Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Nope, and its not available through any regional library that I have been able to find.

I just discovered that Marcion and the New Testament is available at the CSU Fullerton library. I am a patron there. So I don't have to make an loan request at all!

You might want to use LINK sometime to find out which university libraries in California have the books that you are looking for. Noting this in a loan request can make things go more smoothly.

<a href="http://192.33.187.252/" target="_blank">http://192.33.187.252/</a>

Or you might want to become a patron at a nearby university library. It will run you about $50 per year, which sure beats buying the books.

Layman writes: Knox's theories, however, are discussed in almost every Luke/Acts commentary worth its salt. And I've done a fair amount of reading up on the Marcion controversy.

Does Fitzmyer discuss Knox in his commentary on Acts? I have his volumes on Luke, and I am considering purchase of the Acts commentary.

Layman writes: That question is somewhat loaded. I certainly think his theory has fatal flaws, and many commentators I have read agree with that assesment. His views have certainly not gained many adherents.

Let me rephrase in a completely objective and unambiguous way. Has any person spent more than two pages discussing the theories of John Knox in Marcion and the New Testament, with a negative assessment? Given that the answer is yes, who and where?

Layman writes: When you do maybe we can have a discussion about it. Luke/Acts/Pauline studies are one of my favorite areas.

I currently am reading about the Gospel of John for my Bible study threads here on the Internet Infidels. You might want to participate; the study is non-adversarial and welcomes Christians.

Layman writes: As for authors that address Know, I have recently been reading Earle E. Ellis' Gospel of Luke. He notes that Knox's dating to 140 CE has a "low level of probability" and references these two works:

E.C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London 1948), and

The library has this one. I will check it out when I come to looking into Luke-Acts more.

Layman writes: J.C. O'Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting, rev. edn. (London 1970).

The library doesn't have this one. Maybe you could track this one down and summarize his arguments . . . if it's important to you.

Layman writes: Ben Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Acts

LINK lists the title as, The Acts of the Apostles : a socio-rhetorical commentary / Ben Witherington III.

Layman writes: Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

Sounds interesting. Thanks.

Layman writes: You probably are aware of this one, but Streeter gives a brief but good review of the arguments for dating Luke, "Not later than A.D. 85, more likely about A.D. 80." Four Gospels, at 529-562.

I have never read the whole thing. Since it is a seminal work that is now out of copyright, it is high on the list of books that I would like to put on the internet. Which remands me, if there are any persons here who are at all interested in proofing and HTML-izing books in order to place electronic versions on the web for free, please contact me. I have several books in a queue, but I would also love to hear suggestions; a scanner is not necessary if I have access to the book, but if you'd like to scan yourself, then I can supply the web hosting (and quite a few readers). There is certainly no commitment involved in contacting me with a question.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Oh, because Crossan said so? I'll need more than that. Besides, Crossan proceeds to tell us what he thinks he has learned about the historical Jesus in that book and others. In other words, he's not an annhilationist like you.

Layman

Thanks for the link.

I haven't read Fitzmyer yet. Sounds like you think he's worth it.

I think Blackmun is our best bet. Colin Hemer keeps up a running "footnote" war going with many of Knox's points in his book (which I highly recommend).

I'm still working on further responses to your Josephus TF article. I did not have a topic of interest after that one, so I might look into doing something more comprehensive with Marcion and Knox's theory.

I'll check out your John threads.

I haven't found O'Neill yet either. But I plan on checking out some additional commentaries. If I find a more thorough treatment of Knox I will certainly let you know.

Hemer died young, just after finishing a draft of The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. By all accounts he had a bright future in Luke/Acts studies.

Vorkosigan

"Annihilationist." Great word!

Crossan makes the point again and again throughout the book: without presuppositions about how the texts relate to each other, you cannot come to any conclusions. That's why he makes his methodological suppositions so clear. Unlike most other writers.

Crossan is clear: what you find depends on what assumptions you make PRIOR TO your examination of the legends about Jesus. You and most scholars may assume they are history, but that is an a priori assumption without solid foundation. Unfortunately for Christians, as real history actually shows, the likelihood of legend reflecting reality is nil. Until you have sufficient vectors from outside the legends, you cannot tell what is true and what is not.


Also, there are good historical methodological reasons to see the Jesus stories as legends and not history:

• the re-arrangement of events and people – John's moving the temple scourging, for example, shows that the gospelers knew they were not writing history
• indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god
• depiction of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs
• few or no critical views of subject
• no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did
• not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work
• the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left?
• few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.
• no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made
• the existence of multiple redactions – were Tacitus and Polybius redacted?
• the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death
• little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…."
• overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing
• A sense that events have complex causes -- for example, Tacitus' examination of Civilis' motives for sparing Cologne from being sacked.
• discussions of disgreements between or with sources -- see, for example, Tacitus' remarks on what other writers have said about whether the two armies at the Battle of Cremona should surrender, or his remarks on causation at the end of Book Two.
• a commitment to dating events and putting them in their proper order.
• knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated.

You mention Luke. He certainly referred to history from time to time, but how many of Jesus' events are dated in any way? Luke's dates almost never refer to events in Jesus' life.....Luke typically writes when referring to Jesus: "22One day Jesus ..." -- classic legend format. He shows absolutely no interest in finding out when things happened, or verifying that they did, etc, or looking at them from several angles. When it came to Jesus, he shows no historical sense whatsoever. He is simply recounting legend, and giving it a veneer of historical weight by putting it in the framework Josephus provided for him.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Yet Crossan has no problem concluding that Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact that is beyond question and he has no problem adopting fairly strongly the partial-authenticity arguments for the TF.

You do know that we are discussing the book of Acts, not the gospels and their descriptions of Jesus. Don't you?

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Yet Crossan has no problem concluding that Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact that is beyond question and he has no problem adopting fairly strongly the partial-authenticity arguments for the TF.

"Partial authenticity" is a compromise designed to prevent scholarly acrimony. It is a meaningless black box that means whatever the beholder wants it to mean.

What Crossan himself believes is not relevant to the underlying issues of methodology, which he is clear on: everything begins with what presuppositions you bring to the texts. And most Christians and NT scholars presuppose them to be history. That presupposition is currently indefensible on rational grounds; there is no reason to believe the legends surrounding Jesus are any truer than the legends surrounding Robin Hood or Hong Xiu-chuan. That is to say, while those are real people, they stories about them record no historical truths.

You do know that we are discussing the book of Acts, not the gospels and their descriptions of Jesus. Don't you?

The same comments apply to Acts. That is why I put them up. Or do you think it possible that Luke is all legend, but Acts is history? I think not. The fact that the gospel of Luke is almost entirely legend is a strong indicator that Acts is too. To apply an example from my list, Stephen's last speech is similar in theme and content to Joshua's (Josh 24). In a historical writing, when one event is closely modeled on a past event, this is taken to indicate that this event probably never occurred. For example, Otto of Friesing's history of Barbarossa was finished by his incompetent secretary, who borrowed historical events from Sallust and other classical historians to round out the history. Consequently, that part of the work is considered untrustworthy. So, therefore, must Stephen's speech in Acts, and by extension, the whole event.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Vork,

You are funny. You spend all this time claiming that methodology can tell us nothing about the historical Jesus. But then you claim that the Gospels are nothing but legends. It does not follow that if the methodology does not work, that the Gospels are mere legends. You then go on to invent your own methodology by claiming that if there are similarities of two purported historical events, the latter event is sheer fiction.

Is there a methodology or not?

And I disagree that Crossan's firm belief in the crucifixion of Jesus as historical reality and the partial-authenticity of the TF are irrelevant. Obviously, either you are misreading Crossan or his actions (concluding certain historical realities in the NT) speak louder than his words.

Vorkosigan

Vork,

You are funny. You spend all this time claiming that methodology can tell us nothing about the historical Jesus. But then you claim that the Gospels are nothing but legends. It does not follow that if the methodology does not work, that the Gospels are mere legends.

Correct. That is why I listed a large number of positive reasons to consider the gospels legends. Certainly their own writers thought of them that way. Historical methodologies won't enable you to extract truth from legends -- that is my whole point.

You then go on to invent your own methodology by claiming that if there are similarities of two purported historical events, the latter event is sheer fiction.

That is not what I said. Read more carefully next time. Where one author uses older historical events as frameworks for stories about later ones, that author is to be viewed with great suspicion. This is not my realization, but that of historians.

Is there a methodology or not?

Not that I know of. Do you?

And I disagree that Crossan's firm belief in the crucifixion of Jesus as historical reality and the partial-authenticity of the TF are irrelevant.

They are irrelevant to the discussion here on what role presuppositions play in decisions about the historical reality of the gospels.

Obviously, either you are misreading Crossan or his actions (concluding certain historical realities in the NT) speak louder than his words.

Obviously, you are misreading what I wrote. Clearly, words are not speaking to you at all.

Vorkosigan