Old Man

I am afraid I see no reason to comment further. Its like a flat earther coming up with a profound argument as to why the earth is flat, based on the an argument sourced in the unified field theory.

Some arguments are not just not worth the effort in contradiction.

Peter Kirby

All you've done in this thread is to heap abuse on those who disagree with you. If you don't want to make an effort at dialogue, then you needn't post.

best,
Peter Kirby

Geoff Hudson

Why does Crossan always talk with his mouth full?

He is only referring to a single fabricated event, not to a complete document such as Matthew which contains many events that have at least a "ring of truth" about them.




Why can't Acts be regarded as garbled history? Eisenman does so. If the garbling was by editors with a Greek background then one might expect some Greek influences. As for Joshua's funeral speech, there is no reason for a Jew not to use it as a model to get his unique points over – and in Acts they are unique.



You are up against garbling in Acts AND in Josephus - possibly by the same editors.

I regard all these stories as garbled versions of real events. For example, there was a Stephen, in Josephus' Ant. and War, who is said to be a “servant” of "Caesar". He was transporting some "furniture" when he was attacked by "robbers", possibly killed, and had his "furniture" confiscated. In Acts, a Stephen was appointed to “serve tables" (Acts 6) and a Stephen is recorded as being killed (Acts 7). So yes, you might be correct in assuming that a writer/editor of Acts incorporated facts about Stephen using information from Josephus. But there could be more to this than meets the eye.

The editor of Josephus could be lying. His Stephen could have been a “servant” of James, not Caesar. So why would a servant of James be carrying “furniture” about? In Acts 7, “Stephen” says, “the most High does not live in houses made by men.” The speech is anti-temple, and pro tabernacle (Acts 7:44). My suggestion is that the “furniture” in question was that of a portable Tabernacle, and that these early believers had their own tent of meeting probably made of purple. This was used for the worship of the Spirit. It was from this tent that the daily distributions would have been made, and it could have been a focus of worship, in opposition to the temple worship with its sacrifices.

In War, "robbers" are supposed to have attacked Stephen. Two interesting questions arise. Who were the real attackers? Why were they attacking him? It surely wasn't simply to get the "furniture". If the believers did have a tabernacle as a focus of worship, then the natural opponents would have been the high priests supported by their temple guard. I would suggest that the “ “robbers” were the temple guard led by their captain (probably Celer called “the tribune” – War 2.12.7), acting under the orders of Annas the high priest. It wasn’t “Cumanus the Roman procurator who sent men to go round about to the neighbouring villages, and bring their inhabitants to him bound”, but Annas who sent his temple guard. (War 2.12.2). They were were looking for the tabernacle itself so that they could destroy it, as they had a previous one. A “certain soldier” (proof that the editor is covering-up) finds the sacred “book of the law”, tears it to pieces, and throws it into the fire. It is possible to tear material as well as parchment. One wouldn’t have expected a Jew to tear and burn their bible, but a temple guard may well have torn and burnt the tabernacle of a rival heretical sect.

I do not believe for one minute that animal sacrifices were made at this tabernacle. But incense could have been burnt. The “gifts” brought for the worship of [Jesus] {the Spirit} were gold, frankincense and [myrrh] {purple?}.

There are references to a “curtain” being “torn” (Mt.27:51, Lk.23:45). It is my view that these are echoes of the destruction of an earlier tabernacle which was made with curtains dyed purple.

Incidentally, I think that much of War 2.12 is garbled, particularly with reference to “Samaritans”.

Geoff

Vorkosigan

That's too bad. I would have been eager to here arguments that would reduce the historicity of Acts to the level of debates about Flat Earth, and thus explain an issue that has confounded thousands of thinking men and women for the past two centuries.

Vorkosigan