Board index ‹ Bible

[Anemone]

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I think the way you phrased it here is best

> The Jury is still out.

That makes the claim more accurate. IMO.

[jimwalton]

It is accurate to say that these uncorroborated events, conditions, and people, cannot yet be corroborated, but it's almost a minimalist argument to then claim (you haven't done this, but others have) that Luke is therefore unreliable. I doubt that it will ever be the case that everything is corroborated.

In my opinion, we still need to consider principles of reason in connection with this line of thinking. If an author has given us true and accurate information about places, cultural references, historical references, and religious references, and if his purpose in writing is to give us a carefully investigated account of what actually happened (Lk. 1.1-4), on what basis would someone claim "He was dead on accurate about all these things but lying through his teeth about x, y, and z"? If Luke is found to be above reproach in his historical method and reporting integrity, by what line of reasoning do we claim he's a crackpot about others of his alleged facts?

[Anemone]

I’m certainly not making any efforts to discredit the author or the text.

What I do think is that it is more valuable to represent the historical picture as it stands without going beyond what can be said, even if those things are likely to be true.

So if at present History can only corroborate the existence of 17 persons, speaking honestly about that allows for the corroboration of future persons (events etc) while also maintaining the veracity of the current picture. Of course, Categorically some of these people may be different in that they do not or never have had any available primary historical sources, something common enough in the ancient world. In those cases it’s more useful to specify them separately. “Of the 52 persons mentioned, primary historical documentation could be available for x number and at present 17 have been confirmed. Y number of them are extremely unlikely to have any primary historical documentation (because they are ordinary persons, not Roman or Sanhedrin authorities.)

I don’t like seeing the arguments so easily picked apart for the mere reason of having been presented with more “inherent authority” than they actually possess. “17 of the 52 persons mentioned have been demonstrated to exist, the remainder have never been shown not to exist, therefore the record is perfect.”

That’s all I’m saying.

[jimwalton]

OK. It was hard to tell where you were coming from, so the clarification is helpful. Thanks.