Need some help with Luke

[Vince1022]

Axion- you are correct sir.

And there is more to it than that. Luke used many sources, and some were better than others- obviously. It is understandable that inconsistencies can develop. For instance, the story about Jesus in the Temple as a Child teaching the elders is an obvious “borrow” from Josephus. No dispute there. Because of this, many “scholars” put Luke’s writing his gospel after Josephus’ autobiography was published around A.D 100.

But if you look at history close enough, there is a dimension that is missed. In fact, Luke of Macedon, Paul the Apostle, the Apostle Peter, and the historian Flavius Josephus himself were in Rome at the same time in A.D. 63. Josephus probably related that story about his prodigious childhood to several people during the course of his stay in Rome to impress them. Somehow, the story got garbled and Luke took it to be about Jesus, and incorporated it in his Gospel. Both Luke and Paul (and Peter) died in the persecutions in late A.D. 64. , which is a year after the narrative in Acts ends.

But it amazes me that Christians are so defensive about Luke. He certainly didn’t intend to write down inaccuracies, but, hey, his heart was in the right place, and this was the mid-first century A.D. after all.

Hagan has a couple of superb books out on the subject. “Year of the Passover” and “Fires of Rome”. These are the clearest and most comprehensive works I have read on the subject of the ancient world as it directly relates to Christianity and the early Christian writings. These are secular works, but IMO they are pro-Christian, and not anti-Christian.

I am not aware of anyone who claims Luke’s Gospel was written after 100 A.D. Can you give us some references? Thanks!

 

[steve53]

A lot of people think Luke borrowed heavily from Josephus. Some think that Jesus never existed, and was actually Josephus “modified”. And Josephus did publish his autobiography, where the Temple incident is mentioned, in the reign of Trajan.
Well, I don’t keep records on those things. A lot of people just take a shotgun approach to criticizing Christianity. And Luke does have a few contradictions.

As for Hagan, he doesn’t claim to be a academic historian. Or a Theologian. The blurb says he is a medical doctor in Minnesota? Rauson Group? Not sure what that company is. Based out of Texas? Never heard of it either. And I am looking at one of the books now. Hagan could be pseudonym, for all I know. Rauson.com is under construction, I already checked. Nothing on facebook. But the books just came out this year. (shrugs) Don’t know what to say. Write him a letter?

Well, don’t shoot the messenger. Both is books are 500 pages apiece and referenced as well as any book on the subject I have read. He seems to use all the mainstream history sources- no off-the-wall Apochrypha or secret writings like we see on cable television. In “Passover”, Hagan uses the first quarter of it going over what sources he uses, and which he discounts.

I guess if you are a strictly faith-based Christian, then Hagan’s works won’t mean anything. If you think that Josephus was a complete liar, then take a pass. If you are interested in history, you might consider them.

 

[NHInsider]

As for Hagan, he doesn’t claim to be a academic historian. Or a Theologian. The blurb says he is a medical doctor in Minnesota? Rauson Group? Not sure what that company is. Based out of Texas? Never heard of it either. And I am looking at one of the books now. Hagan could be pseudonym, for all I know. Rauson.com is under construction, I already checked. Nothing on facebook. But the books just came out this year. (shrugs) Don’t know what to say. Write him a letter?

A brand-new “publishing house” incorporated as an LLC with only two books in print, both by the same author, and no information in any of the usual places, is almost certainly that author’s own imprint. And often, although certainly not always, the reason for that is because traditional publishers aren’t interested in the books. And also often, although certainly not always, it means the books have not been edited, peer-reviewed, or otherwise vetted in the ways that a traditional publisher does.

Well, don’t shoot the messenger. Both is books are 500 pages apiece and referenced as well as any book on the subject I have read. He seems to use all the mainstream history sources- no off-the-wall Apochrypha or secret writings like we see on cable television. In “Passover”, Hagan uses the first quarter of it going over what sources he uses, and which he discounts.

Fair enough-he could be a brilliant hobby-historian. He could have all kinds of valuable insights. He could also be a fake. It happens (cf Lorraine Boettner). And if nothing else is significant, the fact is that Hagan is apparently marketing Fires of Rome as a novel. Now I am a huge fan of well-researched, solidly grounded historical fiction. But it’s still fiction. Using it as a source would be the scholarly equivalent of citing The DaVinci Code.

A lot of people think Luke borrowed heavily from Josephus. Some think that Jesus never existed, and was actually Josephus “modified”. And Josephus did publish his autobiography, where the Temple incident is mentioned, in the reign of Trajan.

In an earlier post you asserted

the story about Jesus in the Temple as a Child teaching the elders is an obvious “borrow” from Josephus. No dispute there.

But in fact, there is lots of dispute there - and frankly, no reason that the evidence couldn’t be taken as “proof” that Josephus borrowed from Luke. Or that both were drawing on the same tradition.

I guess if you are a strictly faith-based Christian, then Hagan’s works won’t mean anything. If you think that Josephus was a complete liar, then take a pass. If you are interested in history, you might consider them.

And if you are predisposed to believe that the Church’s understanding of the Bible is wrong, you’ll be inclined to accept the word of those who support that belief - which is, in it’s own way, an act of faith. But there are plenty of actual historians out there working both sides of the discussion, so if I’m going to take the time to read a 500 page book, I’m going to choose one from someone whose credentials are at least verifiable.

Oh, and I think Josephus is a reasonably reliable source, in the context of the ancient world - on almost any subject other than himself.

 

[Vince1022]

Because of this, many “scholars” put Luke’s writing his gospel after Josephus’ autobiography was published around A.D 100.

Really? Any Catholic scholars? I’ve never heard such a theory. The Catholic scholars I am aware of suggest Luke wrote in the 80s.

But if you look at history close enough, there is a dimension that is missed. In fact, Luke of Macedon, Paul the Apostle, the Apostle Peter, and the historian Flavius Josephus himself were in Rome at the same time in A.D. 63.

Really? What evidence? Thanks. This is news.

Both Luke and Paul (and Peter) died in the persecutions in late A.D. 64.

Again, really? Where does any source (Catholic or not) say Luke died then and there?

and this was the mid-first century A.D. after all.

Wait…I may misunderstand…I thought you suggested Luke wrote on or after 100 A.D. at the beginning of your post? Or was it the mid-first century? Sorry, I am confused. Thanks for any clarification (and apologies again for my misunderstanding).

 

[steve53]

A brand-new “publishing house” incorporated as an LLC with only two books in print, both by the same author, and no information in any of the usual places, is almost certainly that author’s own imprint. And often, although certainly not always, the reason for that is because traditional publishers aren’t interested in the books. And also often, although certainly not always, it means the books have not been edited, peer-reviewed, or otherwise vetted in the ways that a traditional publisher does.

Kind of a generic criticism of all self-published books. But I am not a Hagan apologist.

Fair enough-he could be a brilliant hobby-historian. He could have all kinds of valuable insights. He could also be a fake. It happens (cf Lorraine Boettner). And if nothing else is significant, the fact is that Hagan is apparently marketing Fires of Rome as a novel. Now I am a huge fan of well-researched, solidly grounded historical fiction. But it’s still fiction. Using it as a source would be the scholarly equivalent of citing The DaVinci Code.

Where did “novel” come from? The books historical non-fiction. BTW, Hagan cites his sources, and quotes most of them. You are criticizing something you haven’t read. If Hagan is a bad as you suggest, you can pick up a used copy for pennies on Amazon!!

In an earlier post you asserted But in fact, there is lots of dispute there - and frankly, no reason that the evidence couldn’t be taken as “proof” that Josephus borrowed from Luke. Or that both were drawing on the same tradition.

And if you are predisposed to believe that the Church’s understanding of the Bible is wrong, you’ll be inclined to accept the word of those who support that belief - which is, in it’s own way, an act of faith. But there are plenty of actual historians out there working both sides of the discussion, so if I’m going to take the time to read a 500 page book, I’m going to choose one from someone whose credentials are at least verifiable.

It’s TWO five hundred page books.

Oh, and I think Josephus is a reasonably reliable source, in the context of the ancient world - on almost any subject other than himself.

Hagan goes into that- the veracity of Josephus. But discounting Josephus’ accounts involving himself is painting with an awfully broad brush. Josephus writes about himself as a general in the Jewish revolt. Was that fraudulent? He was at Jotapata when the Romans lay seige to it. Was that made up? Josephus writes that after the fall of Jerusalem, he saved numerous sacred writings from being destroyed at the Temple, and saved many prisoners from slavery. A falsehood?

But let’s move on.

A major focus of Hagan’s second book is that Luke, Peter, and Paul all likely died together during the persecutions of Nero in A.D. 64. You contest this. OK. Here is the case:

Luke wrote both the gospel and Acts. That Luke was a companion of Paul’s is not a stretch- ACTS becomes much more detailed after Paul’s visit to Macedonia in his third evangelical trip (I think)- where Luke probably joined the “team”.

Festus placed Paul on trial when he first assumed control of Judea in A.D. 60. Paul was in prison and had been there for two years, placed there by Felix in A.D. 58. To make a long story short, Felix sent him on to Rome in late A.D. 60. After a shipwreck and many adventures, Paul (and Luke) reached Rome in A.D. 61- most probably. Luke ends ACTS with Paul living on his own in Rome for two years, which brings us to A.D. 63. Peter was in Rome as head of the church at that time as well.

**That Luke did not write about the A.D. 64 persecutions of the Christians of Nero in ACTS speaks VOLUMES. If Luke would have known about it, it would have been a centerpiece event in ACTS. ***

According to the Church Fathers, both Paul and Peter were executed during the persecutions, and, as Paul’s companion and a Christian in Rome, Luke was also likely caught up in the persecutions. If Luke did not die, he at least lost control of his writings, for, as has been computed, ACTS ends in A.D. 63.

Interestingly, Josephus was also in Rome in A.D. 63, when ACTS ends. (That is, if you believe his autobiography!) Josephus states he was born in the first year of Caligula’s reign, which was A.D. 37, and when he was 26 went to Rome.

continued

 

[steve53]

On to Jesus teaching at the Temple:

You are quite right that both Luke and Josephus could have been working off a common legend that originally didn’t involve either of them. Luke admits that he used many sources in putting together his Gospel. But, if not, would Jesus or Josephus be the more likely prodigy in the Second Temple that so amazed the Pharisees?

Josephus- if you believe him!-was a high born Jewish Jerusalem aristocrat descended from Asamonean priests on both sides of his family. He was a priest, and would have been trained to be a priest from a very young age. He would have all the libraries and resources of the Second Temple at his disposal. Later in life, Josephus obviously was placed on the fast track to power by the High Priesthood. At 26, he was chosen to go on an important mission to Rome. When the Jewish revolt broke out, along with two other men Josephus was given control over the Galilee. If you read Josephus’ writings, he is an erudite and insightful man, with an incredible memory. It is not hard to see the Priests consulting him on thorny issues of Jewish law when he was young. They might have even been patronizing him a bit, hoping to encourage him in the study of Jewish law, thinking he could be a true leader of his generation.

Jesus, on the other hand, was born to a carpenter who worked out of a small town in the Galilee. The largest town of any consequence was Sepphoris, which was a Roman town first and a Jewish town second. Point being that the Judaic educational opportunities for Jesus were slim. Plus, the circumstances of his birth were open to question, meaning he might have been a borderline outcast. Also, his “father” Joseph was of the house of David, and not Levi- the family of Priests. The Gospel of John states that Jesus did not know “letters” which can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was illiterate.
That Jesus was such a talented Jewish Scholar at a young age (10-12?) that he astounded the Second Temple High Priesthood on a visit to Jerusalem is a very tough case to make.

Additional note- with both Luke and Josephus being in Rome in A.D. 63, we have a possible way where Josephus’ real story could have found it’s way into Luke’s research. Speculation? Of course. But not to be totally dismissed.

Vince, if you don’t care about Hagan, that’s fine. Shoot the messenger. But you really owe it to yourself to sit down with Josephus’ Wars and read it through. Not a book about Wars, but the actual work. Then read Josephus’ autobiography, and then on to Antiquities. You might get a different impression of the man.

The missing dimension to the Gospels and Acts? You find it in Josephus!

 

[NHInsider]

Kind of a generic criticism of all self-published books.

Yup. They tend to suffer from lack of editing and any kind of pre-publication professional review.

Where did “novel” come from? The books historical non-fiction.

Since this quote appears on several book review sites, I imagine it is either flap copy or from a press release: ‘The time of Jesus’ life in Jerusalem was one where the Roman empire had a war within itself. “Fires of Rome” follows this era as the desires of Roman emperors, apostles spread the word of Christ against traditional religions, wars erupt with the empire’s neighbors, and so much more. An exciting novel for those who love the classical setting, “Fires of Rome” is not a read to be missed. " (And I really hope he’s not writing his own flap copy, because if the books read like THAT for 500 pages, he’s never going to get a real publisher.)

Hagan goes into that- the veracity of Josephus. But discounting Josephus’ accounts involving himself is painting with an awfully broad brush. Josephus writes about himself as a general in the Jewish revolt. Was that fraudulent? He was at Jotapata when the Romans lay seige to it. Was that made up? Josephus writes that after the fall of Jerusalem, he saved numerous sacred writings from being destroyed at the Temple, and saved many prisoners from slavery. A falsehood?

I didn’t say he made up everything he said about himself. I said I thought he was fairly reliable when he’s writing about other things. Do I think he was self-aggrandizing? Yes. Do I think that means everything he wrote was false? No.

A major focus of Hagan’s second book is that Luke, Peter, and Paul all likely died together during the persecutions of Nero in A.D. 64. You contest this. OK. Here is the case: [snip review of Luke and Paul’s history]
**That Luke did not write about the A.D. 64 persecutions of the Christians of Nero in ACTS speaks VOLUMES. If Luke would have known about it, it would have been a centerpiece event in ACTS. ***

Unless, of course, he chose to conclude his work BEFORE the persecution under Nero, because it was his intent to write a book not only to record the growth of the church in the first generation but to encourage and inspire those who would follow.

According to the Church Fathers, both Paul and Peter were executed during the persecutions, and, as Paul’s companion and a Christian in Rome, Luke was also likely caught up in the persecutions.

The same Church Fathers you’re citing for the executions of Paul and Peter tell us that Luke lived to be 80ish and died in Greece. Why cite them as an authority when you agree with them and ignore them when you don’t?

Interestingly, Josephus was also in Rome in A.D. 63, when ACTS ends. (That is, if you believe his autobiography!) Josephus states he was born in the first year of Caligula’s reign, which was A.D. 37, and when he was 26 went to Rome.

There were nearly a million people living in the city of Rome at the time of the fire in 64. The fact that Josephus and Luke may have both been there in 63 proves nothing whatsoever. I once bumped into Patrick Ewing in a crowded stairwell, does that make me a basketball player? This does sound more and more like Dan Brown’s kind of “history.”

Look, if you want to promote Hagan’s books (which it appears you do, if you’re the same “Steve” who is postng nice reviews of them in other places), that’s fine. And if you want to spend your time and money on the musings of people who think they’ve got a better grasp of the past than the people who lived it, that’s fine, too. But if you want to engage in serious historical scholarship, there are better places to spend your money. And if you think you can come here and patronize people who hold a more traditional position than you do, you definitely need a more reputable source.

 

[Vince1022]

A lot of people think Luke borrowed heavily from Josephus.

Examples? References? I’ve never heard of such, would like to learn. Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

Hagan goes into that- the veracity of Josephus. But discounting Josephus’ accounts involving himself is painting with an awfully broad brush. Josephus writes about himself as a general in the Jewish revolt. Was that fraudulent? He was at Jotapata when the Romans lay seige to it. Was that made up? Josephus writes that after the fall of Jerusalem, he saved numerous sacred writings from being destroyed at the Temple, and saved many prisoners from slavery. A falsehood?

But let’s move on.

A major focus of Hagan’s second book is that Luke, Peter, and Paul all likely died together during the persecutions of Nero in A.D. 64. You contest this. OK. Here is the case:

Luke wrote both the gospel and Acts. That Luke was a companion of Paul’s is not a stretch- ACTS becomes much more detailed after Paul’s visit to Macedonia in his third evangelical trip (I think)- where Luke probably joined the “team”.

Festus placed Paul on trial when he first assumed control of Judea in A.D. 60. Paul was in prison and had been there for two years, placed there by Felix in A.D. 58. To make a long story short, Felix sent him on to Rome in late A.D. 60. After a shipwreck and many adventures, Paul (and Luke) reached Rome in A.D. 61- most probably. Luke ends ACTS with Paul living on his own in Rome for two years, which brings us to A.D. 63. Peter was in Rome as head of the church at that time as well.

**That Luke did not write about the A.D. 64 persecutions of the Christians of Nero in ACTS speaks VOLUMES. If Luke would have known about it, it would have been a centerpiece event in ACTS. ***

According to the Church Fathers, both Paul and Peter were executed during the persecutions, and, as Paul’s companion and a Christian in Rome, Luke was also likely caught up in the persecutions. If Luke did not die, he at least lost control of his writings, for, as has been computed, ACTS ends in A.D. 63.

Interestingly, Josephus was also in Rome in A.D. 63, when ACTS ends. (That is, if you believe his autobiography!) Josephus states he was born in the first year of Caligula’s reign, which was A.D. 37, and when he was 26 went to Rome.

continued

Who is Hagan?

 

[Vince1022]

Vince, if you don’t care about Hagan, that’s fine. Shoot the messenger. But you really owe it to yourself to sit down with Josephus’ Wars and read it through. Not a book about Wars, but the actual work. Then read Josephus’ autobiography, and then on to Antiquities. You might get a different impression of the man.

The missing dimension to the Gospels and Acts? You find it in Josephus!

I never said nor suggested I don’t care about Hagan, I simply don’t know what you are referring to. Who is Hagan? Where does the Catholic Church or Catholic Scripture scholars refer to Hagan? That’s my question.

I’ve read Josephus, thanks. I still think it’s untenable that Luke depended on or in any way relied on Josephus when composing his Gospel and Acts. If you have any different Catholic references, please share (again, as I’ve asked).

I don’t find any “missing dimension” in the Gospels and Acts, that is found in Josephus. I have no idea what you are referring to by that statement. Any clarification would be appreciated.

 

[steve53]

The basic problem is what you accept as sources when you examine the history of 2,000 years ago. Those written closet to the target times are usually the best- without question. For the times of Jesus, there are only a handful- Tacitus, Philo, the NT, Josephus, Suetonius, possibly Dio. And if you read the original sources, why do you need a “Catholic” source written hundreds of years later to tell you what to think- especially a “Catholic” work that relies on the same sources?

And that’s what the-author-you-love-hate did. Took a logical look at the ancient sources and put things together as best he could.

Can you recommend a Catholic-sanctioned book on the same topic? One that doesn’t discount Josephus, and one that doesn’t place too much faith in the histories written by the early church fathers? There probably are not many.

One more point I want to make. To say that Luke survived the persecutions of Nero, and then decided to end his work just before the Christian killings in A.D. 64, borders on the ludicrous. ACTS spends much time on the trials and tribulations of Paul, and his dangerous journeys through Greece and Asia Minor and the Jewish lands. Is it reasonable to assume that Luke would meticulously documenting those events, and then ignore the executions of Peter and Paul?!
I would more believe that there was a third work of Luke-now lost- that details all that happened to the Christians starting from the Roman persecutions on to some ending date, than to think Luke thought the deaths of Paul and Peter not worthy of reporting. Now that book-if was written- would be something to see!

But I think you are stretching things trying to cast aspersions on a work you have not read- or maybe it is a personal attack on me. What is bugging you so much? Are you an authority of some note on the subject? If so, I bet that if you find a way to contact Hagan, he would probably send you free review copies.

 

[Vince1022]

The basic problem is what you accept as sources when you examine the history of 2,000 years ago. Those written closet to the target times are usually the best- without question. For the times of Jesus, there are only a handful- Tacitus, Philo, the NT, Josephus, Suetonius, possibly Dio. And if you read the original sources, why do you need a “Catholic” source written hundreds of years later to tell you what to think- especially a “Catholic” work that relies on the same sources?

And that’s what the-author-you-love-hate did. Took a logical look at the ancient sources and put things together as best he could.

Can you recommend a Catholic-sanctioned book on the same topic? One that doesn’t discount Josephus, and one that doesn’t place too much faith in the histories written by the early church fathers? There probably are not many.

One more point I want to make. To say that Luke survived the persecutions of Nero, and then decided to end his work just before the Christian killings in A.D. 64, borders on the ludicrous. ACTS spends much time on the trials and tribulations of Paul, and his dangerous journeys through Greece and Asia Minor and the Jewish lands. Is it reasonable to assume that Luke would meticulously documenting those events, and then ignore the executions of Peter and Paul?!
I would more believe that there was a third work of Luke-now lost- that details all that happened to the Christians starting from the Roman persecutions on to some ending date, than to think Luke thought the deaths of Paul and Peter not worthy of reporting. Now that book-if was written- would be something to see!

But I think you are stretching things trying to cast aspersions on a work you have not read- or maybe it is a personal attack on me. What is bugging you so much? Are you an authority of some note on the subject? If so, I bet that if you find a way to contact Hagan, he would probably send you free review copies.

What post are you replying to?

 

[NHInsider]

But I think you are stretching things trying to cast aspersions on a work you have not read- or maybe it is a personal attack on me. What is bugging you so much? Are you an authority of some note on the subject? If so, I bet that if you find a way to contact Hagan, he would probably send you free review copies.

I don’t know if this was directed at me or not, but I’ll answer it anyway. I am not an “authority of some note on the subject.” I am, however, a person who writes history books (of much more recent history) for a living.

I am “bugged” by people who self-publish their stuff because they either don’t write well enough to sell their manuscripts to traditional publishers, or because they don’t want to go through the editing and fact-checking that is part of the publishing process, because I’m a professional writer of non-fiction.

I am “bugged” by people who write “historical fiction” based on their own interpretations of history and made-up documentation and then claim that what most historians and theologians believe to be true is wrong just because they have a different/more exciting/more lucrative idea (eg. Dan Brown) because I also write historical fiction and I do my research.

It’s not clear to me at this point whether Mr. Hagan is promoting his work as non-fiction or historical fiction but either way I have serious doubts about the validity of his scholarship, and in both my professional role as a writer and my avocational work as an apologist I am offended.

Beyond that, I am concerned that you as a learner/explorer, and others like you, are possibly being hoodwinked by someone who may be a quasi-scholar, and I am annoyed because you think that it is appropriate for you to come here and make remarks that are challenging to people seeking “Catholic Answers” and patronizing to those who disagree with you. I would suggest that you, and anyone else serious about scholarship, be skeptical of assertions and conclusions that contradict the work of centuries of scholarship. Is it possible that some amateur makes a discovery that is contrary to accepted wisdom? Of course. Is it likely? Maybe. But if it’s based on “evidence” of the nature of "so-and-so-a was in the city at the same time as so-and-so-b so “a” must have been influenced by “b” then you’d be well-advised to hold it in the “awaiting confirmation” file. And when someone cites the CAF as evidence for one point and then ignores or denies them for the next point, it maketh me crazy. . . .

 

[steve53]

I guess NHinsider. Sorry if I included you.

But these are interesting topics. And the best way to shoot down a messenger is to rebut their assertions using logic and superior sources.

 

[Vince1022]

I guess NHinsider. Sorry if I included you.

But these are interesting topics. And the best way to shoot down a messenger is to rebut their assertions using logic and superior sources.

Who are you replying to? Or which post number are you replying to?

 

[steve53]

NHInsider…

I agree with you completely. And Hagan probably would as well. In his introduction to “Passover”, he states he wanted to review the ancient sources himself and come to his own conclusions because of all the specious histories out there. He is not pushing an agenda- at least none that I am able to determine.

But your attack on Hagan is still puzzling for not having read his works.

What assertion that I have made from Hagan do you challenge? Let’s start there.

And, frankly, should we give substance to someone who devotes his entire scholarly life to research and writing on a subject when his sources are faulty?

 

[NHInsider]

NHInsider…

I agree with you completely. And Hagan probably would as well. In his introduction to “Passover”, he states he wanted to review the ancient sources himself and come to his own conclusions because of all the specious histories out there. He is not pushing an agenda- at least none that I am able to determine.

Other than an agenda that says “I’ve figured out that 1700 years of scholarship is wrong.”

But your attack on Hagan is still puzzling for not having read his works.

As I have said, I am skeptical of self-published books because there is generally a reason that they are self-published. Relying on self-published material is like basing your research paper entirely on wikipedia. You might be okay. You might get only valid information. Or, you might swallow a hoax or a misinterpretation wholecloth.

I do research for a living. I evaluate sources all the time. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve found a flat-out error repeated over and over by writers. My rule-of-thumb for credibility is “3 distinct, independent sources.” And no, I’m not going to spend $70 and the time it would take to read 1000 pages just out of curiosity.

What assertion that I have made from Hagan do you challenge? Let’s start there.

You asserted that Luke’s account of the finding of Jesus in the Temple was lifted from Josephus, and based that on Hagan’s book. On the same authority you said Luke died in Rome under Nero.

And, frankly, should we give substance to someone who devotes his entire scholarly life to research and writing on a subject when his sources are faulty?

I’m not sure what you intend in this last statement.

 

[steve53]

Other than an agenda that says “I’ve figured out that 1700 years of scholarship is wrong.”

As I have said, I am skeptical of self-published books because there is generally a reason that they are self-published. Relying on self-published material is like basing your research paper entirely on wikipedia. You might be okay. You might get only valid information. Or, you might swallow a hoax or a misinterpretation wholecloth.

I do research for a living. I evaluate sources all the time. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve found a flat-out error repeated over and over by writers. My rule-of-thumb for credibility is “3 distinct, independent sources.” And no, I’m not going to spend $70 and the time it would take to read 1000 pages just out of curiosity.

Three independent and distinct sources? Well, you can forget about 90 percent of ancient history then. And quite a bit of what is in the Bible. And don’t bother with Hagan. By the way, why stop with three sources? Why not require six or seven and REALLY be on firm scholarly ground?!

You asserted that Luke’s account of the finding of Jesus in the Temple was lifted from Josephus, and based that on Hagan’s book. On the same authority you said Luke died in Rome under Nero.

Cut and paste from an earlier post:

You are quite right that both Luke and Josephus could have been working off a common legend that originally didn’t involve either of them. Luke admits that he used many sources in putting together his Gospel. But, if not, would Jesus or Josephus be the more likely prodigy in the Second Temple that so amazed the Pharisees?

Josephus- if you believe him!-was a high born Jewish Jerusalem aristocrat descended from Asamonean priests on both sides of his family. He was a priest, and would have been trained to be a priest from a very young age. He would have all the libraries and resources of the Second Temple at his disposal. Later in life, Josephus obviously was placed on the fast track to power by the High Priesthood. At 26, he was chosen to go on an important mission to Rome. When the Jewish revolt broke out, along with two other men Josephus was given control over the Galilee. If you read Josephus’ writings, he is an erudite and insightful man, with an incredible memory. It is not hard to see the Priests consulting him on thorny issues of Jewish law when he was young. They might have even been patronizing him a bit, hoping to encourage him in the study of Jewish law, thinking he could be a true leader of his generation.

Jesus, on the other hand, was born to a carpenter who worked out of a small town in the Galilee. The largest town of any consequence was Sepphoris, which was a Roman town first and a Jewish town second. Point being that the Judaic educational opportunities for Jesus were slim. Plus, the circumstances of his birth were open to question, meaning he might have been a borderline outcast. Also, his “father” Joseph was of the house of David, and not Levi- the family of Priests. The Gospel of John states that Jesus did not know “letters” which can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was illiterate.
That Jesus was such a talented Jewish Scholar at a young age (10-12?) that he astounded the Second Temple High Priesthood on a visit to Jerusalem is a very tough case to make.

Additional note-In Josephus’ autobiography, he states he was born in the first year of the reign of Caius (A.D. 37), and at twenty six visited Rome to get prisoners released (A.D. 63). So with both Luke and Josephus being in Rome in A.D. 63, we have a possible way where Josephus’ real story could have found it’s way into Luke’s research. Speculation? Of course. But not to be totally dismissed.

Vince, if you don’t care about Hagan, that’s fine. Shoot the messenger. But you really owe it to yourself to sit down with Josephus’ Wars and read it through. Not a book about Wars, but the actual work. Then read Josephus’ autobiography, and then on to Antiquities. You might get a different impression of the man.

The missing dimension to the Gospels and Acts? You find it in Josephus!
Reply With Quote

About Luke, the biggest piece of evidence we have that he died in the persecutions of Nero in A.D. 64 is that Acts stops abruptly in A.D. 63 with Paul being in Rome. Why stop there if Luke survived the persecutions?

 

[Vince1022]

Vince, if you don’t care about Hagan, that’s fine. Shoot the messenger.

I never said I didn’ care about Hagan.

But you really owe it to yourself to sit down with Josephus’ Wars and read it through. Not a book about Wars, but the actual work. Then read Josephus’ autobiography, and then on to Antiquities.

Yes I have read them.

So, again, what’s your point ?

 

[NHInsider]

Three independent and distinct sources? Well, you can forget about 90 percent of ancient history then. And quite a bit of what is in the Bible. And don’t bother with Hagan. By the way, why stop with three sources? Why not require six or seven and REALLY be on firm scholarly ground?!

I was talking about my own work, which is not in ancient or Biblical history. But the point is that just because someone publishes something and claims it is fact, doesn’t make it fact. You have to assess the sources.

So with both Luke and Josephus being in Rome in A.D. 63, we have a possible way where Josephus’ real story could have found it’s way into Luke’s research. Speculation? Of course. But not to be totally dismissed.

But with no other reason to believe it than

About Luke, the biggest piece of evidence we have that he died in the persecutions of Nero in A.D. 64 is that Acts stops abruptly in A.D. 63 with Paul being in Rome. Why stop there if Luke survived the persecutions?

we are left with an assertion in 2010 that says that what all the historians in the third and fourth century reported was wrong, based on a piece of literary evidence that can be very easily explained on literary grounds.