Ted Hoffman

No disrespect intended Mr. Mod but I will defend SD any day.
Now, back to the topic at hand - Tercel?

Toto

Tercel might have more constructive comments if he had read Helms book, instead of just assuming it must be "radical and anti-Christian" because I recommended it, or that it must be duplicitous because it is well written.

The legendary nature of the gospels is evident when you consider how they are altered in the interests of theology or of telling a good story. You never see Luke discuss his (or her) sources, as a historian would do, or the reliability of the evidence.

And if you think the question of the census is still "unsettled", you have let Layman pull the wool over your eyes.

Let me just add a quote that came up on the Jesus Mysteries list recently:

Tercel

Sauron,
Well I'm glad someone liked his style.

I have never had any trouble at all with Kirby and greatly respect him as a competent and clear writer.

No, but when I consistently encountered problems and I found others making the same complaints it wasn't difficult to draw the conclusion.

It wasn't exactly an inability to follow SD's arguments either that was the problem: given a good dictionary, a pen and half an hour I could work out exactly what he was saying even in his worst posts. It was the fact that half the time he didn't actually have an argument when it was deciphered and when he did it had a large presence of basic fallacies and assertions of things that were straightout false in his posts.

My theory is that in any debate the evidence should be provided as clearly, concisely, accurately and fairly as possible by both sides and then reader should then make up their minds based on that. (If, as I believe, my interpretation of what the evidence implies is the most rational one in that case, an unbiased reader should come to exactly the same conclusions as me on reading the discussion. Similarly the opposition should believe the same thing and be happy to agree to the above principle.) SingleDad managed to stick a pole through that wheel by the simple expedient of dressing up outright crap (if I may be so crass, but I really think that's a fair description) so that nobody could understand it. (Since no one other than me was going to go to the bother of working it out) Of course the response from the average reader was "Wow SingleDad I didn't understand a word of what you said, but I'm sure it won the argument!". (Would you like a couple of quotes from the archives to back that up? ) Can you even begin to imagine just how annoying that is!?!
Anyway, that's quite enough about SD. That's my opinion and you can disagree with it if you want, but I'm not going to say a word more on the subject.

Tercel

Intensity,

Most of my best friends are fundamentalists and, in case you haven't noticed, I'm a liberal: But we seem to manage without me getting too carried away by my dislike of people who disagree with me...

Since when is Amos a fellow theist? I've never understood a single one of Amos' posts so I don't really have a clue what he is: Troll, insane, atheist, theist... who knows?
Have you ever come across a post by Amos that made sense?

The introduction at the beginning of Luke 1 indicates the Luke is aware that others have attempted to provide accounts (which he presumably considers inadequate given that he's writing another one), that he has carefully studied things, and that he now attempts to draw up "an orderly account" so that the readers need have no doubt of the truth of what they believe (presumably since his account will be so brilliant).
This would seem to be an indication that Luke knows of other sources and has studied them and may well intend to use some information from them.

Answers to your other questions I think were suffiently covered in the post you were replying to. I am not sure I can explain the answers more clearly than simply repeating what I wrote earlier.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Tercel

Vorkosigan,
So you keep insisting. However, it is my understanding that Luke/Acts provides more numerous and detailed references than do any comparable documents within the canon or outside it.
The interesting thing about a large amount of accurate historical detail is that it presents us with an interesting dilemma. If the author knows (via being an eyewitness / living extremely close to the time) or has gone to the trouble to do careful research in such a way as to be accurate on details, what can we conclude about the authors accuracy on the main points of the the story which the author would obviously hold more important than details? That the author had it within his ability to be accurate on such points if he so wished. Did he so wish?

I think it is. Certainly a J-Myther might feel threatened by Acts, however I can't see any reason for an average atheist to reject its main story as "largely fiction". eg I would be suprised if either CX or Peter Kirby (they're welcome to suprise me) considered any of these events in Acts to be most likely non-historical:
* The matyrdom of Stephen
* Paul's conversion
* Paul's three missionary journeys
* The church council at Jerusalem
* Paul's arrest in Jerusalem
* That Paul was taken to Rome

I am not intentionally sneaking in any all or nothing dichotomy. Indeed I would agree that some events described in the gospels are most-likely non-historical (eg the earthquake at the tomb and the general resurrection of the saints as described in Matthew), though I would doubt that any author save the writer of John records events which he is aware are non-historical (and thus would hesistate to class them as "fiction" since it would seem to me to imply knowledge on the part of the author).

~shrug~ It was my understanding that the writer of Luke was generally believed to be a companion of Paul. I suppose it depends who you count.

Yeah just them, and Marcion, and the Muratorian Fragment, and the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke, oh and in fact the unanimous testimony of all ancient writings on the subject, and the 'we' passages, and the lack of mention of the epistles.

Reliance of Tacitus or Suetonius would place a fairly late date on the writing. It appears likely that by that time the epistles of Paul would had gained such a prominent place in the Christian community that I find the author's lack of mention of them damning to such a dating.

Tercel

Toto,

I thought I did make some constructive comments. Yes if I'd read Helm's book I could comment on specifics. My view that the book is most likely radical and anti-Christian does not stem soley from your recommendation Toto (though I think it would be a reasonable assumption based on such a recommendation ), I did read carefully other comments about the book as made in this thread, and read through a number of reviews of the book from Amazon and Google.

How can it be reasonably said that the question is settled, when there are large numbers of reasonable people and scholars out there who think the census may have taken place? Settled in your mind perhaps.

I note this strange tendency of J-Mythers to quote Celsus very selectively. Funnily enough the quoted passages always seem to be once where Celsus is getting carried away with accusing the Christians of anything he can think of, strangely most J-Mythers don't seem to remember very well the passages where Celsus accepts Jesus as a real historical figure with a real birth and a real life...
Why exactly was the passage you quoted quoted on the J-Mysteries list? Let me guess: Were they by any chance trying to convince themselves that Celsus supported their position? Please pleasantly suprise me by proving me wrong here...

Toto

The J-M list has gone beyond discussing the historicity of Jesus. The quote was to illustrate the tendency of Christians to rewrite their gospels.

I happen to have a copy of Thiessen and Merz here. On page 32, we read:

Ted Hoffman

Tercel,
Thanks for your response. Its clear however that you did not address my pertinent responses and questions:
you had said earlier:
and I responded:
and in your response to Vork:
In response to my statements, you said:
Surely, you dont beleive I could be asking questions that have answers in that same same page?

Vorkosigan

So you keep insisting.

"So you keep insisting" is not an argument, Tercel. The fact is that historicizing details are found in fiction, forgery and history. Even copious amounts of them. What do want, a list of every piece of forgery and fiction ever written? The presence of historical detail is something many good writers strive for, even when writing entertaining fiction.

However, it is my understanding that Luke/Acts provides more numerous and detailed references than do any comparable documents within the canon or outside it.

There are two problems with your statement. First, Luke does not provide any historical dates or references for the activities of Jesus, only the statement at the beginning about Tiberius, and the "about thirty years old" comment. Any time Jesus does something, it is merely one act in a pile of such acts. This is also true of most of Peter and Paul's actions as well. They too use the "one day" format that indicates Luke is relating a story in a pile of stories, rather than history. For example, in Acts 3:

• 1One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer--at three in the afternoon. 2Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. [NIV]

Acts 5 (in the context of other sales in Acts 4)
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife's full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles' feet.

8Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 9Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)--Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, 10but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.

Now, when did these events take place? Luke never tells us anything about this, not even which Emperor was reigning. When did Paul's conversion, arguably the most important in history, take place?

Second, all of Luke's historicizing details can be found in history books that we have, particularly Josephus, which Luke apparently used. How much of the historical framework of Luke's work consists of new claims? It is actually a bad sign when we can confirm everything in Luke by referring to other documents that the writer could have possessed. It reeks of fiction. Luke would be far more believable as reality if it included a wealth of important detail that we did not have from any other source about historical events of the time, which we could then confirm from subsequent discovery.

For the fact is that it is common in fiction-construction for the forger to take historical information from public sources, like the famed Hitler Diary (culled from a daily account of Hitler's life) or the Chingshan diary (created by putting together announcements of the Manchu Court and other public documents). Luke's use of history could mean that it is true to history, or that it has merely borrowed it. I suspect that latter, because we can identify sources that contain all of Luke's "public" history that Luke could have had access to.

would obviously hold more important than details? That the author had it within his ability to be accurate on such points if he so wished. Did he so wish?

Clearly not, for as Eisenman has shown, the Psuedo-Clementines and Luke drawn on a similar source, but Luke has overwritten much of the account in that source about James and Paul with fictions of his own invention. So, no, Luke did not so wish. And then there is the problem of Luke's contradictions with the Pauline letters, and on certain occasions, with the gospels, even the ones he wrote. They cannot all be right.

Additionally, Luke's use of Josephus shows that he was not above including ahistorical detail if he so wished. He either carelessly or deliberately re-arranged the order of the terrorist militants that Josephus mentions.

Further, Luke's inclusion of an examination of Jesus by Herod in his gospel shows that Luke also knew of the parallel story in the Gospel of Peter where Jesus was executed by Herod. So, yes, Luke was not above rewriting sources in order to make them conform to the story he was creating.

I think it is [extremist to see Acts as largely fiction].

C'mon, Tercel, lots of scholars see Acts as largely fiction. Are they all extremists?

Certainly a J-Myther might feel threatened by Acts, however I can't see any reason for an average atheist to reject its main story as "largely fiction".

Believe it or not, not everyone's position on Acts is dictated by their positions on god. Some people who view Acts as truth or fiction might do so independent of the reasons they accept or reject gods. Like me, for example.

eg I would be suprised if either CX or Peter Kirby (they're welcome to suprise me) considered any of these events in Acts to be most likely non-historical:

* The matyrdom of Stephen
* Paul's conversion
* Paul's three missionary journeys
* The church council at Jerusalem
* Paul's arrest in Jerusalem
* That Paul was taken to Rome

The issue isn't just whether these things happened – although the martyrdom of Stephen is probably a fictional event, an overwrite containing motifs from the death of James as well as a funeral speech cribbed from Joshua's farewell speech, as is the account of Paul's conversion. There are TWO questions here. In addition to the basic reality of these events, does the account "Luke" created of them reflect the reality of these events? For example, does Luke's account of Paul's journey to Athens reflect the "real" trip that Paul took. Probably not. The Pauline letters contradict Acts on many points. Which account do you consider fictional? The Pseudo-Clementines contain an account of an attack on James by Paul. Did that event happen or not? If not, why should I consider it fictional? If you consider it fictional, can I attribute that to your feeling threatened by such a story? Or can we stop playing the stupid psychological games?

Yeah just them, and Marcion, and the Muratorian Fragment, and the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke, oh and in fact the unanimous testimony of all ancient writings on the subject, and the 'we' passages, and the lack of mention of the epistles.

One could say the same about the Gospel of Matthew being written first. The patristic fathers often got it wrong, Tercel. They were wrong here too. Their claim was simply a device to establish grounds to accept Luke as authentic.

Reliance of Tacitus or Suetonius would place a fairly late date on the writing. It appears likely that by that time the epistles of Paul would had gained such a prominent place in the Christian community that I find the author's lack of mention of them damning to such a dating.

Not necessarily. Luke may well have had with him Pauline epistles no longer in circulation, or circulating in different forms. We know that there were other Pauline epistles both "authentic" and forged – some are in the NT canon. The fact that Luke clashes with the set we have does not mean he contradicted all of them. Or maybe Luke didn't mention them precisely because they contradicted him.

Thanks at least for the serious talk.

Benjamin Franklin

Tercel wrote:

Can you substantiate this position ? i.e. Name one non-conservative scholar who think this census question is not settled.

BF

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>