Dr. Tabor shared this interesting post the other day challenging the historicity of the events described in Acts. It’s here: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** . If Tabor is right, and Acts is willful misrepresentation, sophisticated hermeneutic arguments need to be put forth as to why we should trust as historical any information in the Gospel of Luke.
Rthompsonmdog said
Thanks for the link. With the paucity of sources about the Jerusalem church, I’m curious how Tabor supports his ideas.Added the book to my wish list. Have you read it?
I don’t think the book comes out until 2019. Luke is not to be trusted. Luke’s pro-Roman agenda comes through loud and clear, for instance.
john76 said
I don’t think the book comes out until 2019. Luke is not to be trusted. Luke’s pro-Roman agenda comes through loud and clear, for instance.
One last thought. I think we have to be careful assuming there are historical sources just because there is unique material in a Gospel. For instance, Ehrman will point to material that is unique to Luke’s Gospel and infer there is a ‘L’ source behind it. But this is a bit of a non sequiter. As Carrier points out, by analogy, there is new material about Moses in later non-canonical sources, but we wouldn’t infer this material goes back to the historical Moses. And we shouldn’t infer that just because there is mundane information in a Gospel that the mundane information is historical. Even in historical fiction there is all sorts of mundane, fictional content.
Nothing new here folks. Scholars have been writing about the historical problems in Acts since they were able to do so without getting burned at the stake. Prof Ehrman has written extensively about this.
“Willful misrepresentation?” Conspiracies again.
Luke can be trusted to present his own point of view. Which is different from Mark’s pov and different from Paul’s pov. The more sources the better.
Luke certainly has sources unique to himself. Nobody other than fundamentalists assumes that these sources all go back to the historical Jesus. At this very moment Prof Ehrman is discussing one such story (Lazarus and the Rich man) that he has explicitly said probably does not go back to the historical Jesus.
Nothing new here folks although I’m sure Prof Tabor will appreciate you buying his book.
Stephen said
Nothing new here folks. Scholars have been writing about the historical problems in Acts since they were able to do so without getting burned at the stake. Prof Ehrman has written extensively about this.“Willful misrepresentation?” Conspiracies again.
Luke can be trusted to present his own point of view. Which is different from Mark’s pov and different from Paul’s pov. The more sources the better.
Luke certainly has sources unique to himself. Nobody other than fundamentalists assumes that these sources all go back to the historical Jesus. At this very moment Prof Ehrman is discussing one such story (Lazarus and the Rich man) that he has explicitly said probably does not go back to the historical Jesus.
Nothing new here folks although I’m sure Prof Tabor will appreciate you buying his book.
Crazy Stephen once again fails to grasp simple logic and hermeneutics. It would be comical if it wasn’t so sad.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)