Layman

You are objecting to claims and arguments that no one is making and that I certainly have not made. I think the use of the "we-passages" should be considered in light of the plausible alternatives. After analyzing these alternatives, we can eliminate ones that are not supported--such as the claim that they "we-passages" are mere literary devices for sea-voyages.

I had hope that by breaking the discussion down to specific alterantives, we might be able to avoid your repeated, generalized, and unsupported, objections.

If you have evidence that Acts is typical of works of fiction in ancient hellenistic times, I'd be more than happy to follow you into a new thread and discuss it.

If you have evidence that Acts is a composite work, and that the "we-passages" are from someone else's journal, I would also be happy to see it.

Actually, the most plausible explanation is that the author is signalling a switch from events he has information about from other and events in which he participated. There are no stylistic or linguistic differences between the "we-passages" and the rest of Acts. How did you determine that Acts was two or more different documents "cobbled" together?

Your attitude on Acts, though, brings to mind something I read the other day by the Tubingen School's leading scholar on Acts:

Martin Hengel, Paul, Between Damascus and Antioch, at 6-7. (Professor, Univ. of Tubingen).

Toto

The book is reviewed by Mark Goodacre

Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: The Unknown Years

(And this was from a relatively favorable review.)

So you appeal to an authority who is merely voicing prejudices against modern critical scholarship, but has no reasoned argument.

Layman

I am somewhat familiar with Eisenman's theories. But who the heck is Sid Green?

From what I know of Eisenman, he prefers the Psuedo-Clementines to Acts, when reconstructing his church history.

The problem with that?

Luke was written earlier (75-85 BCE), and very plausibly by a participator in the events. His accuracy in objectively verifiable claims is good. Even if you reject Lukan authorship, the fact he wrote earlier means he wroter earlier in the development of Church history and closer to the events and sources described.

Psuedo-Clementines on the other hand, was an Ebionite who wrote in the mid-second century with no opportunity to gather first-hand information and who possessed a strong motive for recasting the events of the early church to demonstrate the supremacy of James and the apostosy of Paul.

Moreover, while much has been made of Luke's alleged motive to revise early Church history, it is more than likely that a second-century work by an Ebionite would have an even greater motive to revise Church history. Because of the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the tremendous success of the mission to the Gentiles, Jewish Christianity was in danger of dying out. As explained by Thomas A. Robinson, "The Bauer Thesis Examined, The Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church, "The structure of Jewish-Christian groups would likely reflect an attempt by the Jews to preserve as much of their threatened culture as possible."

Reconstructing early church history in order to demonstrate the supremacy of James (and by implication, Jewish Christianity) and the faults of Paul would be a strong concern of a second century Ebionite. Additionally, there is significant evidence that the Ebionites became even more conservative and altered their beliefs due to the influence of Essenes. Id.

While I am not as knowledgeable about the Pseudo-Clementines's verifiable accuracy, I have yet to read a liberal or conservative scholar that gives it much deference at all (Eisenman aside).

On the other hand, the record demonstrates that the author of Acts achieves a high degree of accuracy in objectively verifiable historical attestations (this is not an argument for inerrancy). This is demonstrated by his thorough familiarity with Roman officials and places. Acts shows a high degree of accuracy for using the correct title for the ever changing labels given to Roman officials. Similarly, he accurately uses the correct phrases when describing geographic locations.

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, at 82.

Also,

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming... Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

A.N. Sherman White, Roman Historian, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, at 189.

And,

"Luke is a consumate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks."

Dr. E.M. Blaiklock, Professor Emeritus of Classics at the Univ. of Auckland, The Acts of the Apostles, at 89.

Layman

Of course, Goodacre does not say that Hengel is "merely voicing prejudices".

But what I am really curious about is, to the extent you think they disagree, how did you determine that Goodacre was right and Hengel was wrong?

Peter Kirby

Sid Green is a retired Englishman living in Portugal. He would prefer that people focus on what is said rather than who says it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Goodacre said that Hengel did not engage the arguments from his critics, merely dismissing them as "perverse" or "pernicious". It is not clear whether Goodacre agrees with the substance of what Hengel and Schwemer say on the question of the reliability of Acts or not.

Layman

That's a nice sentiment, but when I am offered "who says it" without a willingess to adopt and defend "what is said," I am curious.

leonarde

Partial post by Toto:[edit to change to "1st person"]
Oh, but the opening of Luke indicates that he used many sources
but the prose is hardly "cobbled together": it's considered first rate. There's just about zero chance that the author "forgot" to
switch from 1st person plural to 3rd person in just those stretches of the narrative when voyages with Paul are being described. Maintaining the same person in a narrative UNLESS THERE IS A GOOD REASON not to is one of the ABCs of writing. A top-notch writer like Luke's author would have no trouble doing that.

Cheers!

Toto

Layman - on Sid Green - I linked to his article, which is all I know about him (except that he also wrote this essay on the secweb), not to adopt his views but as an example of someone who finds some historical value in Acts but does not believe that there is any historical basis to the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels.

And why do you continue to repeat the same tired old arguments about the author of gLuke? Some of his historical details have checked out, but this may very well be because he used Josephus as a source. He also clearly used Mark as a source, which would argue against him being an eyewitness or having access to eyewitness testimony, and also against such an early date for his composition of gLuke.

You can cite a few authorities who say admiring things about Luke as an historian. I continue to be unimpressed. I could list some counter authorities if I were not at work.

Layman

To what end? Who denied there were such people?

I was not discussing the Gospel of Luke. I was discussing Acts.

Unless you can show that the author of Acts is only accurate where you claim he copies Josephus, you have shown nothing by assuming he copied Josephus. Many, if not most, of the "verified" claims in Acts have no correlation in Josephus.

I never claimed that the author of Acts was an eyewitness to Jesus. As far as I know, no one has ever seriously made this claim.

And what do you mean by "such an early date" for his composition of Luke? I proposed 75-85 CE for Acts. I would suggest the same for the composing of Luke as well, but that's hardly "such an early date" for either. If Mark was written in 65-70 CE, how is a date of 75-85 CE for Acts too early?


You list whatever fits your fancy. The difference is that I can and do defend my claims, whereas you do not.