Chris Price: Genre, Historicity, Date, and Authorship of Acts [merged w/ comments] [Archive I]

Vorkosigan

July 31, 2005, 10:34 AM

It's the usual conservative culprits Chris, none of whom seem to get Pervo's argument. I'll be taking Acts apart next year, so I hope to have a serious and formal reply to you then. But Pervo's analysis seems correct -- Acts is a Greek erotic novel (comically, you even repeat someone arguing that it can't be because it doesn't have a romance -- what a great argument! Somebody needs to get familiar with the wide range of literature encompassed under that term). Alas, none of the "historical" features of Acts mean much, as accurate history and knowledge of local customs occurs in them quite often -- they were written to be enjoyed as "histories" and often use historical events as the basis for their plots. Indeed, Acts' use of historical characters is vintage Greek novel convention. You'll find as much verifiable history and geography in Chaereas and Callirhoe as you will in Acts. As Jean Alvares notes of the same book:

"For example, Hermocrates, Ariston, Statira, and Artaxerxes are historical figures. Mithridates may recall a Mithridates that, according to Ktesias, Statira helped become satrap."

If you really to get a handle on them, I suggest you get Winkler's collection of the Ancient Greek Novels, and also Hock's Ancient Fiction and Early Christian narrative -- reviewed here (http://courses.smsu.edu/mdg421f/Review-Ancient%20Fiction%20and%20Early%20Christian%20Narrative.htm). {I couldn't get this link to work but I could go to this review (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3679/is_200004/ai_n8890612) from the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. -Amaleq13} I suspect from Mark, which is littered with both narrative motifs and construction practices of ancient Greek fiction, that Acts is of the same genre, except that the author was much more interested in faking history than Mark was -- I doubt Mark thought of his work as history, merely as an interesting or useful story. It was Luke who realized, in both senses of tthe word, the historical potential of the tale of Mark.

For example, take this:

3. Paul the Tentmaker

�[A]nd because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them and they were working, for by trade they were tent-makers.� Acts 18:3.

�Paul�s trade, if understood as that of �tentmaker,� is interestingly appropriate to his Cilician origin.�[89] The material �cilicium,� a cloth of woven goat hair, was a standard material used in the creation of tents. Notably, �cilicium originated in and was named for Paul�s native province of Cilicia.�[90]

Of course, Paul the tentmaker in Corinth recalls Habrocomes, the sappy hero of xenophon's Ephesian Tale, and his sojourn as a fisherman. Paul is even warned in a dream, another convention of Greek fiction.

or

Familiarity with Roman Citizenship and Legal System

Trials before the local potentate are a convention of Greek novels, appearing usually in multiple examples for both major and minor characters. As you note " The author of Acts not only accurately narrates various aspects of the Roman legal systems, he places them in the right time period and context." Certainly, as do many of the Greek novels. That was SOP.

Your presentation on this is going to have to be much stronger than it currently is. Relying on bog-standard conservatives like Hemer and Sherwin-White who are confessionally committed to Acts-as-History (did I mention that there was a Greek novel, when discovered, that was taken for a historical text until later discoveries corrected that?) is a strategy that is going to fail.

Vorkosigan

WinAce

July 31, 2005, 12:23 PM

Which Greek novel was that, Vorkosigan? Sounds scandalously delicious.

Diogenes the Cynic

July 31, 2005, 12:34 PM

I enjoyed reading it. Chris does manage to present his material in a way that, on a superficial level, seems more reasoned and less overtly a priori than the average apologetic. I'll give you this, Chris, you do a better job of presenting than Holding does (not to mention hacks like Strobel) and part of your effectiveness is that you keep the polemics out of it. It's nice to be able to read through a piece without encountering gratuitous ad hominems against "skeptics" and "liberal scholars" every third paragraph.

Having said that, I think your overall piece is more an exercise in skill at making an argument than a truly convincing thesis to us "skeptics" who have read more than a little about the subject matter. It reminds me of an attorney making a closing argument, shading and massaging his evidence in the most favorble light, minimizing or dismissing the evidence against, drawing confident conclusions from tenuous interpretations of evidence, etc.

It's better than average as far as apologetics go, it takes a certain level of knowledge to make a coherent rebuttal and (for what its worth) I don't believe it's dishonest as is often the case with some others. I think your conclusions are sincerely felt and that the piece is not patently deceptive, just subtly tendentious.

Peter Kirby

July 31, 2005, 01:00 PM

Diogenes, would you give three examples of the claimed failings of Chris's piece?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

July 31, 2005, 01:06 PM

Diogenes, would you give three examples of the claimed failings of Chris's piece?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby
Maybe later tonight. I'm going to have to be away from the computer for a few hours this afternoon and I'll need some time to read the piece again. I don't think that "failings" is the word I would use so much as shaded and tendentious. I'll give some examples later.

S.C.Carlson

July 31, 2005, 01:34 PM

Something's wrong with the HTML as it confuses Firefox to no end (e.g. only the first 7 pages print out; it bizarrely switches to courier font in places). :confused:

The page works better in IE, perhaps because the page appears to be converted from a MS Word source, and IE is largely bug-for-bug compatible with the converter.

Toto

July 31, 2005, 03:39 PM

This is the first problem that caught my eye:

Chris Price: But as Pervo candidly admits, he simply assumes rather than demonstrates that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies

What Pervo actually said I do not seek to demonstrate once again the presence of historical problems in Acts. If such problems are at points underlined, this is not in order to administer yet one more beating to "Luke" but to support by proposal to view the doucment of Acts from a different perspective. . .

So Pervo is not assuming that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies. He refers to previous scholars who have demonstrated those inaccuracies so often that it would be a diversion from his point to merely reargue them, but he does list them when required by his argument.

I haven't read the entire essay, but this is not a good start. Chris Price's arguments against Pervo (as if he were the only scholar convinced that Acts is a Hellenistic romance) appear to attack a fairly simplistic version of Pervo's thesis, which relied heavily on previous scholarship which does not appear to be referenced in this essay.

S.C.Carlson

July 31, 2005, 04:36 PM

The page works better in IE, perhaps because the page appears to be converted from a MS Word source, and IE is largely bug-for-bug compatible with the converter.

Hmm... even the print out from IE is messed up: the right margin is chopped off, leaving lots of interesting bits out. :(

Vorkosigan

July 31, 2005, 06:56 PM

I had trouble viewing it in Firefox too.

JoeWallack

July 31, 2005, 07:00 PM

Yes, only I have the exclusive scoop, straight from Crist! :)
It's an excellent piece and well worth reading in entirety.
best wishes,
Peter Kirby

JW:
I'm pretty sure you know the difference between articles written Objectively and those written as an Advocate. So fine, you play the Good Coptic and I'll play the Bad Coptic.

To borrow a favorite word of the late, great Raymond Brown, for an article that starts out with:

"A thorough discussion of the evidence"

I find it "fantastic" that in the entire article Price does not appear to give ANY evidence that in his opinion weighs against the historicity of Acts. I applaud his effort to try and itemize support for his conclusion that Acts is primarily history like noting that Acts claims the Temple was in Jerusalem which is confirmed by multiple sources. And of course he has every right to try and compile all the evidence he can find and think of that favors his conclusion. But if that's all he has done than he shouldn't pretend that he was being objective.

In General Price has the following serious problems with concluding that Acts is primarily history which he Ignores/Minimizes:

1) Impossible claims.

This is a characteristic of Fiction. It also creates doubt as to the historicity of Possible claims. Comparing Acts to Paul's letters here it should be noted that Paul's letters generally don't have Impossible claims concerning Paul. History. Acts on the other hand does. Fiction.

2) No Provenance for the Author.

This is a characteristic of Fiction.

3) Credibility of the Author.

This author also apparently wrote "Luke". "Luke" is filled with the Impossible. "Luke" copied most of "Mark" without indicating such and appeared to edit "Mark" for theological reasons.

4) Language.

The author wrote in Greek and appeared to use Greek sources. The primary subjects in the related stories would have spoken Aramaic. Maybe no big deal when you still have sources in the original language, but when you don't?

5) Religious Genre.

"Luke"/Acts is in the genre of religious writing, maintained and Edited by a Biased Religious institution.

6) The difference in Style of Act's Paul and Paul's Paul.

Act's Paul is well-spoken and clearly communicates. Paul's Paul is often disorganized, contradictory and unclear. Read "Romans", probably Paul's most important theological work, in the Greek, before English sanitation, and it's often unclear what the hell Paul is trying to say.

Specifically Price has the following serious problems with concluding that Acts is primarily history which he Ignores/Minimizes:

1) Someone has come up with a list of 202 Errors in "Luke" based on a majority of the available evidence:

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

2) Someone has come up with a list of 109 Errors in "Acts" based on a majority of the available evidence:

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

We may have just gotten off the boat with Paul, but it wasn't 2,000 years ago.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached:

One evening Mr. Rudolph Block, of New York, found himself seated
at dinner alongside Mr. Percival Pollard, the distinguished critic.
"Mr. Pollard," said he, "my book, The Biography of a Dead Cow,
is published anonymously, but you can hardly be ignorant of its
authorship. Yet in reviewing it you speak of it as the work of the
Idiot of the Century. Do you think that fair criticism?"
"I am very sorry, sir," replied the critic, amiably, "but it did
not occur to me that you really might not wish the public to know who
wrote it."

Mr. W.C. Morrow, who used to live in San Jose, California, was
addicted to writing ghost stories which made the reader feel as if a
stream of lizards, fresh from the ice, were streaking it up his back
and hiding in his hair. San Jose was at that time believed to be
haunted by the visible spirit of a noted bandit named Vasquez, who had
been hanged there. The town was not very well lighted, and it is
putting it mildly to say that San Jose was reluctant to be out o'
nights. One particularly dark night two gentlemen were abroad in the
loneliest spot within the city limits, talking loudly to keep up their
courage, when they came upon Mr. J.J. Owen, a well-known journalist.
"Why, Owen," said one, "what brings you here on such a night as
this? You told me that this is one of Vasquez' favorite haunts! And
you are a believer. Aren't you afraid to be out?"
"My dear fellow," the journalist replied with a drear autumnal
cadence in his speech, like the moan of a leaf-laden wind, "I am
afraid to be in. I have one of Will Morrow's stories in my pocket and
I don't dare to go where there is light enough to read it."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Vorkosigan

July 31, 2005, 07:18 PM

Which Greek novel was that, Vorkosigan? Sounds scandalously delicious.

They all have trials, so Paul's sequences of travel narrative -- sea journey -- entering the city -- having a trial -- getting released etc are all plot elements of Greek fiction. So is being taken for a god, getting warned in a dream, being placed in a historical context....the list is endless. In fact, the irony might be that there really is real history of Paul in Acts, but it is being used there because Acts is a historical fiction and that is a convention of fiction (same as Gore Vidal's Burr contains real history of Aaron Burr). Scholars who have studied this literature have noted how it interacts with and plays off of the conventions of historical writing too. Greek fiction invites you to treat it like history even though you know it is fiction, sort of the way Crichton's Eater's of the Dead purports to be the true story of a real embassy to the Norseman from Arabia (movie was The 13th Warrior).

At the level of construction, I have a huge list of stuff that I am developing for my Mark book. But the prominence of religious themes and myths, the use of religious themes and myths as structuring elements, the use of historical events as structuring elements (paralleling) and story elements, doublets, chiasms, citation of common sayings, religious sayings, and famous lines from literature, the ending as recognition scene, the way the ending ties back to the beginning, the use of foreshadowing, irony, and other literary techniques and devices....are all integral to these novels. This was a developed literary mode, very sophisticated in many ways, and fully aware of its own roots and conventions. If there was no Xtianity, we would simply see the Gospels as interesting Jewish variants on Hellenistic fiction, I suspect.

One interesting convention is tragic homosexual love affairs. And there's Paul, traveling with male companions everywhere...... <evil laugh>

All the greek novels are scandalous one way or another. They are rollicking good fun, although they are all similar to each other (and borrow names and events from each other). It's hard to say which one is best. I particularly like the Ethiopian Story (the opening is pure Conan) and Chaereas and Callirhoe. Lucian's True History is laugh out loud funny, with its insane events and droll tone. They're a bit old-fashioned and formulaic, though.

This website has some links to articles, online translations and synopses of the plots: Petronian Society (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/classics/petron/PSNNOVEL.HTML). But I really recommend that you get hold of a hardcopy of Winkler's or BP Reardon's collections of all the ancient Greek novels. In the future I predict that knowledge of the techniques of greek fiction will be crucial in interpreting and understanding the gospels.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

July 31, 2005, 07:35 PM

Hmm... even the print out from IE is messed up: the right margin is chopped off, leaving lots of interesting bits out. :(

Chris has given me permission to host the Word file.

http://www.christianorigins.com/acts.doc

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Toto

July 31, 2005, 07:54 PM

I note that Chris Price aka Layman has reproduced most of his post from Confirmation and Correlation in Acts and the Pauline Epistles (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=44253). I was not convinced then that the author of Luke had no knowledge of Paul's epistles (Layman argues against literary dependence, but that is not the argument.)

Layman does not seem to have addressed the arguments of Thomas Brodie in "Toward Tracing the Gospels' Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles," in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity which I referenced in that thread, or explained why Luke had so many sources at his disposal, but none of Paul's letters.

Peter Kirby

July 31, 2005, 08:02 PM

(Layman argues against literary dependence, but that is not the argument.)
Chris argues against the author's use of the Pauline letters in constructing Acts. Why is that not the important argument?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

July 31, 2005, 08:27 PM

Which Greek novel was that, Vorkosigan? Sounds scandalously delicious.

They all have trials....

I suspect WinAce was asking which Greek novel it was that was originally thought to be a work of history, as mentioned in the fourth post of this thread:

...did I mention that there was a Greek novel, when discovered, that was taken for a historical text until later discoveries corrected that?

Even if WinAce was not asking about this novel, I for one would be interested to know the story.

Toto

July 31, 2005, 08:39 PM

Chris argues against the author's use of the Pauline letters in constructing Acts. Why is that not the important argument?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Chris has argued that the author of Acts did not have any knowledge of the Pauline epistles, and that therefore the many points of correspondence between them is evidence that the author of Acts had access to some historical sources, lost to us, other than the epistles, reporting those events, and that this confirms in some way the accuracy and historicity of Acts.

The author of Acts might have known of the Pauline epistles, but not have copied and pasted from them (as s/he did with Mark).

I have some references to papers by Thomas L. Brodie which argue for this sort of dependence by Luke on Paul's letters, in addition to the one paper that I referenced in the original thread.

S.C.Carlson

July 31, 2005, 10:56 PM

I have some references to papers by Thomas L. Brodie which argue for this sort of dependence by Luke on Paul's letters, in addition to the one paper that I referenced in the original thread.

Thanks for mentioning this book. I've added it to my long and endless wishlist of books to buy, read, and digest.

S.C.Carlson

July 31, 2005, 10:59 PM

Chris has given me permission to host the Word file.

Much better, thanks. It's an interesting piece of work.

Vorkosigan

July 31, 2005, 11:11 PM

Ben and Win, here's the relevant passage from Winkler's intro:

"Contemplating the fragmentary novels, one is often struck by the accuracy of Bahktin's observation about the plasticity of the novel form and the way in which it "fused together in its structure almost all genres of ancient literature."(1981:89). The Sesonchosis fragments are a case in point. (This is an historical romance whose protagonist is pharoah of the Twelfth Dynasty -- Senwosret, or Sesostris as Herodotos calls him.) A fragment of Sesonchosis, when first published, was identified as history. Only later was it reclassified when a new and more extensive peice of it came to light. A cogent argument was made to assign one fairly extensive fragment to a lost oration of Lysias, until proved to be from Lucian's Ass Tale. A part of Metiochos and Parthenope was originally labeled "philosophical" because it opens with a discourse modelled on Plato's Symposium, the subject of which was the power of Eros. Such examples can be multiplied."(p8-9)

Layman

July 31, 2005, 11:56 PM

This is the first problem that caught my eye:

Chris Price:

What Pervo actually said

So Pervo is not assuming that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies. He refers to previous scholars who have demonstrated those inaccuracies so often that it would be a diversion from his point to merely reargue them, but he does list them when required by his argument.

I haven't read the entire essay, but this is not a good start. Chris Price's arguments against Pervo (as if he were the only scholar convinced that Acts is a Hellenistic romance) appear to attack a fairly simplistic version of Pervo's thesis, which relied heavily on previous scholarship which does not appear to be referenced in this essay.

Toto,

I offer the same quote from Pervo in my article.

Layman

July 31, 2005, 11:58 PM

Chris has argued that the author of Acts did not have any knowledge of the Pauline epistles, and that therefore the many points of correspondence between them is evidence that the author of Acts had access to some historical sources, lost to us, other than the epistles, reporting those events, and that this confirms in some way the accuracy and historicity of Acts.

The author of Acts might have known of the Pauline epistles, but not have copied and pasted from them (as s/he did with Mark).

I have some references to papers by Thomas L. Brodie which argue for this sort of dependence by Luke on Paul's letters, in addition to the one paper that I referenced in the original thread.

Did I argue that the author of Acts had no knowledge of Paul's letters? I thought I was arguing that the author of Acts did not use them as source material.

Layman

August 1, 2005, 12:22 AM

But Pervo's analysis seems correct -- Acts is a Greek erotic novel (comically, you even repeat someone arguing that it can't be because it doesn't have a romance -- what a great argument!

At first I thought it was something worth mentioning. I do not imply the absence of anything like our modern day bodice-ripping novels was suggestive. But the more I looked into the apocryphal Acts the more telling I thought this point was. The tremendous popularity of this element, often involving a woman in jeopardy who maintains her moral uprightness throughout the novel, is revidence in almost all ofthe apocryphal Acts, most obviously in the Acts of Paul's portrayal of Thecla and Paul, but also in the Acts of John, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and even the Acts of Peter. So yeah, I did think that its omission from the Acts of the Apostles was significant.

Vorkosigan

August 1, 2005, 01:26 AM

At first I thought it was something worth mentioning. I do not imply the absence of anything like our modern day bodice-ripping novels was suggestive. But the more I looked into the apocryphal Acts the more telling I thought this point was. The tremendous popularity of this element, often involving a woman in jeopardy who maintains her moral uprightness throughout the novel, is revidence in almost all ofthe apocryphal Acts, most obviously in the Acts of Paul's portrayal of Thecla and Paul, but also in the Acts of John, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and even the Acts of Peter. So yeah, I did think that its omission from the Acts of the Apostles was significant.

That's an element of the erotic novels, including the hellenistc ones, the Christian ones, and the oddball Joseph and Asenath. But if you look at the fiction that is lumped together under the "erotic" title, the range of stuff is pretty vast. Admittedly, this varies by author and lumper. I was wrong to speak so strongly. Please accept my apology.

At the same time, the point understands the issue in a shallow way. Obviously Acts is not overtly a romance novel. But it does make thorough use of the conventions of Greek erotic fiction. I urgently recommend that you hunt down Winkler's collection, as it has both the greek and english side by side, and all of the fragments, and a good introduction to each well, as well as a general intro. The distinction of "romantic' is somewhat artificial. As Winkler notes, speaking of the way the novels evolve and send out new forms: "Certainly the recasting of the Greek novel Metiochos and Parthenope as a Coptic martyr tale and later as a Persian poem is an inverse demonstration of how such transformations can occur as well as what unexpected permutations they may take."(p12) It's simply not relevant that there's no romance in Acts.

Diogenes is right in that your writing is off much higher quality than Strobel's. There's a huge market for apologetic stuff in the US. As Samuel Johnson said, he who does not write for cash is a blockhead.

Once again, please accept my apology

Michael

Toto

August 1, 2005, 02:24 AM

Toto,

I offer the same quote from Pervo in my article.

You only quote the first sentence of the block that I quoted. But even that does not support your assertion that "as Pervo candidly admits, he simply assumes rather than demonstrates that Acts is replete with historical inaccuracies."

I think that this sentence of yours is simply inaccurate, and you would do well to revise it.

Toto

August 1, 2005, 02:32 AM

Did I argue that the author of Acts had no knowledge of Paul's letters? I thought I was arguing that the author of Acts did not use them as source material.

You argue:

The evidence demonstrates that the author of Acts did not use Paul’s letters as source material for his narrative. The implications of this are significant. It demands a different explanation for Luke’s extensive and accurate knowledge about the life of Paul. Luke had an incredible amount of independent but accurate information about early Christianity. Furthermore, the subjects upon which the Pauline corpus and Acts agree may be deemed all the more reliable. “If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced.�?

While you do not phrase this as an argument that the author of Acts had no knowledge of Paul's letters, your argument does not make much sense if that author knew of Paul's letters but just did not use them as source material in any identifiable way. The author would still have been able to work his or her knowledge into the tale.

Just before the paragraph quoted here, you quote Knox to the effect "So far as the evidence goes, then, I should say that no convincing case can be made for Luke’s reliance on the letters of Paul or for his knowledge of them at all."

You then argue for an early dating of Acts in order to place it before Paul's letters became widely known.

Vorkosigan

August 1, 2005, 05:21 AM

The tremendous popularity of this element, often involving a woman in jeopardy who maintains her moral uprightness throughout the novel, is revidence in almost all ofthe apocryphal Acts, most obviously in the Acts of Paul's portrayal of Thecla and Paul, but also in the Acts of John, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of Thomas, and even the Acts of Peter. So yeah, I did think that its omission from the Acts of the Apostles was significant.

I think another thing is worth mentioning. Robert Alter points out in the Art of Biblical Narrative that if you watch hollywood westerns, you'll soon experience the convention of the sheriff who blasts bad guys with his six shooter and strong right arm. If you see a dozen movies, and 11 have the six-shootin' sheriff, you're watching a convention. However, in the 12th movie, if you see a sheriff with a withered right arm who shoots a rifle, you're still seeing the same convention, but it has been suppressed. it would be a mistake to assign it to a different genre. Similarly, if you see dozen novels that are like Acts but have romances, it is a mistake to assign acts to a different genre. It's a romance novel in which the romance has been suppressed.

It's important to put yourself in the audience's place. Both they and the writer know the conventions. Hence, the audience expects that at the end the male and female heroes will be re-united in love. So who is Paul's lover, and how is he re-united with him at the end. Well, it might be possible to read Acts as Paul's going to his death and re-unification with God. That reading might be wrong or right, but the point is, the audience would still read the conventions into the tale even when the author has suppressed them. So how should that affect your analysis of Act's genre?

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

August 1, 2005, 09:55 AM

Some//Most//All(?) of the speeches in Acts look like creation (speech making was quite popular at the time wasn't it?).

Just for handy reference, here is the famous Thucydidean passage on speeches (The Peloponnesian War 1.22.1, translation from Richard Crawley (http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/pelopwar.html)):

Και οσα μεν λογω ειπον εκαστοι η μελλοντες πολεμησειν η εν αυτω ηδη οντες, χαλεπον την ακ�?ιβειαν αυτην των λεχθεντων διαμνημονευσαι ην εμοι τε ων αυτος ηκουσα και τοις αλλοθεν ποθεν εμοι απαγγελλουσιν, ως δ αν εδοκουν εμοι εκαστοι πε�?ι των αιει πα�?οντων τα δεοντα μαλιστ ειπειν, εχομενω οτι εγγυτατα της ξυμπασης γνωμης των αληθως λεχθεντων, ουτως ει�?ηται.

With reference to the speeches in this history, some were delivered before the war began, others while it was going on; some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the various occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said.

And the somewhat less famous note by Lucian, How to Write History 58 (text and translation from K. Kilburn in the Loeb edition, Lucian VI):

Ην δε ποτε και λογους ε�?ουντα τινα δεηση εισαγειν, μαλιστα μεν εοικοτα τω π�?οσωπω και τω π�?αγματι οικεια λεγεσθω, επειτα ως σαφεστατα και ταυτα. πλην εφειται σοι τοτε και �?ητο�?ευσαι και επιδειξαι την των λογων δεινοτητα.

If a person has to be introduced to make a speech, above all let his language suit his person and his subject, and next let these also be as clear as possible. It is then, however, that you can play the orator and show your eloquence.

Vinnie, do you see the speeches in Acts as invented within the limits implied by Thucydides and Lucian (suitable both for the person and for the occasion), or do you see them as freewheeling concoctions of a more strongly fictitious kind?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

August 1, 2005, 10:41 AM

Vinnie, do you see the speeches in Acts as invented within the limits implied by Thucydides and Lucian (suitable both for the person and for the occasion), or do you see them as freewheeling concoctions of a more strongly fictitious kind?

The Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/) is having a field day with current-day journalists routinely misquoting their sources (see e.g., "Quotations" with a word error rate of 40-60% and more (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/002366.html)). This is in a day and age with modern recording equipment. Think about how much more difficult it would be in antiquity to capture extemporaneous speech in a verbatim fashion.

Vinnie

August 1, 2005, 01:18 PM

Vinnie, do you see the speeches in Acts as invented within the limits implied by Thucydides and Lucian (suitable both for the person and for the occasion), or do you see them as freewheeling concoctions of a more strongly fictitious kind?

Ben.

There is no easy answer. My rule it to stay focused on what we do know:

1) Ancient authors certainly had a higher level of freedom in their speech writing.
2) Even authors like Josephus embellished, created and omitted things.
3') The Gospel of John went hog-wild with invented sayings of Jesus. I think the Gospel of John makes me very cautious of accepting any single-attested sayings that are ideologically consitent with the overal grain of Acts itself. I don't know of a cruitical scholar who thinks the Johannine sayings material is accurate. The fact is that some Christians were very inventive though differences between Acts and GJohn must clearly be recognized.
4) Luke had his own theology which is evidence by how he treats Mark. Looking for ways that Luke edits Mark and finding similar beliefs/material in Acts can find us some insight into luke's mind.
5) I am flat out dismissive of the miraculous.
6) Luke has a tendency to smooth out conflict and present a unified Church. Anything along this line is suspect IMO.
7) The same author who can churn out an infancy narrative can write a cohesive church history.
8) Acts has no qualms about inventing. He imagined a codign ending for Judas. Matthew casts the eventsi n light of the OT and has Judas hang himself as did that Apho (forgot the name) guy who betrayed David and Papias has two different demises for Judas an Luke a third. Judas was the embodiment of evil, he was infamous and all the authors felt free to assign a codign ending to him (fell headlong and body burst open).
9) As I noited above, the Twelve--if historical--which is seriously disputed--we may end up taking a Sander's like view that membership was not completely static. Jesus' inner twelve would have numbered about twelve, but not necessarily exactly twelve. This accounts for the divergences in the lists of twelve which are overall , similar. So there was no need to "replace Judas" but since the number "Twelve" by then (when Luke wrote ala Meier) became more exact he wanted to smooth things over in transition from Jesus' twelve to the post easter twelve with an appropriate beginning. Jesus selected twelve and one of them was missing so someon had to replace him.

On the flipside, Luke does get a lot of things right, as Chris amply documents. The fact is that Luke gets stuff right and some stuff wrong.

Lets take the first major speech that I can find in Acts:

Peter addresses the crowd in c.2. It has an air of historicity, its set in a real time and place and more than that, Peter even mentions "its only nine in the morning". But this may be common tongue in that Luke knows Jews won't break their fast on festival days until 10 am. But the fact is, Luke is writing about 60 years after this event and when Peter gave his speech I doubt his illiterate audience had notebooks on hand to record it. Just imagining this speech accurately remembered and faithfully handed on for 60 years is extremely difficult.

The fact is that Peter was a leader in the early church. He presumably gave many many speeches and teaching about Jesus. There is no clear line of transmisison here. Memory forgets, memory adds, memory conflates and so forth. Peter's speeches themselves would have undergone fchange through time. Look what happened to Jesus' sayings in such a short time. Peter may even have even said the types of things Luke has him say.

As far as Luke was concerned, Peter was an origianal member of the twelve who accepted the death and resurrection of Jesus as according to the scriptures. Luke basically "knew" the types of things Peter would say. It is very easy to envision Luke--in his mind-- simply connecting a few dots.

So I don't think "did Peter say exactly this" is the right question. I think the reconstruction should begin with, what did the early church believe and in that light, based upon the material they produced that ended up on later written sources, and that found in Paul who was a Christian preacher, what type of things would they have said. Then if we have diverse beliefs evident in the first stratum try to break it down for individuals (e.g. Jame's belief versus Peter's versus Pauls if they differ).

But I doubt Luke--if written by the actual Luke-- followed Peter around and wrote down his speeches. I think the convention may have been followed in that Luke very well could have known "the type of things Peter would have said or normally said" but even this must tread carefully. Did Luke carefully investigate the situation and learn of Mary's song performed 100 years earlier when Jesus was born in Luke 1.46-55. This is clearly an invented fiction--presumably a wholesale one.

Mary's speech//song does not appear within the realm of historical convention that those who quote Thucydides think his comments pertain to . Though Luke may have supposed "Mary was a good mother and since she knew she was giving birth as a virgin and she knew God was working through her, and something big was happenoing through her, she must have been elated and its easy to have her say something along the lines of what she did say as she must have felt that way....

The limits provided by comments from Thucydides and Lucian? Those limits are extremely hard to define. It can be as extreme as that found in GJohn or in Mary's song or so on. Luke may have just thought he was conecting appropriate dots, or simply trying to write a good story. One doesn't know and not convention, but detailed and painstaking study into the texts themselves will tell.

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

August 1, 2005, 02:11 PM

Ben and Win, here's the relevant passage from Winkler's intro....

Thank you very much for the clarification.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

August 1, 2005, 02:32 PM

There is no easy answer....

You gave me five times the response I expected. Thank you.

I quite agree that the limits implied by Thucydides and Lucian are very broad; however, the main limit that I had in mind was that both appear to require the speech to be appropriate for the historical personage himself (or herself), not necessarily for the author. In addition, Thucydides (at least) appears to presume that there actually was some such speech given; that is, he does not admit to inventing the occasions themselves.

(Inventing an apocalyptic outlook, for example, for a Jesus who happened to be rootedly opposed to apocalypticism would seem to me to cross the line. Smoothing out apparent anomalies in such an apocalyptic outlook, on the other hand, would seem to fall under what Lucian says about being eloquent.)

Between Acts and John, if only one of them crosses the line, my money would be on John. Acts looks more controlled.

I do not think that we can recover the ipsissima verba of any ancient person unless that person himself has left it in writing (and even then there may be wrinkles). However, the basic thrust of what a person believed and habitually talked about is fair game for the historian.

Thanks again for your thoughtful and lengthy remarks.

Ben.

Toto

August 1, 2005, 02:55 PM

Discussion of the 1001 errors in the Bible has been split off here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=132345)

JoeWallack

August 2, 2005, 09:18 AM

JW:
I previously indicated that in General Price has the following serious problems with concluding that Acts is primarily history which he Ignores/Minimizes:

1) Impossible claims.

This is a characteristic of Fiction. It also creates doubt as to the historicity of Possible claims. Comparing Acts to Paul's letters here it should be noted that Paul's letters generally don't have Impossible claims concerning Paul. History. Acts on the other hand does. Fiction.

2) No Provenance for the Author.

This is a characteristic of Fiction.

3) Credibility of the Author.

This author also apparently wrote "Luke". "Luke" is filled with the Impossible. "Luke" copied most of "Mark" without indicating such and appeared to edit "Mark" for theological reasons.

4) Language.

The author wrote in Greek and appeared to use Greek sources. The primary subjects in the related stories would have spoken Aramaic. Maybe no big deal when you still have sources in the original language, but when you don't?

5) Religious Genre.

"Luke"/Acts is in the genre of religious writing, maintained and Edited by a Biased Religious institution.

6) The difference in Style of Act's Paul and Paul's Paul.

Act's Paul is well-spoken and clearly communicates. Paul's Paul is often disorganized, contradictory and unclear. Read "Romans", probably Paul's most important theological work, in the Greek, before English sanitation, and it's often unclear what the hell Paul is trying to say.

Now let's add another one (for Price to Ignore and Vinnie to copy):

7) Act's succession of Jesus' Disciples is Contradicted by a Primary Source for the Author, "Mark".

The purpose of Acts in the Christian Bible is to provide the Missing Link between Jesus and the Church. A Primary point of the original Gospel, "Mark", is that there was no such succession. ALL the original disciples Failed Jesus. I can just picture the author of "Luke" spinning around in her grave when she found out "Mark" was put in the same Canon like Disney spinning in his grave when he found out "The Jews" were now running his company.

We can also look at 7) from a Common Sense Criteria (always the best criteria). How does Paul, someone who was never taught, knew or saw the earthly Jesus, become the Primary spokesman for Jesus if there were Jesus Disciples who received (the) spirit holy promised by "Luke's" Jesus that Paul didn't? In the words of that great 20th century philosopher Yoda, "hmmm". Doesn't make sense. Unless, "Luke's" primary source was correct, there was no transition of Jesus' disciples.

(JW drinking with BAR, trying to control temper, unable to, yells at Peter and Vinnie):

Go get yer friggin shoebox of 1001 Errors In The Christian Bible!

Here's Price's conclusion on the intent of the Author of Acts:

1. Acts was written as a work of ancient historiography, describing real people and events. As an ancient historian, Luke would have written “with three combined purposes, though the emphasis could vary greatly. History ought to be truthful, useful, and entertaining, but it should not be entertaining at the expense of truth or utility.�?[232] The additional purpose of his writing may have been to continue writing, as an extension of the Old Testament, the history of God’s salvation. But to express this history it seems that it was most influenced by Greek historiography.

Intent is evidence of historical value but what Price doesn't mention is just because your intent was history, that doesn't necessarily mean it was history. More important is HOW you determined history.

Regarding accuracy Price writes:

2. Though the author of Acts faced the daunting obstacles of any ancient historian – as there were very few accurate maps to help understand geography and few, if any, sources of information about local customs and practices, as well as an ever changing legal and political regime – he writes with a high level of accuracy regarding geography, local details, Jewish customs and beliefs, current events, political situations, and Roman legal proceedings. The author’s accuracy suggests excellent sources and/or personal participation.

And here's how Price dealt with Potential Inaccuracies in the detail of his piece:

Accordingly, even if Pervo’s evaluation of the accuracy of Acts had merit, it does not count against classifying Acts as historiography.

What a remarkable statement! Peter, you must be very proud of this excellent work.

So in order to help evaluate whether Acts is history I think we should look at Potential errors in Acts even though Price doesn't. But maybe that's just me. Does anyone else agree?

Joseph

(In response to advice to be respectful) "Hey Vinnie, go yuck your forceps out" - JoeWallack

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors_In_The_Christian_Bible/?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Ben C Smith

August 2, 2005, 05:07 PM

The Language Log (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/) is having a field day with current-day journalists routinely misquoting their sources (see e.g., "Quotations" with a word error rate of 40-60% and more (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/002366.html)). This is in a day and age with modern recording equipment. Think about how much more difficult it would be in antiquity to capture extemporaneous speech in a verbatim fashion.

Sorry, Stephen, I missed your post the first time through.

I think Ed Cook had a blog entry not so long ago about a differently rendered modern quotation, to which he compared synoptic studies.

Do you think that the difficulty you point up helps decide between the appropriate-for-the-person-and-occasion model and the putting-my-own-contrary-ideas-on-his-lips model for any given text with speeches?

Ben.

Toto

August 2, 2005, 05:40 PM

Chris Price (Layman) has been trying for some time to convince us that Acts contains real history. Layman is not a historian, or he would know that modern historians are highly skeptical of trusting ancient documents in general, not to mention religious tracts such as Acts.

I don't have my copy of Pervo's Profit with Delight with me now, but I recall that he discusses "Luke the Theologian" and "Luke the Bad Historian" before he settles on "Luke the 2nd Century Christian Moralistic Romance Author."

Layman's argument appears to be that first of all we look at Luke's intent - his intent was to write history. Even though there are errors in the text, he still had that intent. But then with a wave of the hand, the errors are gone, and we are supposed to accept that Luke actually produced reliable history. What is the point here?

I think that everyone would agree that there is at least some history in Acts. Even historical novels contain some valid historical background, and historians have made use of novels in writing social history. But is the historical content 2%? 50%?

And if "Luke" managed to get some titles of various officials in the Roman Empire correct, does that mean that his tale of Saul persecuting Christians is based on history, or that Paul was sent to Rome under an armed guard and experienced a rather improbable sea adventure? Does that mean we are to accept as "history" the tale about a spiritual Jesus speaking to Saul on the road to Damascus - especially given all the other historical anomalies in that fable? (Or maybe one of the two other versions of Saul's conversion is more reliable?)

The whole enterprise doesn't make sense.

S.C.Carlson

August 3, 2005, 12:22 PM

I think Ed Cook had a blog entry not so long ago about a differently rendered modern quotation, to which he compared synoptic studies.

That's right, and Ed even linked to an earlier Language Log post on the same topic.

Do you think that the difficulty you point up helps decide between the appropriate-for-the-person-and-occasion model and the putting-my-own-contrary-ideas-on-his-lips model for any given text with speeches?

Personally, I'd rather operate under the what-the-author-perceives-would-be-plausible-to-the-intended-audience's-expectations model and go from there. The lack of contemporary expectations for verbatim transcripts means that we are primarily working with interpretation rather than raw data. That doesn't necessary mean that there isn't something underneath the interpretation, just that the critical historian has to be careful with it.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

August 3, 2005, 12:42 PM

Personally, I'd rather operate under the what-the-author-perceives-would-be-plausible-to-the-intended-audience's-expectations model and go from there. The lack of contemporary expectations for verbatim transcripts means that we are primarily working with interpretation rather than raw data. That doesn't necessary mean that there isn't something underneath the interpretation, just that the critical historian has to be careful with it.

I like that name for your model. :)

I bet I could come up with an even longer and more convoluted one if I applied myself. But I will settle for appropriate-for-what-the-intended-readership-presumably-expects-of-the-person-and-occasion in place of my more simplistic appropriate-for-the-person-and-occasion. How does that sound?

Ben.

andrewcriddle

August 3, 2005, 03:39 PM

andrewcriddle

August 3, 2005, 03:43 PM

And if "Luke" managed to get some titles of various officials in the Roman Empire correct, does that mean that his tale of Saul persecuting Christians is based on history.
Paul himself in Philippians 3:6 claims to have persecuted Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

August 4, 2005, 01:18 AM

Some quotes from the page:-

'The author of Acts faced a problem common among ancient writers: a lack of records and information. Unlike today, there were no – or very few – reference books, encyclopedias, or textbooks available. As for geography, “exact and detailed geographical knowledge on the basis of maps and accurate descriptions of places was limited to a very tiny elite of soldiers, politicians and scholars, and even with them, personal knowledge of a place was irreplaceable.'

' Despite the challenges faced by ancient historians, Acts demonstrates familiarity with varied Jewish customs and beliefs, including many related to the Temple. Notably, the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and the related practices and rituals extinguished. As a result, without good sources, precise knowledge of pre-Temple destruction customs was hard to come by after 70 AD.'

' Furthermore, as admitted by one of the few proponents of Lukan dependence on Antiquities, although few other accounts of ancient Jewish history have survived to this day, there were many others that survived to the late ninth century.'

Guess sources come and go , depending upon what Layman wants to argue at the time. One minute sources on pre 70 Jewish practices are hard to come by, the next they are so common that Josephus would have found the market for his book already flooded....

“And on the next day, as they were on their way, and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray.�? Acts 10:9.

Layman tells us how astonishingly accurate saying the hour of prayer was the 6th hour.

“Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer.�? Acts 3:1.

Layman tells us how astonishingly accurate saying the hour of prayer was the 9th hour.

And don't forget Luke's astonishing accuracy in saying that the Temple had stairs.

From the page :- ' “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.�? Acts 2:29. The tomb of David is mentioned in Neh. 3:16.'

If Wallack can produce 1001 errors in the Bible, then Layman can soon beat him with his 1001 factoids in the Bible (Paul was a Jew, The Temple had stairs, A huge town like Corinth had a synagogue....)

Steven Carr

August 4, 2005, 01:21 AM

Steven Carr

August 4, 2005, 01:53 AM

Layman writes in his article

“Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey away.�? Acts 1:12.

The reference to a “Sabbath day’s journey�? from Jerusalem to the mount of Olivet, shows accurate knowledge of Jewish customs. “The distance of their walk a ‘Sabbath day’s walk,’ which was the longest distance one could walk without breaking the Sabbath. The rabbinic tradition set this at 2,000 cubits, i.e., about three-fourths of a mile.�? As Hengel notes, “[t]he term ‘a sabbath day’s journey’, which appears only here in the New Testament, presupposes an amazingly intimate knowledge—for a Greek—of Jewish customs.�?

----------------------------

Amazingly intimate knowledge.

Luke was probably the only Christian still alive to know such a thing as what a Sabbath day's journey meant - he and all his readers , who Luke presupposes would find that a very useful length for comparison. Perhaps Luke realised that his readers also had an amazingly intimate knowldge of Jewish customs.

Layman explains what a Sabbath day's journey is, because he thinks his readers are not bound by Sabbath day regulations, and have had no need to study up on what they are.

Prersumably Luke did not think his readers would need the detailed explanation that Layman gives. Perhaps they had studied up on what a Sabbath day's journey was , although it was quite irrelevant for Christians told that such legal minutaie no longer applied.

Amaleq13

August 4, 2005, 02:27 AM

I was interested in the reference in the article to Streeter's idea that the relation between Luke-Acts and Josephus can be most plausibly explained if Luke had listened to Josephus giving public readings of early drafts of the 'Antiquities' in the 80's but wrote Luke-Acts before Josephus published 'Antiquities' in the mid 90's.

At first sight it seems IMO quite likely.

I understand the argument that, if there is a connection, it is more likely the result of recollections of verbal presentations than from a written source but I don't see why this requires or even suggests that the Gospel was written before a written version of Antiquities was published. If the author believed his recollection was sufficient to write his story, why should we assume he would feel it necessary to consult a written version?

andrewcriddle

August 4, 2005, 03:33 PM

I understand the argument that, if there is a connection, it is more likely the result of recollections of verbal presentations than from a written source but I don't see why this requires or even suggests that the Gospel was written before a written version of Antiquities was published. If the author believed his recollection was sufficient to write his story, why should we assume he would feel it necessary to consult a written version?
You may be right that Luke would not have got hold of a copy of 'Antiquities' the moment it was published in order to refresh his memory of a verbal presentation a few years before. However if Luke was writing some years after the publication of 'Antiquities' with the book widely available and his recollection fading with time then IMO it would probably be a different matter.

(Also rightly or wrongly, apart from the issue of the Luke-Josephus relation, I would tend to date Luke-Acts at the end of Domitian's reign probably too early for access to the published 'Antiquities'. If the links between Josephus and Luke do not require a date for Luke-Acts after 'Antiquities' then on the whole I would tend to date Luke-Acts before the publication of 'Antiquities'.)

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

August 4, 2005, 05:33 PM

Layman writes in his article on Acts :-

'The reliance is firmly established. As Prof. Barnett, notes: The term sundoulou occurs only in the Pauline letters only in Col. 1:7 and 4:7. In the one instance it is applied to Epaphrus and in the other to Tychicus. In each case pistos diakonos is a further element in the characterization. In the letters of Eph. 2:1, Philad. 4:1, and Smyrn. 12:2, each time in connection with sundoulou. The usage in these instances strongly suggests acquaintance with Colossians.'

'Sundolou' occurs 10 times in the New Testament.

But that aside, we now know what sort of standard is needed to firmly establish dependence - 3 words will do, and the sort of words that come up fairly often in Christianity - 'faithful' 'minister' and 'servant'.

As Carrier writes in his article on Luke and Josephus :-

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

L is the only Christian author to use the concept of free and frank speech, identified and praised in philosophy as parrhêsia (Acts 2:29, 4:29, 4:31, 28:31).

L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis, a term that would later take on a negative meaning among Christians as "heresy" (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5; on Christianity as a hairesis: 24:5, 24:14-5, 28:22). We know of no other author but Josephus to have done this--it is a creative feature of his own apologetic program and therefore likely his own idea.

L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189).

Yet Layman writes about Acts clear literary dependence upon Jospehus ' First, “[t]here is no evidence for direct literary relationship between them.�? Discussing the usual passages used to support dependence, Polhill notes that “[n]one of these passages . . . shows the least literary dependence on Josephus.�?'

And of course, Layman, being a lawyer, does not let his readers know what those passages might be. He greatly prefers sweepung de haut en bas argument by authority, rather than discuss what he knows people like Carrier have written, and which he would prefer his readers never to find out. (They won't hear it from him!)

Why hide evidence, like that, unless you have somtehing to hide?

Steven Carr

August 4, 2005, 05:58 PM

Layman

August 4, 2005, 07:18 PM

Luke is the only Christian writer to mention 3 rebel figures that Josephus mentions, as being active in the period up to 62 AD.

Layman pours scorn upon this, saying the following :-

'First, it is somewhat misleading to say that Luke mentioned the “same three figures�? as “featured�? in Josephus. Josephus names and discusses more than these three figures. Indeed, in addition to Judas, Thuedas, and the Egyptian, Josephus mentions eight other such leaders in Antiquities alone:

�? Eleazar, the son of Dineas;

�? Sadduc, a Pharisee;

�? Simon, the son of Gioras;

�? Manahem, the son of Judas;

�? John of Gischala;

�? Eleazar the arch-robber; and,

�? James and Simon, sons of Judas.

Josephus discusses even more rebels in Wars, such as “that arch-robber Hezekias,�? “the two thousand of Herod’s veterans,�? and “Athrongeus'

--------------------
Did Luke use the only 3 rebels , 'featured' by Josephus as being active in the time Luke was writing about? If Luke was using Josephus , he would harldy name rebels Josephus says were active before 6 BC or after 62 AD.

Hezekias was the father of Judas, and so was not a rebel leader in the time Luke was writing about. (Not that Layman lets that disturb his readers into thinking that Luke and Josephus agree on who were the featured rebel leaders in the relevant time period).

Hezekias was subdued by Herod, before Luke begins his Gospel.

Eleazar was mentioned in connection with a period after Luke was writing about.

Menahem was mentioned in connection with a period after Luke was writing about.

Sadduc is hardly mentioned as a rebel leader. The chapter says it is about Judas, who Josephus says was the author of the 4th sect (using the word Luke uses) of Judaism. Give Layman a half-hit for Sadduc though.

Was Simon, the son of Gioras, featured by Josephus as being active in the time period relevant to Luke when using Josephus for names of rebels?

No, as Layman carefully does not explain, Simon, and these 2 thousand of Herod's veterans would not have been used by Luke as examples of rebels. They were out of the time frame that was relevant.

What about John of Gischala? Josephus features him as a rebel.

Surely if Luke was using Josephus as a source of rebels, then he would have used John of Gischala as a rebel as well as the 3 featured rebels.

No, because John of Gischala was a commander during the war ie *after* the time period Luke was writing about.

I find it utterly astonishing that Layman can throw these red herrings about, in a work that he wants to be taken seriously.

The fact remains that Josephus features 3 rebels prominently during the period Luke ws writing about and these are the same 3 that Luke named.

Layman's red herrings (and his careful refusal to let his readers know *when* these people were rebels), are simply part of a smokescreen. This is really diabolical.

I do not consider it to be "pouring scorn" to refer to a statement as "somewhat misleading." I actually take Mason seriously because he is a serious scholar. And I admit that I gained some good insights into Josephus from reading his book.

I do not recall Mason putting the unsupportable qualifier of "from the time about which Luke writes" to his claim that Luke and Acts "feature the same three rebel leaders." (though I do not have his book with me). Nevertheless, the crux of Mason's point rests on Luke's misreading or not remembering Josephus. This is supposed to explain why Luke mentions Theudas not in the time period he was writing about (according to Josephus), but as Carrier notes, "Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned." So how is Theudas supposed to be from the same time frame about which Luke is writing? My article points out that if Luke is merely throwing rebel names at his narrative that he dimly recalls from reading Josephus too quickly and is already jumbling them up, he had many more candidates than three to choose from

Furthermore, because Luke already refers to Theudas too early (according to Mason and Carrier), why not later rebels too early? And there is no basis for ruling out the father of Judas or other "earlier" rebels. In Acts 5, Gamaliel is reported to be speaking about the past and giving examples of failed rebel leaders. He is talking about "some time ago," so why, especially if Luke only remembers the names of the rebels and not when they appeared, should we rule out the rebels that preceeded the time period of his narrative? That Luke begins his Gospel around 4-5 BC does not make the earlier rebel leaders irrelevant.

So, Josephus mentions more than three rebel leaders and if Luke is supposed to have jumbled them up and placed Theudas too early because he only dimly remembered what he read then it is conceded that the pot is bigger than just those who were active within the artificial time constraints of the beginning of Luke's gospel and the end of Acts. This is especially true because Gamaliel is referring to rebel leaders from "some time ago" which would obviously include rebels prior to 4-6 BC. Luke is not narrating the actions of these rebels, but using them as examples of failed leaders.

In any event, there is nothing remarkable about Acts' mention of these three rebel leaders that are also found in Josephus. They were not state secrets and could very well have been known by someone like Luke who was a companion of Paul had visited Jerusalem and the Christians there. It cannot be assumed that Josephus was the only possible source of this information.

Toto

August 4, 2005, 07:24 PM

Who claims that Luke "dimly remembered" Josephus?

From Carrier's essay Finally, Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When Luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josphus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people."

Layman

August 4, 2005, 07:31 PM

Yet Layman writes about Acts clear literary dependence upon Jospehus ' First, “[t]here is no evidence for direct literary relationship between them.�? Discussing the usual passages used to support dependence, Polhill notes that “[n]one of these passages . . . shows the least literary dependence on Josephus.�?'

And of course, Layman, being a lawyer, does not let his readers know what those passages might be. He greatly prefers sweepung de haut en bas argument by authority, rather than discuss what he knows people like Carrier have written, and which he would prefer his readers never to find out. (They won't hear it from him!)

Why hide evidence, like that, unless you have somtehing to hide?

I certainly do discuss the passages that are used to argue for dependence, including the reference to the census, the rebel leaders, and the supposed linguistic similarities. I focus on the one's Mason find most probative, such as the sicari, the Egyptian, and the discussion about the philosophical schools. I also refer to Holding's more specific comments on some of these terms, which as he shows are not all that unique. There are some others that Mason refers to as “minor parallels�? that he concedes, “[b]y themselves, […] are too vague to establish a relationship between the texts.�?. (See my footnote 230).

So like I said, I focused on what Mason focused on. And I referred readers via hyperlink to a more thorough discussion of the philosophical school terms that Mason mentions. Too bad you cannot simply responed and criticize my article without turning it into a personal character issue.

Updated to Add: If I remember correctly, most of the terms about philosophical schools were actually quite common when one was discussing philosophical schools. Thus the real thrust of Mason's argument here is the supposed novelty of anyone thinking to present Jewish sects in such a way. But as I argue in the article, its not really all that surprising that Luke, probably for the same reasons as Josephus, probably would present Jewish sects to a Greek audience in such terms. Once that is seen as nothing special, the use of the terms at issue is not very probative.

Layman

August 4, 2005, 07:37 PM

Who claims that Luke "dimly remembered" Josephus?

From Carrier's essay

The typical argument for dependence, which I seem to remember Mason also accepted, suggests that Luke used Josephus but used him poorly because he only hastily perused Josephus or did not remember what he read. This is supposed to explain the differences as well as the agreements.

Because Carrier is parroting Mason, I used Mason's book in my article. When I first wrote the chapter I only had Mason's first edition. But by the time the entire article was written, I had to get the second edition because Mason had revised his argument (for example, notably conceding the possibility that Luke may have heard an oral presentation of Josephus rather than being literary dependent on his texts).

Layman

August 4, 2005, 07:41 PM

And destroys the idea that Luke got his speeches mentioning Egyptians, Theudas etc from anywhere except his imgaination and listening to Josephus.

Where does Luke mention "Egyptians"? Are you thinking of Acts 7:22 ("Moses was educated in all the learning of the Egyptians, and he was a man of power in words and deeds.")? Why would he not get this from the Old Testament?

Layman

August 4, 2005, 07:42 PM

Paul himself in Philippians 3:6 claims to have persecuted Christians.

Andrew Criddle

Toto is skeptical that there were any Christians during the first century. Thus there was no one to persecute and no Paul in any event.

Toto

August 4, 2005, 07:57 PM

Toto is skeptical that there were any Christians during the first century. Thus there was no one to persecute and no Paul in any event.

Please refrain from speaking for me.

I am skeptical that there were any self-identified Christians for most of the first century. But I have never challenged Paul's existence.

John Kesler

August 4, 2005, 09:26 PM

Toto:
Layman is not a historian, or he would know that modern historians are highly skeptical of trusting ancient documents in general, not to mention religious tracts such as Acts.

What source(s) can you cite to back the assertion that "modern historians are highly skeptical of trusting ancient documents" and "religious tracts"? How current and secular do documents have to be before they are given the benefit of the doubt?

Steven Carr

August 5, 2005, 01:14 AM

I certainly do discuss the passages that are used to argue for dependence, including the reference to the census, the rebel leaders, and the supposed linguistic similarities. I focus on the one's Mason find most probative, such as the sicari, the Egyptian, and the discussion about the philosophical schools.

In very little detail, certainly you stop mentioning any Greek
. Nor do you mention all the expressions Carrier gives.

I love your explanations of the obvious dependencies.

'Given the common Hellenized audience and social setting of the authors of Acts and Antiquities, it likely was “self-evidently appropriate�? for them to describe Jewish sects in this manner. How else is a writer to explain Jewish sects to a Greek audience? Especially given that the author of Luke-Acts was a Greek himself. '

SO Luke and Josephus were honour-bound to use Greek terms for their Hellenised audiences, and so they both do.

And the you immediately write 'There are terms related to philosophy that Mason relies on to argue dependence. He notes that Josephus and Luke refer to tradition being “handed down.�? But this is typical Jewish, especially Pharisiac language, and it should therefore come as no surprise that it is used by Luke to refer, well, to the handing down of tradition.'

So Luke and Josephus were honour-bound to use Jewish terms , as both were writing typically Jewish works.

Layman has an explanation for all dependencies. When Luke and Josephus have common Greek terms, they were both Greeks, and when they have common Jewish terms , they were writing Jewishly.

Layman writes ' Therefore, this correlation is unremarkable and best explained by sharing similar audiences.'

Huh? Both Josephus and Luke were writing for Christians????

And does Layman ever dream of trotting out 'similar audiences' when he has two letters to Christians , both using the rather common Christian concepts - 'servant' and 'minister'.

Of course not. Such unusual language indicates dependence on Layman's view.

While the extremely unusual use by Luke of a word which came to mean 'heresy' is best explained by Luke and Josephus writing for the same audience.......

Layman writes ' I also refer to Holding's more specific comments on some of these terms, which as he shows are not all that unique.'

This is no more than bluster.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lukeandjoe.html

Holding writes 'Mason and Carrier both note that Luke and Josephus use the word "secure" (asphaleia) in describing their concept of truth, a philosophical concept for factual and ethical truth. That's very fascinating. What other word ought they to have been able to use?

The reason for this is known by Mason, though he does not see it: Plutarch distinguishes philosophy from superstition on the grounds that only philosophy offers a "secure" way to look at the world. Paul uses the word in 1 Thess. 5:23 ("peace and safety). That both Luke and Josephus (and Paul) might use the same "buzzword" means no more than that two commercials for different political candidates might use the word "honest" or "integrity". Derivation is in no sense indicated by the use of this single word (and concept), which appears much, as even Mason admits, in the words of philosophers.'

How does Holding demonstrate that this word was common *without producing a single other example* from the relevant period? Is Holding really claiming that Paul was using the word to describe philosophy in the way that Luke and Josephus did?

Holding proves that a certain idiom was a common one , thusly :-

'More specifically, it is alleged that Luke can only be using Josephus to say that the Pharisees are the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), as none other than Josephus "uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189)." It does not occur to certain persons, apparently, that this was the idiom used (proudly!) of the Pharisees themselves, of themselves (Luke has this in the mouth of Paul).'

This is the logic Layman relies upon? Luke uses a common idiom among Pharisees. and we know it is a common idiom because Luke uses it when he has a Pharisee speak?

Can you say 'circular logic'?

And finally, just to show how much bluster Layman spoke when he said that he relied on Holding's refutation, Holding writes about another obvious dependency of Luke upon Josephus 'Much is made of Luke and Josephus using the word haireseis to describe their movements, but again, Luke was hardly unique in his use of this word (1 Cor. 11:19, Gal. 5:20, 2 Peter 2:1)...'

Galatians 5 - 'idolatry , witchcraft hatred variance emulations wrath , strife seditions , heresies'

So that is what Luke mean by saying that Paul was the leader of a heresy - he wanted to link him with seditious, idolatrous, wrathful witches :-)

Holding glosses over the fact that these use the word negatively, and in a different way to the way that both Luke and Josephus use it.

Indeed, the fact that other Christian writers did not share Luke's usage, while Josephus is stong evidence of dependence - what Layman would call 'a classic instance of undesigned coincidence', if such similar words occurred in works where he wanted to say there was a dependence.

But if Layman is going to point to Holding's articles as support, then he is going to be embarrassed when people read them....

Steven Carr

August 5, 2005, 01:27 AM

I like the way Layman, a lawyer by trade, marshalls his 'evidence'.

He writes ' After meeting and preaching in Jerusalem, both Acts and Galatians report that Paul left that city and proceeded to Syria.'

Acts 9:30 (“And he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus and disputed against the Hellenists, but they attempted to kill him. When the brethren found out they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him out to Tarsus.�?) and Gal. 1:21 (“But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. . . . Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia�?).

And if Galatians 1:18 says there was a 3 year gap between the conversion and the trip to Jerusalem, while Acts 9 puts the visit to Jerusalem seamlessly after the escape from Damascus in the very next verse...., well, Layman can still write 'In any event, the timing, geography, and occasion are the same.'

Steven Carr

August 5, 2005, 02:45 AM

I focus on the one's Mason find most probative, such as the sicari, the Egyptian, and the discussion about the philosophical schools. I also refer to Holding's more specific comments on some of these terms, which as he shows are not all that unique.

So like I said, I focused on what Mason focused on. And I referred readers via hyperlink to a more thorough discussion of the philosophical school terms that Mason mentions.

Updated to Add: If I remember correctly, most of the terms about philosophical schools were actually quite common when one was discussing philosophical schools.

Layman writes in the article :-
'The same may be true for Luke and Josephus’ use of the phrase “most precise school�? to describe the Pharisees. Though parallels are not found beyond Luke and Josephus’ writing, it is a flattering presentation that could have been used by the Pharisees themselves. '

Surprising that Holding has shown that these terms were quite common and not at all unique, when Layman himself admits that there are no examples other than Luke and Josephus for one of the most striking examples.

Toto

August 5, 2005, 02:50 AM

What source(s) can you cite to back the assertion that "modern historians are highly skeptical of trusting ancient documents" and "religious tracts"? How current and secular do documents have to be before they are given the benefit of the doubt?

Perhaps I should have said that modern historians are skeptical of all documents.

Steven Carr

August 5, 2005, 03:03 AM

Did Luke use Jewish sources when writing Acts as Layman claims?

'“[W]hen passages in Luke are set alongside passages from Mark, Luke proves to have been a sober and careful scribe.�? Further, Luke does not scatter his scources throughout his text. He reproduces them in large chunks. “Luke has tended to insert this material in blocks that preserve the sequences of his source.�? Is this practice how the author supposedly used Paul’s letters in Acts? Not at all.'

Wait a moment. That is Layman trying to prove that Luke did not use Paul's letters as sources.

When Layman wants to claim that Luke used these (unknown) Jewish sources, other than Josephus, he forgets all about his arguments that we can disocunt Luke using a source, if he has not reproduced them in large chunks or scattered them throughout the text.

As always, Christian apologetics is a whole set of ad hoc arguments.

If somebody wants to argue one thing (Luke did not use source A), arguments will be wheeled out to show that, and if that person wants to argue the opposite (Luke used sources B,C and D), those arguments will vanish from view. Having served their purpose , they can be discarded, ready for the next ad hoc rationalisation of the author's fixed conclusions.

andrewcriddle

August 6, 2005, 05:37 AM

Can I just note that the idea that the use of 'schools' by Luke is derived from Josephus only requires Luke to have read the 'Jewish War' which is IMO probable anyway.

The interesting question IMO is the relation of Luke and the 'Antiquities' and the use of the term 'school' is really not relevant here. Luke could have picked this up from the 'Jewish War' without needing any access to the 'Antiquities'.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

August 9, 2005, 12:41 AM

I wanted to add to this. Layman had commented earlier on the issue of love and other things. One of the articles I have is Ascough's 1996 article on Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe and Luke-Acts in which he cites other affinities between the two. Here are some pieces:

Richard Pervo makes a strong argument for the same generic designation for both the Acts of the Apostles and the ancient Greek novels.(FN5) In introducing his approach Pervo suggests that Acts does not reveal the basic concerns of ancient history. Instead, Acts is a popular work, edifying and entertaining in intention.(FN6) It deals with the beliefs, attitudes, and fortunes of ordinary people, not the political and military history of a nation.(FN7)
Pervo admits that determining what might have been found to be entertaining in the ancient world can be difficult. As a control on subjectivity he bases his own observations upon criteria derived from frequently recurring themes and motifs of ancient novelists, particularly those of Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesus.(FN8) In looking at Acts he is able to identify thirty-three episodes of adventure which function "to stimulate their readers but also to proclaim the mighty providence of God."(FN9) These adventurous episodes include arrests, persecution and martyrdom, plots and intrigue, crowds and riots, trials, and shipwreck and travel. Each of these he illustrates, illuminating the entertaining thrust of each category through a comparison with the ancient novels. Pervo concludes that by using the methods and means of the ancient novelists Luke created a work of excitement and suspense. Among the extant genres of antiquity the Book of Acts can be understood to be most like the historical novel.(FN10)

in light of Layman's comments on love I thought this was apropo:

Classicist C. R. Beye notes that "it is not too much to say that the idea of love found in the romances is related to the important idea of love that fills the Gospel narratives (which in other ways as well show affinities with this late Greek literary form) as well as Plato's Symposium."

and of course:

In a work treating both Luke and Acts, Susan Praeder applies narrative analysis and interpretation in a comparative study of Luke-Acts and the ancient novel.(FN14) Attempting to move beyond the narrow criterion of content alone as a means for comparison, she establishes a number of generic criteria to which the ancient novels were expected to conform. These are (1) historical and fictional characters and events set in the eastern Mediterranean, (2) biography of a main character with backward references to past events, (3) "alternation between summary and scene with scene predominating," (4) "the presence or absence of the narrator from the narrative world as indicated by first or third person narration," (5) avoidance of references to sources, (6) a depiction of Greco-Roman experience and imagination, and (7) the achievement of various intentions and effects through interesting and entertaining communication.(FN15) Praeder suggests that the satisfaction of all these criteria by Luke-Acts establishes its genre as ancient novel. The presence of Christian theological themes and authorial reference to Christian experience and imagination establish it in subgenre as a Christian ancient novel.(FN16)

Ascough has also noted some close parallels between the crowd scenes in the NT and in the ancient Greek novels.

Vorkosigan

Toto

August 9, 2005, 03:07 AM

andrewcriddle

August 9, 2005, 03:37 PM

One problem with linking canonical Acts closely to the Greek romance is that it may blur the distinction between canonical Acts and other early Christian works, (some of the apocryphal Acts eg 'Paul and Thecla' the pseudo-Cllementine stuff), where the resemblance to the Greek romance is much more obvious.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

August 9, 2005, 03:43 PM

Andrew, why is that a problem?

andrewcriddle

August 9, 2005, 04:21 PM

Andrew, why is that a problem?
Some scholars explain the spocryphal narratives as rewritings of canonical Acts under the influence of the Greek romance. There are cases like 'Paul and Thecla' where IMO this seems very plausible.

If however canonical Acts is already in genre clearly a Greek romance it becomes difficult IMO to explain the differences between canonical Acts and (some) of the apocryphal acts by saying that the apocryphal acts are influenced by the Greek romance in a way that canonical Acts was not.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

August 9, 2005, 05:26 PM

Is that Ascough, Richard S., "NarrativeTechnique and Generic Designation: Crowd Scenes in Luke-Acts and in Chariton," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996) 69-81? It doesn't seem to be on line anywhere. Nor is Praeder, Susan M. "Luke-Acts and the Ancient Novel." Society of Biblical Literature: 1981 Seminar Papers, pp. 269-292

Yes, that's Ascough. Sorry. I got it through my university's online search catalogs. We have some limited access to non-engineering stuff.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

August 9, 2005, 05:29 PM

Some scholars explain the spocryphal narratives as rewritings of canonical Acts under the influence of the Greek romance. There are cases like 'Paul and Thecla' where IMO this seems very plausible.

If however canonical Acts is already in genre clearly a Greek romance it becomes difficult IMO to explain the differences between canonical Acts and (some) of the apocryphal acts by saying that the apocryphal acts are influenced by the Greek romance in a way that canonical Acts was not.

Andrew Criddle

Well, what would you say the difference is? I've never made any distinction between them, and that was long before I knew that they were Greek romance novels.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

August 9, 2005, 05:56 PM

Well, what would you say the difference is? I've never made any distinction between them, and that was long before I knew that they were Greek romance novels.

Vorkosigan
In 'Paul and Thecla' the love interest (beautiful late teenage girl jealousy of her spurned lover Paul and Thecla separating and then meeting up again) is prominent in a way characteristic of the romances but not canonical Acts.

There is also a taste for erotocised 'maiden in peril' stuff, Thecla twice facing death in the arena naked or nearly so. Again we find this in the romances but not canonical Acts.

The pseudo-Clementine material (Homilies and Recognitions) is a series of sermons embedded in a story about a separated family being reunited. This story comes right out of the romances although it is, I agree, only a framework for the real concerns of the author.

Andrew Criddle

Layman

August 9, 2005, 08:11 PM

Please refrain from speaking for me.

I am skeptical that there were any self-identified Christians for most of the first century. But I have never challenged Paul's existence.

I was only representing what you have said in the past, Toto. I am sorry if I misunderstood your claim that skepticism of all of Paul's letters and statement that you were skeptical that there were any Christians in the first century to mean that you did not believe Paul existed.

Toto

August 9, 2005, 08:15 PM

I was only representing what you have said in the past, Toto. I am sorry if I misunderstood your claim that skepticism of all of Paul's letters and statement that you were skeptical that there were any Christians in the first century to mean that you did not believe Paul existed.

The last time you raised this point I said that Paul did not fit the mythic stereotype, and that someone forging letters in his name was some indication that he existed.

Layman

August 9, 2005, 08:17 PM

Did Luke use Jewish sources when writing Acts as Layman claims?

Which Jewish sources did I claim Luke used?

If somebody wants to argue one thing (Luke did not use source A), arguments will be wheeled out to show that, and if that person wants to argue the opposite (Luke used sources B,C and D), those arguments will vanish from view. Having served their purpose , they can be discarded, ready for the next ad hoc rationalisation of the author's fixed conclusions.

I give many reasons for doubting that Luke used Paul's letters. I do not argue for Luke's dependence on other Jewish sources, though I do note that there were other other Jewish histories available in addition to Josephus' antiquities. The argument is that there is no reason to believe that the points in common were known only by Josephus. Other Jewish historians very well could have written about them. Does this mean Luke used them? It's possible I suppose, but the larger point is that the information was more widely known rather than limited to Josephus' writings.

And since I do not argue for dependence on any specific Jewish source it really is silly to argue that I'm inconsistent in how I attempt to show dependence.

Layman

August 9, 2005, 08:18 PM

The last time you raised this point I said that Paul did not fit the mythic stereotype, and that someone forging letters in his name was some indication that he existed.

You are always free to clarify your position, Toto. But its clear that my statement was based on your past statements. I forgot you indicated that Paul might have existed because other people pretended to be him. My apologies.

Sauron

August 9, 2005, 09:49 PM

Layman writes in the article :-
'The same may be true for Luke and Josephus’ use of the phrase “most precise school�? to describe the Pharisees. Though parallels are not found beyond Luke and Josephus’ writing, it is a flattering presentation that could have been used by the Pharisees themselves. '

Surprising that Holding has shown that these terms were quite common and not at all unique, when Layman himself admits that there are no examples other than Luke and Josephus for one of the most striking examples.

There are only two isolated examples of this phrase? Really? In that case, Layman's response doesn't make much sense. It appears to be a handwave.

The Pharisees *could* have said a LOT of things; that part of Layman's response isn't particularly useful or convincing. But if this was a "flattering presentation that could have been used by the Pharisees themselves", then apparently the Pharisees never chose to do so. Otherwise, the phrase would appear in more than just the two isolated examples of Luke and Josephus.

Which reduces Layman's statement to "well, even though it appears in only two places out of all the candidate texts, please accept my position that this doesn't indicate cross-pollenation." But the issue is one of borrowing or remembering between the two texts. A unique descriptor like the above would be a good indication of such borrowing.

Steven Carr

August 10, 2005, 12:56 AM

Which Jewish sources did I claim Luke used?

' Furthermore, as admitted by one of the few proponents of Lukan dependence on Antiquities, although few other accounts of ancient Jewish history have survived to this day, there were many others that survived to the late ninth century... They are surely independent, and follow independent, indeed conflicting, sources.�?

Surprising that you claim Luke is using independent sources to Josephus while denying that Luke used Jewish sources.

I give many reasons for doubting that Luke used Paul's letters. I do not argue for Luke's dependence on other Jewish sources, though I do note that there were other other Jewish histories available in addition to Josephus' antiquities.

Layman writes 'In a reference to Deut. 21:22-23, Acts has Paul using an uncommon description of Jesus’ crucifixion as being on a “tree�? rather than a cross. In Galatians, Paul uses the same phrase to describe Jesus’ crucifixion.

Acts 13:29 (“Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.�?) and Gal. 3:13 (“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’�?).'

Layman does not regard this as evidence of Acts using Paul's letters.

Layman writes 'After reciting some of the challenges he had faced, Paul declares, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.�? Philippians 4:13. Similarly, after reciting a list of hardships, Ignatius declares, “Though this is difficult, yet Jesus Christ, our true Life, has power to effect it.�? Smyrn. 4:2. Barnett calls this a “rather clear echo of Phil. 4:13�?

Layman writes 'Acts 13:21 (“And afterward they asked for a king, so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.�?) and Phil. 3:5 (“circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, concerning the law, a Pharisee�?).'

Is Acts 13:21 'a rather clear echo of Phil 3:5'? Layman would die rather than say that, although he has no problems in finding rather clear echoes of Phil 4:13.

Can you spot any double standards here? Layman trots out a string of places where the terminology of Acts is similar to Paul's letters and denies that Acts uses Paul's lettters.

Layman trots out a string of places where 2nd century epistles use similar terminology to Paul and claims that this proves they use Paul's letters.....

Totally ad hoc.

There is no methodology. It is just proof texting.

Steven Carr

August 10, 2005, 01:07 AM

There are only two isolated examples of this phrase? Really? In that case, Layman's response doesn't make much sense. It appears to be a handwave.

Which reduces Layman's statement to "well, even though it appears in only two places out of all the candidate texts, please accept my position that this doesn't indicate cross-pollenation." But the issue is one of borrowing or remembering between the two texts. A unique descriptor like the above would be a good indication of such borrowing.

You mean, a bit like when Laymans writes :-

'The term sundoulou occurs only in the Pauline letters only in Col. 1:7 and 4:7. In the one instance it is applied to Epaphrus and in the other to Tychicus. In each case pistos diakonos is a further element in the characterization. In the letters of Eph. 2:1, Philad. 4:1, and Smyrn. 12:2, each time in connection with sundoulou. The usage in these instances strongly suggests acquaintance with Colossians.'

Clearly the highly unusual vocabulary of 'servant' and 'faithful minister' strongly suggest acquaintance.

While some would argue that Christians might often use the phrase 'servant' and 'faithful minister' about themselve, unique descriptors like that would be good evidence of borrowing.

But of course, Layman will deny all evidence of Luke borrowing from *any* named written source for Acts.....

Ted Hoffman

August 10, 2005, 01:36 AM

This looks interesting and I will have a look at it as soon as I get time. Peter, I have been looking forward to you posting a link to Doherty's response to Muller on your site.
Just so that people can weigh both sides of the issue.

I would have loved to see The Sword in the list of "Other Blogs". Carlson has a link to it.

Otherwise, great site and articles.

Steven Carr

August 14, 2005, 03:51 AM

As always, Peter Kirby has some interesting comments on Acts on his blog

'Several scholars have noted the parallels of prison escape, as narrated in Acts, in other Greek literature, including but not limited to Bacchae.

Luke Timothy Johnson writes: "Accounts of prison-escapes are found everywhere in Hellenistic fiction, whether their wonderful character is owed to some human virtue or relationship (see Lucian of Samosata, Toxaris 28-33; Achilles Tatius, Clitophon and Leucippe 3:9-11), or due to some divine intervention (Ovid, Metamorphoses 3:690-700; Artapanus, On the Jews, frag. three; The Acts of Paul 7; The Acts of Thomas 162-163).

One of the most interesting examples of the type-scene is also one of the earliest, the escape of the devotees of Bacchus from prison by divine intervention after a tyrant had jailed them in an attempt to halt the growth of the cult (see Euripides, Bacchae 346-357; 434-450; 510-643)." (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 217)............

........

My bet is that this kind of prison escape scene was stock in trade for fiction in the first century. Which definitely casts doubt on historicity, but doesn't necessarily indicate Euripides as the sole source (or in the mind of Luke while writing at all).'

I'll skip to his conclusion.

'Although I doubt that Luke had Euripides in particular in mind when composing any certain passage of Acts, my study has made clear the substance of the argument made by critics, which is, that the stories were inspired and shaped within the context of Greco-Roman civilization, where the expression of an animal kicking at its spurs would signify resistance to the will of a god, and where a story about an escape through a door that opens by itself was a portent of divine approval, and when historiography did not have the same meaning that it has today.

Such is all the weight that the argument based on Euripides was meant to bear, and the argument is made stronger from the parallels not only to Bacchae but also to the wider literary tradition.'

I also doubt that Luke had Euripides in mind when composing a passage of Acts.

But he certainly had Euripides in the back of his mind. He was a learned man after all.

Similarly for Acts 17 'For in him we live and move and have our being.', which is a clear echo of Epiminides.

Ted Hoffman

September 5, 2005, 09:33 AM

I have just cleared a brief response to GDon on second century apologists and it will be up in a few days. I really wanted to respond to this article on Acts. But from what I can see in it and in this thread, it is pure apologetics. This, sad to say, is not surprising, coming from Chris Price.
Layman, you and I know that in your article on Robbins for example, you purposefully slanted the evidence to prop your arguments. Yet, without revising it, you are presenting it here as proof of something. I am glad JoeWallack, Steven Carr and Toto have already picked out some misleading arguments from the article as it is.
I have no problem with you if you have decided to be a professional apologist but you dont need this: you are intelligent enough not to rely on manipulating the readers through misrepresentation.
If you do not want yourself to be taken seriously, it is your choice. But it is a shame to see such a fine mind wasted on such work. You can do better than Josh McDowell or Holding. We have several scholars with confessional interests in NT scholarship. In fact, they are the majority. But their works can hardly be regarded as apologetics - which is not what I, and several others, can say about your work. That is why Kirby has to take a lot of flak for putting up your work at his site.
The first step is presentation of all the evidence, even if you draw your pet conclusions from a hat. Lets see that in future. Please.