Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tercel
Hmm, you stumped me for a moment with your logic there.

Must...resist....sarcastic....answer.....

For those other logicians out there who were wondering why Vork's cites these two conclusions when they don't actually follow from the established premises:

But down below, you say they do follow from the conclusions established in this thread.

You need to understand that the posibility that agreement both Acts and the pseudo-Paulines is due to them both being based on the truth is a priori ruled out by Vork,

No. We are merely discussing the sources for Acts, not the content of the sources. Acts is clearly a fiction, in any case, but that has nothing to do with the point I am making there.

as the the possibility that Acts is early and that the pseudo-Paulines are dependent upon it.

Quite possible. One would then have to wonder, though, why the forged Pauline letters are so devoid of information from Acts, and why that thesis is not widely accepted. Layman has provided a significant datum for the date of Acts: it comes after the forged Pauline letters.

Or to bring up a logic fork you left out, Acts is late, and the pseudo-Paulines are later. But as I said, dependency runs quite the other way. In any case, Luke's use of Josephus and Mark pretty much rules out an early date of Acts. It dates from after 110, but when is uncertain. I tend to put it after 120 as the last of the gospels.

Or, to point up another lost logic fork, the forged epistles and Acts are by the same hand, so simple "dependence" is no longer an issue. I forgot who argued that (Luke Timothy Johnson??).

If you accept that as basic truth, it's then quite easy to see how Vork's two conclusions follow from the established premises in this thread.

Yes, well,...I didn't think I'd have to point that out.


Btw, is it just me who finds the lack of a "laughing" emoticon on these boards incredibly annoying?

You don't like this ???

or you could steal this:



Vorkosigan

Bede

Vork,

Your said "Acts is clearly a fiction, in any case, but that has nothing to do with the point I am making there." While I know you are utterly convinced by this, it is not 'clearly' the case as there are plenty of people who believe otherwise. With respect, you should refrain from making such pronouncements on matters of controversy. I did ask for some positive evidence for a late dating of Acts a while back and didn't get anything.

There are plenty of errors of detail between Acts and the Epistles which (clearly!) show they are independent sources. As Vinnie says, They do have a common underlying source which is most likely to be the experience of Paul (as mediated through Acts by his sometime companion). The same applies to the Pastorals - while they are not necessarily by Paul they are widely believed to be off his school so can also contain genuine traditions available to Luke as well.

You may well find my reconstruction as unconvincing as I find yours, but it is certainly not clear either way.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Toto

Bede: Is there any real basis for thinking that Acts is history, other than faith? Certainly some of the scenes in Acts mirror fictional stories from other traditions.

Vork put this in a new thread, but it is relevant here:

More Literary Sources for Acts

Bede

Hi Toto,

I gave some reasons for accepting Acts as partly historical above. You might enjoy and should certainly read Robin Lane Fox's 'The Unauthorised Version' and 'Pagans and Christians'. As he is an atheist and a classical historian (rather than theologian) his work is untainted both by confessional interest and non-historical training.

He summarises the case for Acts based on its close similarity to other historians of the period, the first person passages (for which he claims there is no other valid explanation except that they are genuine - if there was a sea voyages literary device, Fox would know about it) and the contrast between early parts of Acts which are more mythical and the later historical account of Paul. Fox summarises "I regard it as certain that he [ALuke] knew Paul and followed him for part of his journey." (page 210).

Peter Kirby will be interested to hear that he utterly rejects the idea that deliberate pseudonymity was acceptable (page 129) citing the case of Christian prompty deposed by his bishops for writing the fake "Acts of Paul and Thecla" despite a plea he was acting out of love.

On the classical references and in particular the Lystra episode Fox says of the idea that it is a reworked version of a myth: "this theory has enjoyed a long life, but never had anything to recommend it. The geography is wrong and although Acts' author has been given many odd disguises, none is odder than that of a man who knew fragments of Ovid and their Greek sources and distorted them to suit his picture of St Paul" (Pagans and Christians page 100). He then explains the way that Pagans at the time would have made such a mistake about a charismatic stranger. I'd love to see Fox tear apart MacDonald's fantasies!

So Toto, clear your reading list and pick up both Fox's books. Some real history, as opposed to confused theologians and literary critics will do you good.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Vork,
Your said "Acts is clearly a fiction, in any case, but that has nothing to do with the point I am making there." While I know you are utterly convinced by this, it is not 'clearly' the case as there are plenty of people who believe otherwise. With respect, you should refrain from making such pronouncements on matters of controversy.

Thanks, but unfortunately there exists no methodology for them to make their case. Unlike historical writing, religious propaganda does not get the benefit of the historical doubt, at least from me. It must prove itself.

Acts meanwhile bears all the earmarks of fictional construction:

• invention of historical characters (Stephen),
• use of literature to construct history (Elpenor, Paul's conversion/the Bacchae, Acts 17:28, Stephen),
• the use of stock fictional characters (Simon Magus),
• the use of historical characters (Gamliel, various rulers) in unhistorical ways,
• the use of literary events (Paul's escape from jail=Dionysian miracle),
• the omission of uncomfortable stories (attack on Paul, role of James),
• the re-arrangement of known history (Census, theudas),
• the use of literary convention ("we" passages, introduction),
• the use of sources that are themselves fictions (other gospels, forged letters of Paul),
• theological tendenz (Acts 19 and JBap's followers),
• the free use and re-arrangement of data from sources (disagreements with Josephus and Paul,
• political tendenz (pro-Roman and anti-Jewish),
• the constant presence of the miraculous (too numerous to mention),
• the correspondences between Acts and various ancient literary forms (see Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative),
• the late date of Acts,
• the existence of Acts as one of a large group of fiction-constructions (extracanonical writings) that are riffs on Christian history,
• the existence of multiple versions (western text)

If it were any other tradition, in any other context, it would be assigned to fiction. Only the two thousand years of cultural inertia, the saturation of our culture with the privileging of the bible canon, prevents us from easily having that perception.

I did ask for some positive evidence for a late dating of Acts a while back and didn't get anything.

To me? Any case, we have discussed the dating of Acts here numerous times. The most obvious evidences for a late date are

• the use of Josephus as a source for the framework of Luke; with at last some hints that it comes after the autobiography in 110
• dependence of Luke on Mark, Matt, John, Gospel of Peter (or similar), pseudo-Paulines, and, I suspect, one of the Roman historical writers like Suetonius or Tacitus
• theological concerns that are third or fourth generation
• political concerns, such as whitewashing conflicts between Paul and James, that point to a later time when Church history was being constructed.
• lack of evidence for Acts earlier than mid-second century

There are plenty of errors of detail between Acts and the Epistles which (clearly!) show they are independent sources. As Vinnie says, They do have a common underlying source which is most likely to be the experience of Paul (as mediated through Acts by his sometime companion). The same applies to the Pastorals - while they are not necessarily by Paul they are widely believed to be off his school so can also contain genuine traditions available to Luke as well.

Yes, that's what I used to think. But Layman has uncovered several points that smack of literary dependence. Luke used sources, but used them freely, reconstructing them as necessary, blotting out things she didn't like (like Paul's attack on James) and adjusting history (like with the Census and Theudas/Gamliel) to suit her needs. That is why disagreement on the details is not so important; it is the results of creativity of Luke. But where details are close, that indicates use of a source.

You could find points of disagreement between Mark and Luke even where Luke used Mark, but that is not a strong argument for Luke's independence of Mark.

The Pastorals may be believed to be of Paul's school, but there is no evidence that Paul even had a "school" in the formal or informal sense, and no evidence that anyone in that wrote the letters. That is the kind of speculation that if a mythicist made it, they would get slapped down for it.

You may well find my reconstruction as unconvincing as I find yours, but it is certainly not clear either way.

Bede, with respect, it is very clear. You're confusing not making a case with refusing to accept. The main story of Acts is a fiction crafted from many different sources. That continues to be rejected in certain circles, but not because there are good arguments to do so, but because theology demands it.

Vorkosigan

Geoff Hudson

Vork,

Given all the points that you have raised, and the graphical detailed accounts in Acts that have the hallmarks of historical content (e.g. the trial before Festus and the journey by ship to Rome), my conclusion has to be that Acts was a real historical document that has been heavily garbled.

Geoff

Bede

Hi Vork,

I am sorry my participation is semi-detacted. I am swamped at the moment and see little light before the end of April! Studying Renaissance magic (Pico, Aggripa, John Dee etc) which is confusing to say the least.

“Thanks, but unfortunately there exists no methodology for them to make their case. Unlike historical writing, religious propaganda does not get the benefit of the historical doubt, at least from me. It must prove itself.”

I think this represents the difference between us. I do not think religious literature (of any religion) automatically acquires a higher burden of proof but must be treated according to the same standards as other works. Religious writers are no more likely to lie than political or romantic writers. On Acts, I am not claiming that it is all history but that the parts where Luke has first hand testimony or personal experience to draw on are as good a source as any other ancient writer.

Acts ‘hallmarks of fiction’ appear to involve a good deal of question begging and speculation. I do not want a full scale discussion (I have no time) but will state my opinions for the record:

 invention of historical characters (Stephen),

Actually, we cannot say Luke invented Stephen. We are told Paul saw his killing and Luke knew Paul. The speech of Stephen is fictitious though.

 use of literature to construct history (Elpenor, Paul's conversion/the Bacchae, Acts 17:28, Stephen),

Nope – these parallels only exist in the imaginations of literary critics. See Fox above on Lystria for instance.

 the use of stock fictional characters (Simon Magus),

Again an assertion. Simon is a fair representation of the kind of characters we know from Lucian were plying their trade in Asia Minor at the time. The fact that he resembles these is evidence for veracity and not fiction.

 the use of historical characters (Gamliel, various rulers) in unhistorical ways,

What rulers? Gamliel’s speeches closely parallel the speeches in historical works from Thuycidides to Tacitus and are usual in ancient historical writing.

 the use of literary events (Paul's escape from jail=Dionysian miracle),

More lit crit fantasy. There are no direct parallels to pagan writing in Luke/Acts. See Fox above.

 the omission of uncomfortable stories (attack on Paul, role of James),

This in no way makes the rest fiction and the role of James is Eisenmann’s speculation, not factual.

 the re-arrangement of known history (Census, theudas),

As I said above, Luke being accurate in his own time (50s/60s) but making mistakes about an earlier generation allows us to place Luke in the 50s/60s.

 the use of literary convention ("we" passages, introduction),

This is dead in the water. See Fox above. There is no such literary convention.

 the use of sources that are themselves fictions (other gospels, forged letters of Paul),

Luke did not use Paul’s forgeries but common traditions. He did not consider the Gospels fiction.

 theological tendenz (Acts 19 and JBap's followers),

All writing has biases. This means we use historical tools rather than write off entire works.

 the free use and re-arrangement of data from sources (disagreements with Josephus and Paul)

This is true and means we tread with care although Luke used neither the letters of Paul or Josephus. He did use Mark and Q.

 political tendenz (pro-Roman and anti-Jewish),

Like every single Roman historian who ever wrote. Does Caesar’s political bias in the Gallic Wars mean he was never in Gaul?

 the constant presence of the miraculous (too numerous to mention),

Very rare in the eye witness parts – another good indication they are genuine.

 the correspondences between Acts and various ancient literary forms (see Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative),

More lit crit fantasy.

 the late date of Acts,

Assertion and wrong at that as the ‘we’ passages show.

 the existence of Acts as one of a large group of fiction-constructions (extracanonical writings) that are riffs on Christian history,

Acts is much earlier than the others and accepted as reliable by the same early Christians who rejected the others.

 the existence of multiple versions (western text)

Fox covers this in detail and shows that both versions are by Luke. Like many writers he revised his work.

 the use of Josephus as a source for the framework of Luke; with at last some hints that it comes after the autobiography in 110

Luke does not use Josephus. Mason’s case requires Luke makes a mistake in reading which is far too much of a stretch.

 dependence of Luke on Mark, Matt, John, Gospel of Peter (or similar), pseudo-Paulines, and, I suspect, one of the Roman historical writers like Suetonius or Tacitus

Luke is independent of both Matt and John as well as the Pauline letters, not to mention the Roman historians you mention.

 theological concerns that are third or fourth generation

That is a matter of taste and very flimsy.

 political concerns, such as whitewashing conflicts between Paul and James, that point to a later time when Church history was being constructed.

Eisenmann’s speculations are tainting this point like others.

 lack of evidence for Acts earlier than mid-second century

A level of proof not required by any other ancient document.

Fox is a massive authority against you. He is everything sceptics demand and considers that ‘Luke’ was a companion of Paul to be certain (your provocative use of a she is extremely inappropriate here given what we know about the education of Luke against women at the time). As a non-specialist, I see no reason to go further unless compelling evidence is produced to the contrary. Presently, it simply does not exist.

I know it is hard to find the time, but are you going to be able to put your discussion of the lack of historical method into essay form? It would be a good addition to Kirby’s new site and I would try to reply in kind.

Yours

Bede

Bede’s Library – faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Hi Vork,

I am sorry my participation is semi-detacted. I am swamped at the moment and see little light before the end of April! Studying Renaissance magic (Pico, Aggripa, John Dee etc) which is confusing to say the least.

John Dee is one of my favorites! He'd make a great movie by Miramax, with Jon Malkovich as Dee.

I think this represents the difference between us. I do not think religious literature (of any religion) automatically acquires a higher burden of proof but must be treated according to the same standards as other works.

I did not say religious "literature" but religious propaganda.

Religious writers are no more likely to lie than political or romantic writers.

Certainly -- when they are doing something other than writing religious propaganda! Propaganda by definition is a fictionalizing riff on history.

On Acts, I am not claiming that it is all history but that the parts where Luke has first hand testimony or personal experience to draw on are as good a source as any other ancient writer.

As Schnelle points out, there is no way to determine where and what sources Luke used, although everyone has their own guesses.

[b]Acts ‘hallmarks of fiction?appear to involve a good deal of question begging and speculation. I do not want a full scale discussion (I have no time) but will state my opinions for the record:

1. invention of historical characters (Stephen),

Actually, we cannot say Luke invented Stephen. We are told Paul saw his killing and Luke knew Paul. The speech of Stephen is fictitious though.

The speech is cribbed from Joshua's death and is fictitious. The death scene contains motifs from the death of James. It's an invention of Luke.

There is no evidence that the writer of Luke knew Paul, or was the person by that name in Paul's letters.

2. use of literature to construct history (Elpenor, Paul's conversion/the Bacchae, Acts 17:28, Stephen),

Nope ?these parallels only exist in the imaginations of literary critics. See Fox above on Lystria for instance.

Acts 17:28 is a direct quote of Aratus, widely cited in Anitiquity. It's certainly not in the "imagination of literary critics." In the recent thread I linked to http://spindleworks.com/library/rfab...Calvinist site, a detailed discussion from someone who is not exactly a lit critic.

Paul's stoning in Lystria is not mentioned in any of the examples above, all of which are well-demonstrated. You have no case here.

3. the use of stock fictional characters (Simon Magus),

Again an assertion. Simon is a fair representation of the kind of characters we know from Lucian were plying their trade in Asia Minor at the time. The fact that he resembles these is evidence for veracity and not fiction.

No, because in Acts, as well as many other writings, he appears as a stock character playing a number of roles. Robin Hood is a composite based on a number of similar outlaws who existed as real people, but that does not prevent him from cropping up all over as a stock character in hundreds of stories.

4. the use of historical characters (Gamliel, various rulers) in unhistorical ways,

What rulers? Gamliel’s speeches closely parallel the speeches in historical works from Thuycidides to Tacitus and are usual in ancient historical writing.

Certainly, but that is irrelevant. Gamliel refers to an event which happened a decade later than his existence!

As for rulers, Paul talks religion pleasantly with Felix, a notorius butcher of Jews. The conversation, as Mason points out, is pregnant with historical irony.

5. the use of literary events (Paul's escape from jail=Dionysian miracle),

More lit crit fantasy. There are no direct parallels to pagan writing in Luke/Acts. See Fox above.

Fox makes no arguments that I can see. Are you working with The Unauthorized Version?

<Shrug> The pagan parallels are there and strongly.

6. the omission of uncomfortable stories (attack on Paul, role of James),

This in no way makes the rest fiction and the role of James is Eisenmann’s speculation, not factual.

No single datum makes it all fiction. All together make it fiction. And the attack on James is in the Pseudo Clementine recognitions, which share a source with Acts, according to Eisenman. So why did Paul drop it, and delete much of James' role?

7. the re-arrangement of known history (Census, theudas),

As I said above, Luke being accurate in his own time (50s/60s) but making mistakes about an earlier generation allows us to place Luke in the 50s/60s.

LOL. How? Luke isn't "inaccurate;" he re-arranges history according to his own needs, the way he re-arranged Mark.

8. the use of literary convention ("we" passages, introduction),

This is dead in the water. See Fox above. There is no such literary convention.

Sorry, but this convention is alive and well, as Toto's posts have subsequently demonstrated.

9. the use of sources that are themselves fictions (other gospels, forged letters of Paul),

Luke did not use Paul’s forgeries but common traditions. He did not consider the Gospels fiction.

For one thing, you don't know what she thought of the gospels. Obviously she was willing to re-arrange, edit, and add to them, so she could not have regarded them as history in the sense that we do. The gospels are fictions, so reliance on them can only produce fiction.

As Layman shows, there are a number of correspondences between Acts and the forged letters of Paul that show literary dependence.

10. theological tendenz (Acts 19 and JBap's followers),

All writing has biases. This means we use historical tools rather than write off entire works.

All writing has biases. No kidding! But some biases are more dangerous than others -- they lead to creativity. Most biases do not lead to creativity, but spin and omissions. Luke's eagerness to strike out at the pesky followers of JBap led him to invent a whole sequence of events in which Paul converts some followers of JBap.

11. the free use and re-arrangement of data from sources (disagreements with Josephus and Paul)

This is true and means we tread with care although Luke used neither the letters of Paul or Josephus. He did use Mark and Q.

Mason's arguments are very strong. And the link between Luke and Josephus has been widely recognized as a problem that needs explaining (or explaining away, if one has theological goals).

12. political tendenz (pro-Roman and anti-Jewish),

Like every single Roman historian who ever wrote. Does Caesar’s political bias in the Gallic Wars mean he was never in Gaul?

It is one datum among many. Which events would you say Caesar invented due to his political bias?

13. the constant presence of the miraculous (too numerous to mention),

Very rare in the eye witness parts ?another good indication they are genuine.

There are no eyewitness parts in Acts. If you mean the "we" passages, there is supernatural in each one, sometimes quite a bit:

Acts 16:10-17 (10, 16)
Acts 20:5-15 (7~ raising of Eutychus from dead!!)
Acts 21:1-18 (4, 8-9 4 virgin daughters --surely that is a miracle itself! -- who prophesy)
Acts 27:1 -28:16 (27:23, 28:3-4 an arguable miracle, 28:8)

These are obviously long-after legendary accretion, which no eyewitness could have written.

14. the correspondences between Acts and various ancient literary forms (see Ancient Fiction and Early Christian Narrative),

More lit crit fantasy.

LOL. Argument, please. The lit critics have all written tons on this. As Schnelle notes.

15. the late date of Acts,

Assertion and wrong at that as the ‘we?passages show.

Bede, the "we" passages, even if from a source, do not mean that Acts does not have a late date. The use of Josephus puts it at least after 110. Ordinarily Acts is placed after 90 around 100, so I am hardly out of bounds by moving it back another decade.

16. the existence of Acts as one of a large group of fiction-constructions (extracanonical writings) that are riffs on Christian history

Acts is much earlier than the others and accepted as reliable by the same early Christians who rejected the others.

<shrug> Just because it fit the theological needs of the early Christians does not mean that it is reliable as history. They are all equally riffs on Christianity, using stock characters and theology. In its context, it is no more historical than any other of the documents from the second century.

17. the existence of multiple versions (western text)

Fox covers this in detail and shows that both versions are by Luke. Like many writers he revised his work.

Fox does not "show" this. He discusses, and concedes that his position is the minority one, and that the point is hotly disputed. see p. 141

18. the use of Josephus as a source for the framework of Luke; with at last some hints that it comes after the autobiography in 110

Luke does not use Josephus. Mason’s case requires Luke makes a mistake in reading which is far too much of a stretch.

The construction is deliberate and not an error, like the Census. In any case, was Luke perfect?

19. dependence of Luke on Mark, Matt, John, Gospel of Peter (or similar), pseudo-Paulines, and, I suspect, one of the Roman historical writers like Suetonius or Tacitus

Luke is independent of both Matt and John as well as the Pauline letters, not to mention the Roman historians you mention.

The use of Roman historians is just my speculation, but it rounds out nicely the list of sources he needs, and means that all of the outside references can be found in extant works.

Recent work is turning up Lucan dependence on John, it was on XTALK a while back.

20. theological concerns that are third or fourth generation

That is a matter of taste and very flimsy.

That's the consensus. <shrug>

21. political concerns, such as whitewashing conflicts between Paul and James, that point to a later time when Church history was being constructed.

Eisenmann’s speculations are tainting this point like others.

Shame on Eisenman for making arguments based on evidence that make Luke look like he was making up stuff for theopolitical reasons! Not much of an argument there, Bede.

22. lack of evidence for Acts earlier than mid-second century

A level of proof not required by any other ancient document.

One datum among many. Anyway, I'm at a loss here. Dozens of other ancient documents are assessed in just this way, all over the world.

Fox is a massive authority against you.

Fox asserts; he does not demonstrate. He certainly writes with assurance, but that is one of the secrets of field where well-crafted opinions can cover a multitude of evidential sins.

He is everything sceptics demand and considers that ‘Luke?was a companion of Paul to be certain

That's fine, but his arguments are flimsy and are hardly more than short reviews. In particular his arguments for Luke being a companion of Paul are a flimsy compilation of "coulda" and "woulda" :

• "..could still talk to other companions..."
  "...perhaps Aquila and Priscilla..."
  "...could already have heard..."
  "...could have come knowledge..." p. 210

Fox is simply asserting, and then stitching together a plausible set of speculations. There's no argument in there worth listening to.

Further, Fox points out that portions of Acts are fiction. He wants to believe that author of Acts traveled with Paul, but still believed that Paul committed two murders by magic power (!). In other words, that an eyewitness attached fantasies to a document about a person whom he profound personal knowledge of.

(your provocative use of a she is extremely inappropriate here given what we know about the education of Luke against women at the time).

It is merely tradition that the writer of Luke was a male; no evidence exists one way or another. The style and theological points indicate a female. Helms' arguments in this regard are very strong.

As a non-specialist, I see no reason to go further unless compelling evidence is produced to the contrary. Presently, it simply does not exist.

In your view. Unfortunately, it remains the critical textual consensus that the writer of Luke was not a companion of Paul

I know it is hard to find the time, but are you going to be able to put your discussion of the lack of historical method into essay form? It would be a good addition to Kirby’s new site and I would try to reply in kind.

Not until end of March at least. I have a 350 page report due on the 8th which I am rushing to finish. I have been taking Chinese New Year off, but it is back to rationing my time at Infidels.

But let's look at this another way. How does one tell when an ancient document is fiction? For example, Consider The Golden Ass. How can we prove it is fiction? For it seems that each of your objections above must turn it into history..............

Vorkosigan

Bede

Hi Vork,

Thanks for your reply. I think we must agree to disagree about this as so much else although it is useful to set out our positions. Fox mentions the Lystria episode and mocks the Ovid connection in Pagans and Christians (p 100). This book is essential reading on the pagan background Christianity grew up in and the interactions between the two.

BTW, have you clocked this book: The Way and the Word It seems right up your street (and mine too, for that matter).

Your final challenge is an interesting one and I will consider it, albeit using a shorter book.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Believe me, I was being neither facetious nor sarcastic. I have been throwing up criteria, but it appears that detection of fiction in writing is in large part a question of intuitive or "tacit" knowledge that seems to depend in large part on what traditions one is trained in. I mean, Fox compares Luke's "we" to Thucydides "we" and says they are basically the same; referring to events personally experienced. That is his perception, but he can offer no real reason why anyone should accept that.

I'll check out that book. I have a long list I am going to reward myself with in March.

Vorkosigan