reliability of the new testament.

[DavidPalm]

I have reviewed the other Gospels an acts and I see that they all describe Jesus as quoting scripture, having great knowledge of scripture, and describing what he has read in scripture.

While it does not come out and claim that ‘Jesus could read’, seems to me it is taken for granted. The burden of proof is on you if you think he can’t read IMHO.

St. Luke says explicitly that Jesus could read and all steve53 replies is “Ah, Luke again…” as if that’s some sort of answer.

Where did this Jesus can’t read nonsense come from? steve53 says “the Gospel of John” says so. Can he be a little more specific?

 

[steve53]

you are making me work

John 7: 14-36.

“But now in the midst of the feast Jesus went up unto the temple and taught. The Jews therefore* wondered, saying, How knoweth this (man) letters, having not learned?140 Jesus therefore† answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If one desire to do His will, he shall know about the doctrine whether it is of God or I speak from Myself. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh the glory of Him that sent Him-He is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”

 

[DavidPalm]

you are making me work

John 7: 14-36.

“But now in the midst of the feast Jesus went up unto the temple and taught. The Jews therefore* wondered, saying, How knoweth this (man) letters, having not learned?140 Jesus therefore† answered them and said, My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent Me. If one desire to do His will, he shall know about the doctrine whether it is of God or I speak from Myself. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory; but he that seeketh the glory of Him that sent Him-He is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.”

steve, that doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t know how to read. It means that he was not a “man of letters”, as we would say today. The Greek there is grammata, which is also used in Acts 26:24 to describe St. Paul’s formal and rigorous rabbinical training:

And as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, “Paul, you are mad; your great learning grammata] is turning you mad.”

Would you concede that there is a difference between not being formally schooled and not being able to read?

 

[steve53]

with all due respect, this a typical convoluted interpretation to the passage.

It didn’t say he was a man “of” letters (college degree), but he did not “know letters” i.e. he COULDN’T READ!!!

Why are so many put off by Jesus not being able to read or write?

John: written by an eyewitness

Luke:written by a researcher who used a potpourri of sources

 

[DavidPalm]

with all due respect, this a typical convoluted interpretation to the passage.

With all due respect, I believe that the parallel I gave you from the Acts of the Apostles demonstrates that the interpretation I advanced is the correct one, based on the Greek text. You didn’t interact with that.

Why are so many put off by Jesus not being able to read or write?

So why are you so keen to try and prove that there errors on Scripture?

St. Luke’s historical accuracy has been upheld again and again in scholarly study (see here for a good summary):

[Sir William] Ramsay said, “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, this author should be placed along with the greatest of historians” (Ramsay, 222).

For centuries, historians thought that Luke was inaccurate concerning the historicity behind his writings, but archaeologists have recently come to the conclusion that Luke was an extremely accurate recorder of history. F.F. Bruce, of the University of Manchester commented on the accuracy of Luke: “Where Luke has been suspected of inaccuracy, and accuracy has been vindicated by some inscriptional evidence, it may be legitimate to say that archaeology has confirmed the New Testament record” (Bruce, 1969, p331). For instance, Luke’s usage of the words “part” or “district” were originally thought to be inconsistent with archaeological finds; that is, until archaeologist discovered the exact opposite: “Archaeological excavations, however, have shown that this very word, meris, [part or district] was used to describe the divisions of the district. Thus, archaeology has again shown the accuracy of Luke” (Free, 320). E.M. Blaiklock, professor of Classics in Auckland University, concludes that, “Luke is a consummate historian, to be ranked in his own right with the great writers of the Greeks” (Blaiklock, 89).

 

[steve53]

you are REALLY reaching here.

How many Jewish carpenters of the early first century A.D. could read and write?

Jesus probably spent the first seven or eight years of his life as a refugee in Egypt, anyway.

If Jesus couldn’t read, so what? The old Testament is filled with prophets who come from humble beginnings.

 

[DavidPalm]

you are REALLY reaching here.

How many Jewish carpenters of the early first century A.D. could read and write?

Did you have some evidence from the first century that indicates how many of them did or did not? Your personal incredulity is not a sufficient ground, for me at least, on which to cast doubt on St. Luke’s account especially since he shows himself to be so reliable (see above).

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says of first-century synagogue worship:

Delegate of the Congregation.
Hebrew shelı̄aḥ cibbūr (Rō’sh ha-shānāh 4 9; Berākhōth 5 5). This office was not permanent, but one was chosen at each meeting by the ruler to fill it, and he conducted the prayers. According to Meghillāh 4 5, he who was asked to read the Scriptures was also expected to read the prayers. He had to be a man of good character.

I see no reason to doubt that each Jewish community would have a group of men who were sufficiently literate to be able to fill this role. Did you have evidence to the contrary?

If Jesus couldn’t read, so what? The old Testament is filled with prophets who come from humble beginnings.

Again, why are you so keen to attribute error to St. Luke? And why haven’t you interacted yet with the use of the same word in Acts.

 

[steve53]

OK Dave.

Here is something to work on with your scholar pals.

Luke identifies the High Priest whom Paul insulted in the Second Temple as Ananias. This was during the Pentecost of A.D. 58. No scholar will dispute this.

According to Josephus, who worked in the Second Temple during that period as a priest, the High Priest was Ismael.

Error.

Game, set, match.

 

[DavidPalm]

OK Dave.

Here is something to work on with your scholar pals.

Luke identifies the High Priest whom Paul insulted in the Second Temple as Ananias. This was during the Pentecost of A.D. 58. No scholar will dispute this.

According to Josephus, who worked in the Second Temple during that period as a priest, the High Priest was Ismael.

Error.

Game, set, match.

So can we consider that you have conceded your own error with regard to our Lord’s literacy?

More to follow…

 

[steve53]

Dave, John is by far the more veracious. Jesus, IMO, was illiterate, though he probably over the years developed a workmanlike proficiency in the key passages in Isaiah. Or he memorized them and pretended to read, though he was reciting from memory.

But what’s the difference?

You really should read Hagan’s books “Passover” and “Roman Fires.”

They are history books, and not theological. Any vision of Jesus you might have can be accommodated within them. The point is good history is good history.

 

[DavidPalm]

Dave, John is by far the more veracious. Jesus, IMO, was illiterate, though he probably over the years developed a workmanlike proficiency in the key passages in Isaiah. Or he memorized them and pretended to read, though he was reciting from memory.

But what’s the difference?

Steve, I’ll have more to say about this when I am off work and have a bit more time. But you have yet to advance any good reason to doubt that Jesus could read. It seems to be more an impression of yours rather than anything based on any evidence.

With regard to the passage you cite from Acts, what do we call an ex-president? We call him President X, right? President Clinton, President Bush, etc. Do you have evidence from the first century that the Jews would not have called ex-high priests “Such and such the high priest”? If I recall correctly, even Josephus himself sometimes speaks of more than one “high priest” contemporaneously, but I’ll have to look into that further.

The difference in what you are saying and in what I am saying is that you are gratuitously (IMO) accusing St. Luke of an error when no such error is necessitated by the text, even on purely linguistic/cultural grounds, leaving aside theological grounds which holds that these are divinely inspired texts and therefore inerrant.

The question remains, why are you so keen to find errors in the NT?

 

[DavidPalm]

OK Dave.

Here is something to work on with your scholar pals.

Luke identifies the High Priest whom Paul insulted in the Second Temple as Ananias. This was during the Pentecost of A.D. 58. No scholar will dispute this.

According to Josephus, who worked in the Second Temple during that period as a priest, the High Priest was Ismael.

Error.

Game, set, match.

Not so fast, partner…I have to get to bed because I’m up at 4:00 am tomorrow to drive up to Wausau for my older two daughters’ confirmation. But I looked into this a little bit.

Notice how in the List of High Priests in Wikipedia there are a number of high priests listed between AD 47 - 59.

But when one looks at the entry for Ananias son of Nebedaios his time as high priest is listed as AD 47-59.

I’m not holding out Wikipedia as the end-all scholarly source by any means, but there’s a clue here that there’s something else going on there. Noted NT scholar Joachim Jeremias gives us a solid notion as to what that is:

There were in the first century AD two groups of high priestly families, one legitimate and one illegitimate. The legitimate group comprised simply and solely the Zadokites serving in the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis and the families descended from this ruling line. The illegitimate were the priestly families from the midst of whom one or more members had been raised to the highest spiritual dignity by variable winds of chance and politics since 37 BC, since the Hasmoneans who formed a group between these two and had held the high priesthood for more than a century, though descended from an ordinary priestly family, were finally exterminated (Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, p. 192).

Two groups of high priests, legitimate and illegitimate, would account for some sources speaking of multiple high priests over the period of AD 47-59 (illegitimate contenders), versus other sources indicating that there was only one high priest (the legitimate one.) For his part, Josephus was notorious for going with whatever the Romans happened to support and they supported whatever kept the relative peace in Israel.

I have not referenced all my available sources on this and it will have to wait until early next week, but I believe here is the answer to your challenge. I’m confident that St. Luke will, as always, be vindicated on his historical accuracy.

Have a good weekend and God be with you.

 

[melbanglican]

I’ve been reading this article for a while, without realising that it could inform our debate. It is written by Prof Justin Taylor, SM, and made me realise that the NT is something truly ground-breaking:

aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/301040/1.AEJT10.03_Taylor_LiteraryNovelty_Formatted.pdf

I commend this article to participants in this debate whole-heartedly!

There is also a subsequent article, which I have not read, at:

aejt.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/325555/3_AEJT10.19_Formatted_Taylor_Beyond_Realism_copyedited.pdf

Some of you may already know of the author, but I felt it was worth mentioning his wonderful contribution to knowledge for those (like me) who did not!:extrahappy:

 

[catholicm17]

Why does the gospels only speak of a little part of Jesus’ life? What about his life when he was 17,22 or 27?

 

[steve53]

“For his part, Josephus was notorious for going with whatever the Romans happened to support and they supported whatever kept the relative peace in Israel.”

Dave, we are talking about Second Temple High Priests. Josephus is our ONLY real source. And Josephus trained as a priest in Jerusalem AND IN THE SECOND TEMPLE during the period in question.

Sure, the High Priests could be removed at the Rome’s command. At that time, Agrippa II appointed the High Priests, although he could be overruled by high-ranking Romans if they pushed it.

Not sure about all these secondary “High Priests”. Sounds like a lot of Talmudic gobbledygook. Hagan dismisses the Talmud.

If you dismiss Josephus, well then, there you go. We have nothing to evaluate ACTS against.

I agree that Wiki is a horrible, worthless source.

 

[Arkadin]

That census mentioned in Luke really throws things out of whack. People have attempted to explain this in favour of the gospels, but none of it seems to really solve anything.

I like those resurrection accounts and how they agree so well with one another. All attempts to say they are actually complimentary are only grasping for anything that will sound pretty to reconcile them.

 

[DavidPalm]

That census mentioned in Luke really throws things out of whack. People have attempted to explain this in favour of the gospels, but none of it seems to really solve anything.

I like those resurrection accounts and how they agree so well with one another. All attempts to say they are actually complimentary are only grasping for anything that will sound pretty to reconcile them.

There is a useful summary of the evidence regarding the census in the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm. The book by Ramsay referenced at the end is available here: ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.toc.html

If the resurrection accounts in the Gospels agreed in every detail the charge would be that there was collusion between the authors. When there are expected discrepancies, the charge is made that any attempts at harmonization are illegitimate. And yet historians regularly harmonize disparate accounts of events, as do courts of law. Blomberg’s book, which I referenced above, is particularly good on this. A harmonization of the Gospel accounts by one of my own former professors may be found here: answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/resurrect.html

I haven’t yet had time to return to the write up any more on the question of the high priests, but I will be back to update this thread when I can.

 

[Arkadin]

Ramsay considers Luke to be a great historian and goes so far as to say he should be placed among the greatest. Sadly, evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[DavidPalm]

Ramsay considers Luke to be a great historian and goes so far as to say he should be placed among the greatest. Sadly, evidence suggests otherwise.

Ramsay backed up his conclusion with copious detailed evidence. All who have the deep interest can get the studies by Ramsay and others and evaluate that evidence.

Blomberg has done a nice job of demonstrating that there is actually something of a double standard when it comes to the evaluations done on the Lucan corpus, for example, versus the way other historical sources are handled. Methods of harmonization that are standard tools used by historians when studying purely secular texts are ruled out of court when it comes to NT documents.

Taking his demonstrable accuracy on the broad issues and bring those same tools to bear on a handful of apparent discrepancies or “hard cases” and St. Luke’s accuracy is vindicated again and again. So Christians can be confident that the work has been done and the evidence presented and they can have confidence in the integrity of the NT writings, especially the writings of St. Luke.

 

[danserr]

There is a useful summary of the evidence regarding the census in the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm. The book by Ramsay referenced at the end is available here: ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.toc.html

**If the resurrection accounts in the Gospels agreed in every detail the charge would be that there was collusion between the authors. **When there are expected discrepancies, the charge is made that any attempts at harmonization are illegitimate. And yet historians regularly harmonize disparate accounts of events, as do courts of law. Blomberg’s book, which I referenced above, is particularly good on this. A harmonization of the Gospel accounts by one of my own former professors may be found here: answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/resurrect.html

I haven’t yet had time to return to the write up any more on the question of the high priests, but I will be back to update this thread when I can.

An excellent point. It’s just an attempt at the old “Heads I win, tails, you lose” trick.
Different accounts will stress different things, NT Wright said: even a photograph of a person is taken from a certain angle.