Let’s consider the following quotes from Sir William Ramsay, one of the greatest archaeologists in history. In his life he did extensive archaeological work in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). Entering into this work he was an unbeliever who was thoroughly convinced that the book of Acts was the product of the 2nd Century (a theory taught in the German schools of higher criticism). As a matter of fact, one of his goals was to prove that the history given by Luke was inaccurate. However, his beliefs were drastically changed as his archaeological finds proved that the book of Acts was accurate to the minutest detail. As a result Sir William Ramsay became a Christian. He writes:
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it…but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations [14]
Luke is a historian of first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. [15]
In the 19th century, Acts 14:6 was consistently presented as an example of a historical error in the book of Acts. The reason for this is that the verse portrays Paul and Barnabas as entering the province of Lycaonia when they came to Lystra and Derbe. The problem with this was that Iconium, the city they had fled from, was also in Lycaonia. However, this is one of the passages Sir William Ramsay checked for the historical accuracy of Acts. His archaeological finds showed that Iconium was made a part of Phrygia only during A.D. 37-72, both before and after this it was part of Lycaonia. [17] Thus we find that Luke’s statement was written in the one and only period of history that it would be accurate!
At one time, Luke was thought to be totally inaccurate regarding details surrounding the birth of Christ in Luke 2:1-3. The critics once argued that there was no census, Quirinius was governor of Syria at a later date and that citizens did not have to return to their homelands. However, archaeology has shown that the Romans did hold censuses every 14 years. Furthermore, it is now known that Quirinius was likely governor of Syria twice, once around 6 A.D., but the other around 7 B.C., which would correspond to the time of the census of Luke 2. Finally, a papyrus was found in Egypt which gives directions for a Roman census and orders all people away from home to return in preparation of the coming census. [18]
In 1962, two Italian archaeologists dug up a Latin inscription in the town of Caesarea. It read “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea, has presented the Tiberium to the Caesareans.” [19]
This article is archived in the University of Clemson’s online archives. It was submitted by the Spurgeon Foundation of Clemson. http://www.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/ap…
Personally I think it is not only foolish to try to explain away such definite evidence, but it contradicts any kind of honorable approach to the method of interpretation. But I will not count my opinion as better than any others. What do you think?
|
||
Reliability Of Luke As A Historian (proof Of The Historicity Of Jesus Christ).?2 comments to Reliability Of Luke As A Historian (proof Of The Historicity Of Jesus Christ).? |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2012 Online Dating Blog - All Rights Reserved |
||
Even if Luke got all his dates and locations right, it does not necessarily follow that he got his story right.
Look at it this way: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes mention London, the Queen, Scotland Yard and Baker St. All of these are real. Does that mean Sherlock Holmes is real? Of course not.
Harry Turtledove writes wonderful alternate histories, correctly identifying names, places and dates of famous people and events. Does that mean his stories are real? Of course not.
Just because Luke may have gotten (and I’ve heard conflicting reports of this) his names, places and dates correct, doesn’t mean there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. There is no valid extra-biblical mention of him, much as there isn’t of Sherlock Holmes or the characters in Harry Turtledove’s novels.
Edit: Agnito, no I’m afraid it isn’t. I’ve made no claims, merely offered an alternate point of view. Do you wish me to provide evidence that the gospel could (emphasis on could) be fiction?
You focused on Turtledove, let me focus on Conan-Doyle for a second. Better yet, someone more recent. Tom Clancy writes novels that take place during the present day. He uses names, places and events that really happened. However, must of us realize that it is fiction. James Patterson does the same thing. As such, without proof of the EVENTS of the gospel of Luke (ie, that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth, that he preached the things he did, and he was crucified when he was), there is no evidence that the gospel of Luke is anything more than fiction.
Again, consider Tom Clancy. Without evidence that Jack Ryan actually lived (ie, his birth certificate, his military record), there is no reason to believe that he is anything more than fiction.
None of us lived back in the time period of Luke. We have no way of knowing whether he wrote of an actual person, or if he wrote of a mythical person. Given that 1) There is no extra-biblical evidence for Jesus’ existence (I’d settle for a recording of the execution), 2) Jesus’ sayings mirror things that other preachers were saying at the time, and 3) None of the other New Testament authors (especially Paul) make mention of a historical Jesus, I don’t think that he existed as described.
Now, it is certainly possible that some day we will find some sort of evidence definitively proving that Jesus of Nazareth truly did exist. If so, I will revise my viewpoint. Until then, however, it is up to you (that is, people who believe in his historicity) to provide evidence of his existence.
The confusion pertaining to Luke comes from the fact that there were actually 2 Lukes. The first was Leucis who was acquainted with Paul. The second was the 2nd century satirist Lucian. ‘Paul; who was actually Apollonius and his associates Damis and Leucis wrote the original epistles and most likely the gospels.
Marcion and Lucian found the mutilated manuscripts during the middle of the 2nd century and are the real authors of the finished scriptures. However, this does not mean that they are true. These scriptures were written to counter the religion of the Messianic Jewish Movement which was the fastest growing religion in the Empire at that time.
Quite revealing are the more secular mentions of Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth. First, we have the infamous ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ of Josephus made at the end of ‘Jewish Antiquities,’ which was not published until the middle of the 90s, then we have the quotes by St. Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome also made at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century. At that time, we also have the famous apologetics quotes by Suetonius and Tacitus about Jesus and the Christiani.
Conversely, we have the Pauline Epistles which were written and preached during the 50s making no reference to Jesus of Nazareth. The author knows about a cosmic Christ the Savior, but nothing about a real live crucified Jesus Christ. Then we have ‘The Shepherd of Hermes’ which most scholars have attributed to the early second century, but others believe may have been written by ‘Paul.’ Paul was actually Apollonius of Tyana, who was of Greek ancestry, which makes him an obvous candidate to be the author. This scripture was a part of the early Church canon and makes no mention of Jesus of Nazareth. Then we have ‘The Epistle of Barnabas’ believed to have been written during the 80s. This early Church scripture only mentions Jesus Christ, but knows nothing about a real live flesh and blood Jesus of Nazareth.
The gospel accounts of the life and passion of Jesus Christ are believed to have been first written during the late 60s and early 70s. Strangely, prior to this time no one ever heard of Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth. It was only after the gospels were written that we hear quotes about Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ were a real person who was crucified c 30 CE we would not need gospels to tell us that he existed and that these events actually happened.
Dead Sea Scroll archivist Joseph Atwill in ‘Caesar’s Messiah’ clearly shows in the empty tomb narrative, which appears in all 4 gospels, that the gospels had a common source and were not the product of some quasi-literate Jewish Apostles. Starting with John, then Matthew, then Mark and finally Luke, what we find is that in Matthew, Mary sees the tomb scene precisely as she left it in John and so on. This shows common knowledge among the authors of all 4 gospels. To learn more about how the Romans subverted the teachings of Yeshu and the Nazoreans and proclaimed them the revelations of their godman Jesus Christ visit: http://www. nazoreans.com