"go, sell all that you have and give to the poor..."

[NorrinRadd]

Carpedm used to do that too. Rather than making a response clearer, it serves to make reading the responses more confusing, and replying to THAT post nearly impossible, especially when the first set of responses to the split up sentences is just a terse word or phrase.

I know people don't like that, but for me, it is the easiest and most sensible way to respond when I want to question or challenge multiple points.

[NorrinRadd]

"In fact, Luke's writings have the mark of authenticity precisely because he doesn't deal in the inner thoughts and motivations of his subjects, presenting his narrative in the manner of an eye witness who can tell you what happened, but not necessarily why."

And when I said that his writings "were widely accepted by other eye witnesses" I meant eyewitnesses other than the ones he interviewed during his research. You can deduct two-points from my score for lack of clarity.

Yes, they were historically attested events since everything Luke wrote was based on eye witness testimony. Of course when you say "corroborative extraneous sources", you mean writings that the Church did not see fit to preserve as part of the Biblical canon, which is a little game skeptics like to play, pretending that the writings in the New Testament can not be used to corroborate each other since they are commonly bound between the same covers despite the fact that each was independently composed (as in not the product of collaboration and collusion) and each presents additional unique details that are not found in other New Testament writings. For instance, we can see in Paul's own letters that he corroborates many details related in Acts even though his writings are focused on doctrine rather than historical narrative. So when you ask, "Where are the accounts of other people who witnessed these things?" the answer is that they were preserved as part of the Biblical canon. Furthermore, you have not given a good reason why we even need "extraneous sources" before it is reasonable to accept the New Testament writings with their numerous attestations and corroborations as historically accurate.

As for scholars who understand the purpose of Luke's writing, there is eminent archeologist Sir William Ramsay who wrote, "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense...in short, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians." There are, of course, many others who hold this view, but I assume you can find them if you're genuinely interested. Sorry I couldn't find any pedophiles who are of this opinion since you seem to care a great deal about what they think.

But seriously, why all this bobbing and weaving and running down rabbit trails? Do you really find this preferable to simply acknowledging that you misunderstood the reason why Ananias and Sapphira were killed by God?

Here Craig Keener talks for about eleven minutes about the historicity of Acts:

[NorrinRadd]

No, they were not. They were TV Evangelist Word of Faith conmen. They were never "good Christian men."

Actually, Jimmy Swaggert was pretty anti-WOF back in the '80s. I remember, because I belonged to a local WOF church, and the pastor of the local AG was a big Swaggert devotee. There was strife.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Much like my conversation with her on the Acts 5:1-9 passage where she posted a verse or 2 at a time and still didn't get it right since none of the verses she cited said anything about being obligated to give all or that Ananias dropped dead. I had to point out verse 5 where it said that.

I made the point that those first two verses make no mention of either character lying. And Peter in verse 3 states that they kept "back part of the proceeds". That is nothing to do with lying that is withholding money.

He then blames Satan for making them lie to the Holy Spirit, presumably this refers to them holding back some of the proceeds, which is deceit.

As I wrote to Sparko there is no verse where Ananias and Sapphira state to the apostles "here are the entire proceeds from the sale " - or words to that effect. That would have been a lie.

The lie they commit is to keep back some of the money.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

? All the biographical data that I have found says he was Jewish by race, but a Priest of Rome before discarding (no doubt there is a proper word) orders to marry. He apparently continued as a Christian Scholar, taking the position as professor of Jewish studies at Oxford, much to the outrage of adherent Jews.

Your point? He lost both his parents in the Holocaust and continued in the priesthood until he left to marry the woman he loved. He initially reclaimed his Judaism and later converted to reform Judaism.

I am not sure from where you get the information that his position at Oxford outraged adherent Jews.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Again: The hell does that have to do with anything?

No, he was not. He didn't receive honors, didn't get honorary degrees for his work, wasn't widely cited for his work, didn't produce a large amount of work for that case, didn't go on speaking tours of his work or big conferences to display and educate about his work, didn't get department head or other positions beyond a lowly professor, etc..

Sources?

A Festschrift is simply something produced by some fellow colleagues that knew you, in this day and age.

It is produced in respect of the individual's contribution to his/her field and can often contain new research, thereby encouraging further research into those areas.

He had some fellow colleagues that wrote some things about him..

You clearly do not what a Festschrift is. It is not a "back-slapping" event as you seem to envisage it.

Literally anyone can go do that these days, hun

Oh can they really?

And precisely do you know about such things?

Don't watch much of anything from Hollywood.

That does actually address my question. If you did decide to watch a film made in Hollywood would you boycott any such offering from Miramax?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Just by way of being a buttinsky

Feel free. I keep "open house" on this thread!

Hitler had a major impact on world events during his own lifetime, so biographers of his own time took an interest. The founding apostles had major impact only in isolated areas during their own lifetimes, and Jesus himself almost none outside of Judea, a backward province of the Roman Empire. Simply put - nothing noteworthy enough to attract the attention of biographers outside of the "sect of the Nazarene" occurred when the story began. Not until Constantine did Christianity have any particular significance beyond nuisance value. (cf Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan)

By the time that process began, it was long past the reach of any biographer to gain direct knowledge.

I am not entirely sure I see the relevance of the above. The comment I made was in direct to response to a nonsensical question asking why a non-Christian would write about Jesus, Paul, or the early church as if somehow only believers were eligible to do any of those things.

The Bible is an anthology

I disagree. The New Testament contains elements of what might be considered an anthology. It broadly deals with similar subject matter and the works were produced within a comparatively similar period in history. However, the OT cannot be described as an anthology. It contains a variety of different literary styles. Its texts were most certainly not all compiled at around the same period in history and those texts are not all on the same subject.

Corroborative evidence from independent sources is scant but real enough, though not in accord with the Biblical authors accounts.

We have what is estimated to be around 70% of Celsus writings from Origen's detailed response to his work and there are fragments of Porphyry's work found in the Apocriticus of Marcarius Magnes. However, performing miracles and a belief in magical practises was commonplace throughout the ancient world, and in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish spheres it was part of the contemporary context. The use exorcism to remove evil spirits, imprecations and invocations involving deities, divination, omens, and protective amulets all under-laid the fabric of society. It was there not surprising that Jesus was regarded as a goētēs or wonder worker. The later idea that he was a magician was widely held in the Hellenistic Roman world. Nor was he either the first or last man to be acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah. There had been various Messianic movements dating back to the late first century BCE among the rural populations of the region.

The fact that Luke's work was not consigned to the rubbish bin is evidence worth considering. His record of natural events is so far from being in accord with what is today taught about first-century Jewish society that (if what we are told was true) his writings should have been dismissed as a lunatic's ravings.

I am not entirely sure what I am supposed to make of those remarks. Furthermore this work was not intended for a Jewish society. The split of Christianity from its parent religion had already taken place when this work came to be written.

I'm not familiar with Dunn's work, but others have commented that Luke's work is consistent with the standards of historical reporting in his own time - woefully inadequate by contemporary standards.

Once again Luke was not writing a dispassionate historical account of events. And Dunn briefly discusses the techniques of historians generally within the ancient world in his Introduction to that text

Sure it has - it's the direction of that movement that gives rise to concern. Too many bare assertions backed by presuppositions under the influence of the desire for kudos drive "scholarly" commentaries.

That reads as a rather sweeping generalisation that is unsupported by any evidence. Would you care to elaborate?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Edited

Sources?

It is produced in respect of the individual's contribution to his/her field and can often contain new research, thereby encouraging further research into those areas.

You clearly do not know what a Festschrift is. It is not a "back-slapping" event as you seem to envisage it.

Oh can they really?

And precisely do you know about such things?

That does not actually address my question. If you did decide to watch a film made in Hollywood would you boycott any such offering from Miramax?

[tabibito]

The comment I made was in direct to response to a nonsensical question asking why a non-Christian would write about Jesus, Paul, or the early church as if somehow only believers were eligible to do any of those things.

My comment was simply that "disinterest" would have accounted for the lack of corroborating evidence. Of course, the church was very efficient at making sure writings that stood in contradiction of its teachings did not survive, but that isn't particularly relevant here.

The New Testament contains elements of what might be considered an anthology. It broadly deals with similar subject matter and the works were produced within a comparatively similar period in history. However, the OT cannot be described as an anthology. It contains a variety of different literary styles. Its texts were most certainly not all compiled at around the same period in history and those texts are not all on the same subject.

a collection of works by different authors also can be considered an anthology - particularly where they have an overarching topic in common.

We have what is estimated to be around 70% of Celsus writings from Origen's detailed response to his work and there are fragments of Porphyry's work found in the Apocriticus of Marcarius Magnes. However, performing miracles and a belief in magical practises was commonplace throughout the ancient world, and in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish spheres it was part of the contemporary context. The use exorcism to remove evil spirits, imprecations and invocations involving deities, divination, omens, and protective amulets all under-laid the fabric of society. It was there not surprising that Jesus was regarded as a goētēs or wonder worker. The later idea that he was a magician was widely held in the Hellenistic Roman world.

All very true.

Nor was he either the first or last man to be acclaimed as the Jewish Messiah. There had been various Messianic movements dating back to the late first century BCE among the rural populations of the region.

Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice made that same observation in the lyrics of (Jesus Christ Superstar) Pilate's song: "you Jews bring us messiahs by the sack-full."

this work was not intended for a Jewish society. The split of Christianity from its parent religion had already taken place when this work came to be written.

Seems unlikely. Luke's audience was familiar with Jewish custom (for example, the meaning of "a Sabbath's journey") but not with Jerusalem or its dialect - which are among the comments that point to Theophilus as a Jew who was not from Judea. How many years or decades passed before Luke's letters were written? Despite attempts by notable theologians to make it seem otherwise, Luke says that he travelled with Paul.

Once again Luke was not writing a dispassionate historical account of events.

Which is why I stated that his work was substandard by current assessments. (Not that current standards are a whole lot better.)

That reads as a rather sweeping generalisation that is unsupported by any evidence. Would you care to elaborate?

There are some theologians who make the same observations that I have, but ... 1st point was made about "notable theologians" above. 2nd point: Mark supposedly doesn't know the geography of Israel (stated by many notable theologians) citing among the pieces of evidence the fact that Gerasa is (roughly) 6 miles due south and east of Galilee, so Jesus could not have gone there by boat. It also means that pigs running from Gerasa, down a steep slope, to be drowned in the Galilee is impossible(this story dates back to Justin Martyr, if I remember rightly). Mark does not, in fact, say that Jesus was in Gerasa at the time - he says that Jesus was in the χωρα (territory) of Gerasa - and given that Gerasa had a harbour on the Galilee at the time, (archaeological finding dating to 1994, again, if I remember the date rightly) the notable theologians have nothing to support their claims on that one. Third point: in the West, scant few theologians who assent to the possibility of ceasing from sin make the list of notables, though that is not so in the Eastern Church. Fourth point, or rather, a question: What do our notable theologians cite as evidence for Luke being written at a late date? Aside from "it is impossible for Jesus to have prophesied," that is.

[rogue06]

Pervo was a recognised authority on the various books of Acts.

And you have still not answered my question,. Do you know what a Festschrift is?

He wrote a few books on Acts. That still does not make him a "respected scholar."

His career reveals that he was in fact a fairly unremarkable scholar.

Face it. You found someone who supports your opinion and sought to build him up by exaggerating his reputation.

[rogue06]

Again: The hell does that have to do with anything?

No, he was not. He didn't receive honors, didn't get honorary degrees for his work, wasn't widely cited for his work, didn't produce a large amount of work for that case, didn't go on speaking tours of his work or big conferences to display and educate about his work, didn't get department head or other positions beyond a lowly professor, etc..

Sources?

obvious troll.jpg
It is either that or a witless dingbat.

If you think he was given awards in honor of his work, was often cited by other scholars, was repeatedly invited to lecture on his work, or was promoted beyond the status of professor... YOU should be providing the evidence for him receiving awards, his work being repeatedly cited, being asked to speak to groups about his work, and how he was promoted to a honorary chair or department head etc.

[Gondwanaland]

Sources?

Sources for what? His LACK of accomplishments? You're the one puffing him up, you're the one whose onus it is to show his mighty accomplishments, awards, chair positions, head of department positions, awards, etc.. So where are they?

It is produced in respect of the individual's contribution to his/her field and can often contain new research, thereby encouraging further research into those areas.

It is produced (largely) by one's colleagues in honor of the person. Literally anyone can do it this day and age. It's not some magical high honor anymore like it was a century ago/.

You clearly do not what a Festschrift is. It is not a "back-slapping" event as you seem to envisage it.

True, more an ego-stroking (which must be why you like the idea so much).

Oh can they really?

Are you not aware of the state of publishing in the 21st century?

And precisely do you know about such things?

More than you, apparently?

That does actually address my question. If you did decide to watch a film made in Hollywood would you boycott any such offering from Miramax?

I know it does, sherlock, you didn't need to inform me.

[NorrinRadd]

He wrote a few books on Acts. That still does not make him a "respected scholar."

His career reveals that he was in fact a fairly unremarkable scholar.

Face it. You found someone who supports your opinion and sought to build him up by exaggerating his reputation.

FWIW, Witherington cites him several times in footnotes in his own commentary on Acts.

WRT Ananias and Sapphira, Witherington holds the view that most of the believers here have been defending: They were killed because they lied about holding back money, not because of the withholding per se.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Sources for what? His LACK of accomplishments?

In other words you do not appear to have any relevant information and you clearly have no idea about what you are claiming to know.

You have arrived on this thread rather in the manner of the proverbial barber's cat.

[rogue06]

Feel free. I keep "open house" on this thread!




I am not entirely sure what I am supposed to make of those remarks. Furthermore this work was not intended for a Jewish society. The split of Christianity from its parent religion had already taken place when this work came to be written.

Sources?

FWIU, the split might have started in earnest with the advent of the Roman-Jewish Wars (66-135A.D.), but it was anything but quick or even completely over at the end of it. Even after the Council of Jamnia (c. 90A.D.) is thought to have expelled Jewish Christians from synagogues there is evidence that they continued to worship in them for several centuries afterwards.

Wayne A. Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies Emeritus in the Department of Religious Studies, Yale University^[1], in an interview for the PBS Frontline program From Jesus to Christ said the following in response to questions about the split between Christianity and Judaism, confirms this.

The one thing I think we have to recognize is that it doesn't happen all at once. It does not happen in the same way in different places, nor does it happen at the same time. For example, as late as the 4th and 5th century, we have evidence of Christians still existing within Jewish communities, and we have evidence of members of Christian communities participating in Jewish festivals. The preacher of Antioch and later of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, complains in a series of eight sermons to his congregation, that "you must stop going to the Synagogue, you must not think that the Synagogue is a holier place than our churches are." This clearly indicates that the break between Judaism and Christianity, even as late as the 4th century ... still is not absolute, is not permanent.

The Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program^[1] at the University of Texas at Austin, L. Michael White, disagreed, seeing the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s A.D. as the breaking point. In any case that would still be after Luke and Acts were written.

Further, Daniel Boyarin, the holder of the Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture at the University of California at Berkeley^[1] wrote in his Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism that "at the end of the 1st century CE there were not yet two separate religions called 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'" and how this is becoming the majority view among scholars. In fact, Boyarin believes that

for at least the first three centuries of their common lives, Judaism in all of its forms and Christianity in all of its forms were part of one complex religious family, twins in a womb, contending with each other for identity and precedence, but sharing with each other the same spiritual food.

1. this is the sort of honor that is typically awarded to scholars who are truly well-respected.