Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:

Adam wrote: Wow, 63 A. D. Josephus was in Rome, the same year Luke was there?

This is all hypothetical, of course. Luke himself is hypothetical.

it is hypothetical if you assume Josephus and his writings are hypothetical and Luke and his writings are hypothetical.

That is a lot of hypotheticals.

in his autobiography Josephus is fairly clear on the dates that he was in Rome to negotiate the release of priests that had been imprisoned there by Felix.

Hagen goes into this if anyone is interested.

steve43 wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

Adam wrote: Wow, 63 A. D. Josephus was in Rome, the same year Luke was there?

This is all hypothetical, of course. Luke himself is hypothetical.

it is hypothetical if you assume Josephus and his writings are hypothetical and Luke and his writings are hypothetical.

That is a lot of hypotheticals.

in his autobiography Josephus is fairly clear on the dates that he was in Rome to negotiate the release of priests that had been imprisoned there by Felix.

Hagen goes into this if anyone is interested.

It is a hypothesis that Luke wrote Acts and the Gospel. It is hypothesis that he was a companion of Paul. It is hypothesis that there was any such person as Luke.

The evidence for Josephus is of a completely different order.

There is no comparison.

How can we assume writings that we have in hand are hypothetical?

In the end, it is all speculation. We will never know for sure what really happened in those days. What you accept as probable all depends on your level of comfort and confidence in the sources used.

I'm confused. Is Neil Godfrey hung up by the name "Luke", which is irrelevant. The point of the acceptance of Acts as historical (as by Harnack) and completed in 63 A. D. makes a neat feat to jibe with Josephus, whomever we name as author. Are you saying that around 130 A. D. someone who knew Josephus said he was in Rome in 63 A. D. therefore phonied up Acts along with concluding it in 63 A. D. for verisimilitude, so that his readers would know Josephus got his facts from "Luke" (or vice versa)?

As for me, my doubts about Acts have vanished.

Adam wrote:I'm confused. Is Neil Godfrey hung up by the name "Luke", which is irrelevant. . . . . Are you saying that around 130 A. D. someone who knew Josephus said he was in Rome in 63 A. D. therefore phonied up Acts along with concluding it in 63 A. D. for verisimilitude, so that his readers would know Josephus got his facts from "Luke" (or vice versa)?

The name per se is irrelevant. Have you considered reading comprehension classes? You stand to be less confused if you give them a go, I suggest.

You clearly have not the slightest inkling of anything I have argued and appear not the least interested in any ideas that will rob you of your cherished fun-loving ignorance.

The ending of Acts is not about verisimilitude. But one will appreciate its real significance if one becomes a little more aware of classical literature and how those oft-abrupt endings work and why.

If the author was caught up in a series of persecutions and is executed along with the principal character, then the abrupt ending makes all the more sense and is more dramatic when the document is then discovered after the fact-as was the case with Acts of the Apostles.

In fact AD 63 was a very interesting year in the history of the city of Rome. Of the two or three places I would like to visit if I had a time machine I think AD 63 would be even more interesting than the year Jesus was crucified, which may well have been in AD 36.

In Rome at that time was a former high priest of the Second Temple as well as Josephus, along with Poppea, Nero, the Apostle Peter, and, of course, Paul the Apostle.

Again, I would recommend the two common sense books of John Hagen, "Fires of Rome" and "Year of the Passover" for a look at how the historical events of the Gospels link in with the secular history of the Roman Empire as outlined by contemporary ancient historians.

Greek Magical Papyrus I.229-330:

And when [the God Apollo] comes [in response to your invocation], ask him about what you wish, about the art of prophecy, about divination with epic verses, about the sending of dreams, about obtaining revelations in dreams, about interpretations of dreams, about causing disease, about everything that is a part of magical knowledge.

(Betz, Hans Dieter, ed) The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation-Including the Demotic Spells (1986)

I keep hearing a lot of mumbo jumbo incantations from many posters who seem to think they have been magically granted expertise into the nature of prophecy, the psychology of dreams and visions, the analysis of epic verses (the "fictional" NT books), and the interpretation of said dreams and nature miracles, but I think much of this is merely "what you wish."

DCH

steve43 wrote:If the author was caught up in a series of persecutions and is executed along with the principal character, then the abrupt ending makes all the more sense and is more dramatic when the document is then discovered after the fact-as was the case with Acts of the Apostles.

If, if, if . . . . all very true.

But you are completely overlooking how Acts compares with other literature of the era. But why should you care about that. It spoils your theory.

steve43 wrote:In fact AD 63 was a very interesting year in the history of the city of Rome. Of the two or three places I would like to visit if I had a time machine I think AD 63 would be even more interesting than the year Jesus was crucified, which may well have been in AD 36.

In Rome at that time was a former high priest of the Second Temple as well as Josephus, along with Poppea, Nero, the Apostle Peter, and, of course, Paul the Apostle.

Again, I would recommend the two common sense books of John Hagen, "Fires of Rome" and "Year of the Passover" for a look at how the historical events of the Gospels link in with the secular history of the Roman Empire as outlined by contemporary ancient historians.

More if, if and ifs. An incredibly astonishing argument -- IF all those ifs fall into place.

What do you have against Occam's razor or against understanding how what seem to be abrupt endings to us actually worked in the literature of the day?