SLD

What Jewish scribes did is not the issue. Paul and Luke were Greek and not scribes. Nor were Paul and Luke writing to Jewish scribes, they wrote to a variety of early Christian communities; most of whom would not have been scribes, but would in fact have been made up of illiterate peasants (no offense to them, that constituted the vast majority of people back then 90-95% by some estimates, but in the cities 75 - 80%). Such people did get their entertainment by going to plays such as Euripides and otherwise listening to oral histories from storytellers. But because they hadn't necessarily learned to read and write, doesn't mean they were necessarily stupid or easily fooled by charlatans with silly stories. And I think that writers, including religious writers of that period, would have known that. The alternative is that the Authors of Acts were fundamentally stupid if they thought they could fool their audience by weaving into their story themes from Euripides play and other mystery cult themes.

That's not to say that the entire story is made up - a piece of fiction. I think it would be more accurate to say that they embellished the truth to make the story better for the audience to which it would be read (and that's what I meant by writing for the illiterate masses).

That does have implications far beyond Acts and a few portions of the Gospels though - it is still more evidence that Christianity is nothing more than another mystery cult from that time period - one that happened to win the race to convert the Roman Empire. It is also one more nail in the coffin of Christianity. Either God is a copycat of Ancient greek playwrights or the Bible is just another book of mythology. (I vote the latter).

Respectfully,

SLD

SLD

But again, Helen, you can't just read the New Testament texts. You have to understand the cultural milieu in which it was written. It wasn't written for people who have access to CNN, who can read and write with ease, who live in a scientific world that easily dismisses claims of ghosts and demons and what not; but whom at the same time aren't exposed daily to mystery cult and other cultic rites nor go to plays written by ancient greek playwrights. The ancients did not think like you. Thus while it may seem obvious to you that the authors of the Gospels and Acts meant for their story to be taken as the literal truth, it wouldn't necessarily to a First Century Greek living in Corinth; or a Roman living in the crowded slums of Rome.

It's interesting that you chose that passage, Helen.

The King James Version translation is different and creates a whole different meaning to the passage:
I confess I do not know Ancient Greek so I'm not sure which way Luke meant it to be; but the KJV clearly does not state that Luke personally investigated the events in the Gospels, only that he had a "perfect understanding of all things" -- a statement that could mean that he understood things philosophically, i.e. how God would work his magic in this world.

SLD

Radcliffe Emerson

I think Paul deliberately lied.
And, as so far his writings are the earliest, I honestly think he invented Christianity. There was no Jesus, or any of it, Paul started the religion on his own.
I think he found out he could bilk an easy living out of people wanting to follow something that would give them hope, sponging off them and not having to work, similar to tv avangelists today. So he learned what he could about the early faith and paved his way to non-working the rest of his life.

I know this is a harsh view, but it is what I believe happened.

HelenM

Ok but see - that's exactly what Luke is not doing. He's simply saying "I've researched this carefully." Just like anyone today would say if writing a paper. Note what Luke does not say - he does not claim God supernaturally told him these things. He simply says "I've done my homework".

I think you're making too much of what I would say is stylistic. If I said "I'm certain the weather forecast predicted rain" would you think it necessary to scoff at that and say "How can you be certain? What if you're remembering incorrectly? What if it was another day's forecast?" and so on. It's a use of language, that's all.

I think that the appeals to authority of various theists on this board may have over-sensitized you and caused you to misconstrue Luke's claim somewhat.

When theists appeal to authority it's very different from what Luke wrote - imo.

I think he's just pointing out that his is not the first attempt to write about Jesus' life and the early church.

Yes but that's as much because it's not a politically correct thing to say as for any other reason

He will not offend his audience by 'politically incorrect' language. He will say what sounds good to other scientists.

I expect if Luke was writing to you he'd have used more cautious language so that his words connoted 'CREDIBILITY' to you...

Exactly! If you are right and this is an appeal to 'authority' then maybe Theophilus wouldn't. That Luke feels the need to make what I see is a simple statement that he's done his homework, implies that Luke's name does not carry authority per se. And anyway, why would Paul's reputation mean that Luke's word is authoritative? Are you thinking it would because they evidently ministered together?

Helen

HelenM

I know that. But what you seem to be doing is setting aside the particular information in the New Testament texts in favor of general information about the cultural milieu which might not apply to the particular culture of Jews and early Christians in which the New Testament was written.

My whole point is that what I know, comes from the texts and information about Jews and early Christians. I don't hold things to be 'obvious' a priori. Whereas you are making assumptions about a particular culture and group of people based on information about other cultures of the times that might not even apply. Shouldn't your primary source of information be the texts themselves?

It seems clear that translators since the King James was done have concluded that 'thoroughly investigated' is a better translation of the Greek verb than 'had perfect understanding of'.

I recommend against drawing conclusions that rely on the King James being correct and more recent translations all being less accurate. That seems very unlikely to me.

Helen

HelenM

This is all general speculation.

How can that be better than seeing what the texts actually say?

Helen

SLD

Helen, It is not general speculation. What are you saying that, Paul (or Luke) did not follow Euripides play in drafting part of the Acts?

If so, then explain why Jesus and Dionysis use the same phrase?

Why do both Paul and King Pentheus experience the risen God on a road on their way to persecute followers?

Why is it that in both Acts and the Bachae do we have the followers in chains in Jail when suddenly the doors are opened and the chains loosed?

This isn't speculation, Helen. You can read Euripides yourself (it's not really that interesting though). Read and compare and then tell me I'm speculating. Prove me wrong - don't just claim it.

SLD

HelenM

I did prove you wrong already that no-one cared whether the stories were true or not and yes, that was speculation.

The similarities between Acts and Euripides is a separate topic that I haven't studied to date, I admit. I don't see that similarities between them prove anything about the intent and motives of the NT authors. If you think it does well, so be it...

Helen

Radcliffe Emerson

To me, just saying "other people witnessed this who are still here" does not mean a thing.
Do any of the gospel writers name names, places, etc.
Does Paul or Luke say "Thadeus Orgonis" (made up name, whatever) was a witness, he lives in such an such city, talk to him?
No, they just say there are others, with no names, details.
It's just like the crucificion myth about saints getting out of their graves and walking around.
What saints? What were their names? What did they do after that, did they live as undead, go back to preaching, go back to their jobs and families?
Why did no other contemporary writer ever write about people getting out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem?
Because, IT NEVER HAPPENED.
The Jewish/Islamic/Christian god isn't any more valid than Roman, Greek, Norse, Japanese, Hindu, or any other mythical gods invented by humans.
Just one more god invented by humans.
And Paul was an oppurtunist who saw he could make an easy living swindling people.
Why does Paul not mention the virgin birth, or the post-resurrection stories? Because they were made up later, after Paul made up the initial religion.
Followers after him winged it, embellishing and adding to the myth as they went along, nothing more.

Ted Hoffman

It proves that the story is fabricated.

The next question is why would anyone fabricate a story?
a) For entertainment. (b) For personal gain. (c) To hide the truth and.

(a) is out. I have argued for (b) and as for (c), I dont know but its been argued that Luke-Acts were (originally) written by Pauls Lawyer (hence addressed to Theophilus) and that the books were a defense of Paul's activities and thus presented him as a servant of the Lord, who did great deeds, helped people and in no way was out to overthrow the Roman authorities.

Take your pick.

OTOH, why not read the recent threads on the Passion narratives by Toto to get rid of your ignorance about midrash, mimesis and literary borrowings - then perharps we can start to get somewhere with this discussion?


I summarize the two threads here
The Origins of the Passion Narrative
The passion narrative and Philo