice. It is the death of a righteous martyr who has suffered from miscarried justice, whose death is vindicated by God at the resurrection. Let me emphasize: Luke was able to shift the focus away from the atoning significance of Jesus' death only by modifying the one account of that death which we are certain he had received. '

....'Although most readers probably haven't noticed, never in his two volumes does Luke say that Jesus died "for your sins" or "for you." Significantly when he summarizes the features of the "Christ event" in the speeches of Acts, with remarkable consistency he portrays the death of Jesus not as an atoning sacrifice, but as a miscarriage of justice that God reversed by vindicating Jesus at the resurrection (e.g., Acts 2, 3, and 4).'

Gosh, Acts 2 , 3 and 4 reflect LUKE's view of Jesus, not Peter's or an early traditions view.

Acts 2 3 and 4 reflect LUKE's view with 'remarkable consistency'.

How surprising, because Ehrman assures us that the speeches in Acts 2,3 and 4 reflect a Jesus who is at odds with the Jesus of Luke.


So how can Ehrman say these speeches are early and reflect an early belief that Jesus was an ordinary human being and only became divine by the time of Gospels like Luke?

Especially, as Ehrman knows for a fact that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 8:6?

And especially as Ehrman says the speeches in Acts 2,3 and are 'remarkably consistent' in their promotion of Luke's view of who Jesus had been?

Oh I forgot, Different books for different folks....