The same Jesus Seminar that has already rejected the resurrection of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, all the miracles, and more than 80% of the teachings ascribed to Jesus? The same Jesus Seminar that “voted” on the sayings of Jesus and “decided” that the only portion of the Lord’s Prayer Jesus actually said were the words “Our Father”?
Yeah, sure, they’re credible.
Diogenes, because you apparently subscribe to the likes of the Jesus Seminar, and are fairly hostile to Christianity, you are more likely to accept as contradiction any and every charge laid. In my opinion, of course. I’ve had too many of these debates not to recognize that reconciliation of language, text, and interpretation are invariably dismissed as insufficient or inmaterial to answer the allegation of contradiction.
A case in point. Acts was written approximately AD 60, Paul’s death possibly as late as AD 64, plenty of time for Paul to have been read the letter, even directly by Luke himself. Be that as it may, you prefer to take the earliest possible dates for Paul’s death (AD 58)and the correspondingly latest date for Acts(AD 70) so as to distance Paul and Luke. At least, this is how I see your position. What you fail to note is that Luke was a partner with Paul during at least his second missionary journey, and is remembered by name in two other letters from Paul. It stretches the imagination to conclude, as again apparently you have, that Luke knew the true story of Paul’s conversion, yet deliberately altered the event and in one and the same letter played fast and loose with the facts. The more likely explanation, while more in keeping with the facts we do have, lacks the controversy so many seem desperate to cling to.
Cite? There is not a shred of actual evidence that Luke and Acts were even written by anyone named Luke (Those books do not name their author). The attribution is simply traditional and are not supported by actual evidence.
Yes, that Jesus Seminar. The Seminar is a historical enterprise, not a religious one. They apply the same empirical standards to historical Jesus as they would to Julius Caesar. Supernatural claims require proof and as there is no proof of such things as the resurrection or the Virgin Birth it would be unhistorical and unscholarly to accept them as truth. Unless you can rebut their conclusions with empirical research as opposed to simple indignation at being told that your religion contains mythological elements (a claim which would not offend you about any other religion) simply rolling your eyes at their “credibility” (a silly insinuation on its face, considering of they are not only highly qualified and respected in their fields but most of them are also Christians) is not a very effective debate tool.
Show how I’ve ever been hostile to Christanity. Does simply not believing in the supernatural make me hostile?
I’m quite capable of recognizing contradictions on my own, thank you, and I don’t necessarily accept all the claimed contradictions as valid. I think some of the lists people link to are puffed up by some specious examples, but I also know that other contradictions are obvious and irreconcilable despite the tortured apolegetic logic that is often use to try to explain them away.
Luke and Acts were written in 90 CE, long after Paul was dead. This is the accepted dating of those books by the vast majority of Christian scholarship. The character of “Luke” derives from 2nd century Christian tradition and not actually from anything written in the New Testament. There is no empirical evidence that author of Luke ever even met Paul much less traveled with him. That doesn’t mean he didn’t but it can’t be claimed with any certainty that he did. What can be claimed with certainty is that the book of Acts was not written during Paul’s lifetime.
Yes, that Jesus Seminar. They came to the same conclusion that any rational, intelligent, reasonable human would when confronted with extraordinary claims backed by zero empirical evidence; they rejected the stories as myth.
Hello again, NaSultainne. I see you continue to spout your religious dogma as fact with no substantiation. While you are, of course, perfectly within your rights to do so, please do not expect those of us who have actually studied these issues to suddenly roll over and reject everything we’ve discovered.
You seem to think that this is the first time us poor, uneducated heathens have ever heard the types of arguments you continue to put forth. They are not. They are nothing new.
But, perhaps you are more convincing than most. I will continue to listen.
Actually, this isn’t quite true. I’m not sure how you quantify “teachings” but what they concluded was that something like a quarter of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels can be relied upon as original to historical Jesus. Of the remaing three quarters, they are graded on a scale ranging from probable to possible to “he said something like it,” to “he didn’t say it but it’s an accurate reflection of his teaching” to “he didn’t say it and it doesn’t fit his teaching.” It’s not a simple up or down vote with anti-Christian scholars ripping pages out of the Bible, it’s a search for historical certainty. They’re trying to find out what we can learn by applying purely scientific methodology. It shouldn’t come as a shock that very little of the Christian story can be empirically verified, and believe me, they want to find it, it just isn’t there.
The ancient world is filled with supernatural claims and deified heros. The Caesars were worshipped as gods and extraordinary claims were made about them. That doesn’t mean that historians take those claims seriously. Historians have to make certain default assumptions when evaluating historical documents and one of those assumptions is that the impossible is impossible until proven otherwise. Belief in Christ as a risen Messiah is grounded in faith not verifiable history. There is nothing wrong with faith but religious belief should not be asserted as objective fact without evidence. If it could be proven it wouldn’t be faith it would be knowledge. Faith requires mystery and mystery is what makes it interesting.
What nonsense! We hear that claim bandied about all the time, but it is obviously ridiculous. For example, a person claiming that water boils at 212 F doesn’t bear the burden of proof, a denier does! Likewise, the burden of proof doesn’t fall on the person who claims that most automobiles consume hydrocarbon compounds as fuel, but on someone who denies it!
See also: Burden of Proof, wherein it states:
In the case at hand, the person who denies there is a contradiction bears the principle burden of proof.
I disagree. Outside of the Jesus Seminar, I’ve never see a scholar date Luke to so late. A great many sources would put both to no later that 80 A.D., and probably from some time in the 60’s.
You see to have picked one group, the Jesus Seminar, and magically wished away all other scholars just so you can claim the “vast majority of Christian scholarship” supports your position. I for one am getting sick of it. Nowhere else on this board have I seen so much sly intellectual dishonesty.
UnuMondo
You are talking about extraordinary circumstances, whereas I was talking about the existence (or non-existence) of a logical contradiction. If you claim that a contradiction occurs, you must also demonstrate that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to resolve that alleged conflict. In such circumstances, the burden of greater proof rests on those who claim that there is no way to resolve it. In this discussion, the accusers have claimed that a contradiction exists, and yet have steadfastly insisted that only the general sense of the verb “to hear” must be permitted. This indicates a singular lack of rigor in their allegation, and a desire to jump to the conclusion that the passages necessarily contradict each other.
If you claim that something exists, then your responsibility is to demonstrate that it does. It’s that simple. In matters of fundamental logic (e.g. the existence of an irresolvable contradiction), a rigorous demonstration is required, and slipshod logic simply doesn’t cut it. In such matters, one opponents do not have to prove the object’s *non-*existence; rather, they can simply point out that its existence is not yet proven.
Note, however, that I have not denied the possiblity of a contradiction. Rather, I have denied that a contradiction has been definitely established, due to the hasty logic employed by the skeptics in this thread and their unwillingness to allow for less common word usages. Thus, all we have is a possible contradiction, which ultimately proves nothing.
Moreover, there is nothing inherently extraordinary about claiming that a contradiction has not been established. It is the person who claims that there IS a contradiction that must bear tthe greater burden of proof. Those who assert that there is ABSOLUTELY a contradiction have a more rigorous task at hand than those who say that there is only a possible contradiction.
We don’t allow for the less common usage because nothing in the context of the passage would make such a usage necessary. How many times do you have to be told this?
The only reason for consideration of the less common meaning of the word is to resolve the contradiction. That simply isn’t good enough! Context and surrounding textual clues should be used to decide the intended meaning of the word, not whether it conflicts with another passage.
That said, there are many things I can agree with in your post.
You are correct that you have not denied the possibility of a contradiction, but neither have you given a reasonable explanation as to why we should use the uncommon meaning of Akouo.
We have not absolutely proven that a contradiction exists, we simply say that the contradiction is self-evident, and we don’t need to prove anything. Until someone can give me good reason to believe otherwise, it will remain an obvious contradiction.
That said, it really comes down to each person’s original perspective. You, and others, seem to begin with the assumption that the Bible cannot contain errors and contradictions, and so obviously there has to be an explanation. We begin with the assumption that the Bible is no different than any other book written by man. It is highly likely, and perfectly understandable, that there would be contradictions. No big deal.
My faith doesn’t depend on whether I can explain away all the errors. Yours obviously does. Why is that? Why is it so important to you, and others, that the Bible be perfect?
You are misinformed. The current consensus among all but the most conservative Christian scholars is that Luke dates from the 90’s and that Acts may be as late as 100 CE. It is not just the Jesus Seminar that believes this, although they are a perfectly valid source. A dating in the 60s is ridiculous. Luke is dependant on Mark and it references the destruction of the Temple. Both of these facts push it into the 70’s at a very bare minimum and Acts was written after Luke. Luke and Acts also contain theological elements that did not develop until the late first century (namely the change from an immediate expectation for the return of Christ to a delayed parousia, which indicates that all of the apostles (“this generation”) were dead. It was an early expectation that Jesus would return before the last apostle had died. When that didn’t happen the expectation had to be modified to a return at an unknown time). If you can show an early dating of Acts made by a scholar without a religious agenda, please post it. I know that there are lots of Christian websites that try to date all the books of the NT before 70 CE. They are wrong. Even accepting a date of 80 CE for Acts (which I don’t) Paul was still dead and my point still stands. Luke’s dependance on Mark for his gospel makes it impossible for either the Gospel or Acts to have been written while Paul was alive.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html
http://religioustolerance.com/chr_ntb2.htm
Not good enough. If you’re going to declare that there is an absolute contradiction, then you need to show that the less common usage is precluded. It’s not enough to show that the non-common usage is not strictly necessary.
If the less common usage of “to hear” is precluded, then you have a contradiction. If it is necessary, then you have a definite non-contradiction. And if it is neither precluded nor necessary, then at best, you merely have a possible contradiction, which proves nothing.
Not at all. At no point in this discussion have I declared that there can be NO contradictions, nor did I begin with that premise. Rather, I contend that if you insist that a contradiction does exist, then this claim must be defended rigorously. So far, the people who are offering that claim have not demonstrated any such rigor.
The contradiction is prima facia. The default presumption is that a flat reading shows contradictory statements and there is no persuasive argument as to why the statements should not be read for their plain meaning unless one is motivated to resolve a contradiction. It doesn’t make sense to infer a secondary meaning for akouo when the plain meaning is perfectly servicable and when the secondary meaning would be awkward and oblique in its context, even to a native Greek audience.
I said this before, but let me say it again. When lexicons say that akouo can mean “understand,” they are saying that it can sometimes be nuanced that way in a given context, just like in English. “I hear what you’re saying” can mean “I understand you” in English, but an English speaker wouldn’t say “I couldn’t hear the voice” to mean “I couldn’t understand the voice.” Certainly no one reading that sentence would infer anything other than the literal meaning of the word “hear.” The phrase in Acts is not in a grammatical or literary context where akouo as “understand” would make sense. It is not presumptuous or unfair to call it a contradiction. Asserting that it’s not a contradiction is what requires an explanation.
I have done no such thing. I have pointed out that the contradiction is self-evident, and that I will consider it an obvious contradiction until someone can convince me otherwise. If you feel differently, that is your right.
What would it take to convince you that it is precluded? I, and Diogenes, have told you why we think it should be precluded over and over again.
-There is no reason, in the context of the passage, to believe “Luke” meant to understand as the meaning of Akouo
-There is no textual clue in the vicinity of this verse to suggest such a usage.
-Contrarily, nowhere else in Luke or Acts is any form of Akouo suggested to mean understand. Everywhere else in Luke and Acts Akouo is suggested to mean “to hear”.
-The only reason to believe that the word is used in the manner you suggest is solely for the purpose of avoiding a contradiction.
Dozens of times the word is used in Luke and Acts. Each time it is commonly understood to mean “to hear”, but you expect us to believe that just this once it means “to understand”? That is ludicrous. Why should I believe that?
You are correct, you have not proven, definitively, that there isn’t a contradiction, and I have not proven there is. But I believe mine is the more reasonable argument.
So you do not believe that the Bible is inerrant? You do not believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God? You do not believe that the Bible is absolutely correct in all matters of History, Science, Geography, etc.?
Ok, then. I stand corrected. What do you believe about the Bible?
UnuMondo,
Wow. This is a pretty blatant attack. Care to offer some cites as to his “intellectual dishonesty”?
You know, Diogenes, this fighting ignorance thing can be extremely tedious. How do you put up with it?
I know I’m going to ruffle some feathers with a historical approach to Biblical criticism so I take it in stride. Even if the posters I’m debating with are implacable I realize that other people read these threads who might appreciate hearing a more empirical take on this material. In any case I seem to be congenitally incapable of letting certain kinds of claims go unrebutted. It’s probably a sickness on my part. 
Is there another method?
I have no intention of changing the mind of the likes of JThunder or NaSultainne, but I write to those who were like me ten years ago. People who come to boards like these to seek truth, have an open mind, and an honest desire for knowledge.
Ten years ago I was a staunch, conservative, 5-point TULIP Calvinist. The Synod of Dort was my guide; the Heidleberg Catachism was my credo. Anything else was blasphemy. Then I joined the Compuserve religion forum, and I was introduced to new ways of thinking. I began attending a Bible-believing church that rejected all creeds and catachisms and focused solely on the Bible.
It didn’t take long for me to start questioning the beliefs I held concerning the Bible, and this has led me to the point I am at today. I question everything. If I am not able to discern a reasonable, rational reason for the things I believe, I do my best to reject them. It is not always easy. I have had conservative Christianity pounded into my brain since I was an infant. It is very difficult to let these things go, and many core beliefs I have not yet rejected.
But I will continue my search for truth, and if others wish to join me, all the better.
Technically, yes. There is the literary approach which is simply to evaluate the stories as stories in much the same manner that one would analyze Homer or Shakespeare. Historicity is simply not germane to this kind of criticism. There is also (obviously) a pure theological approach which makes certain assumptions about the truth or historicity of the texts. This approach is not limited to the inerrantist presumption. Other theological approaches may assume, for instance, that the Bible is not literally inerrant but is doctrinally inerrant (God created the Earth but not in six litearl days), or may assume that the Bible is inspired by God but filtered through humans thus it contains a sometimes errant human understanding of genuine theological truths. Any theological criticism is going to start from a position of faith so it can’t be said to be empirical.
A pure historical approach is that which seeks simply to find historicity using objective, empirical standards. This kind of criticism requires certain assumptions such as that miracles cannot be accepted as historical without compelling evidence and that’s why projects like the Jesus Seminar enrage a lot of Christians. They see rejections of such things as the Virgin Birth as arrogant and dismissive but it would be illegitimate historical scholarship not to make a default presumption tha virgin births are impossible.
I don’t mean to argue with you (I obviously agree with you) I just wanted to point out that there are other kinds of Biblical criticism that have some validity for their own purposes. Theological criticism can work logically if one accepts the predicates (those are pretty big things to accept, of course) and literary criticism is valid in that it simply seeks to look for the meanings, themes, character motivations etc. of the stories without making a claim one way or the other about historicity.
[QUOTE]
There is the literary approach which is simply to evaluate the stories as stories in much the same manner that one would analyze Homer or Shakespeare. Historicity is simply not germane to this kind of criticism.
literary criticism is valid in that it simply seeks to look for the meanings, themes, character motivations etc. of the stories without making a claim one way or the other about historicity.
Wow. Did you know that hitting [tab] and [space bar] posts the reply you are working on?
I wasn’t near ready to post.
Back in a minute…
This is interesting, but I think it can be rejected out of hand as a serious study of the Bible. The original intent of the writers of the Bible was certainly not one of fiction. Although, I must say, I have been listening to a series of sermons on the book of Jonah, and I can’t fathom how anyone, even in ancient times, could ever consider these writings factual.
Are there really those who study the Bible this way? Are there really those who reject the Bible from a historically accurate, scientifically accurate, etc. viewpoint, but believe it to be true from a doctrinal standpoint only. How could this type of criticism be taken seriously?
I believe this to be the only valid method of criticism for a book whose intent, on its face, is to be factual.
I couldn’t agree more.
You have no idea how refreshing that statement is to me.