Tuesday, 06 June 2006
Did Pentecost Happen?
Asks Chris Tilling, along with the usual pretty picture. The problem I have with Chris' own take on the topic is the suggestion that because you can demonstrate that Luke has a concern for historical detail and accuracy at some points (the reference to Riesner and Scnabel to which I would also add Colin Hemer, whose work was formative for me as an undergraduate thinking through these issues) you can conclude that the burden of proof lies in favour of historical accuracy at other points. In my view this is simply bad historiography in so far as it flattens out the different kinds of material in a text like Acts into a single category (that of relatively accurate ist century Greco-Roman historiography), rather than accounting for the extent to which an author like Luke can move between myth and history and merge them in different ways and degrees at different points in the narrative. In other words, I simply don't believe that, for example, because Acts 16 is packed full of local colour and thus historical authenticity (as even Lüdemann recognises), the burden of proof lies in favour of those who want to believe that the Ascension or Pentecost narratives happened pretty much as described.
I am reminded of the cautions given by Ed Sanders in Jesus and Judaism I think to the effect that (a) decisions about historicity should be made on a case by case basis, rather than on the basis of wider conclusions about how good a "historian" a biblical writer might e and that (b) the notion of the burden of proof is rarely straighforwardly stacked in one direction or another.
It goes without saying, however, that decisions about the likely historicity of the events in Acts 2 do not exhaust what an exegete might want to say about that text.
Update: Chris responds sensibly in the comments to this post, and typically (i.e much more funnily) here. I like the picture but object to being called a baby-eating Baptist. I only eat those who profess their faith in Jesus Christ as personal Saviour and Lord (Oh no, even I am turning into a narrow semi-pelagian now)
11:55 Posted in NT Stuff | Permalink | Comments (3) | Email this
Comments
Indeed. The way I look at it is this: you could make a pretty good case that Jack Higgins' novel "The Eagle has Landed" is fact - plenty of accurate historical detail in there, but it's a work of fiction.
Posted by: Tony B | Tuesday, 06 June 2006
Sean the Baptist has the darn cheek to disagree with me, and my post on ‘Did Pentecost Happen?’!
*picy!*
He shall therefore be know hereafter as Evil Sean the Baby Eating Baptist.
‘The problem I have with Chris’ own take on the topic is the suggestion that because you can demonstrate that Luke has a concern for historical detail and accuracy at some points (the reference to Riesner and Scnabel to which I would also add Colin Hemer, whose work was formative for me as an undergraduate thinking through these issues) you can conclude that the burden of proof lies in favour of historical accuracy at other points.’
Thanks for your great points, Sean! Well, with all humility, I must admit that Luke-Acts is not my home territory. However, my comments were rather brief, so perhaps I can expand on my position, and if you want you can tell me if I’m making more sense.
My point in citing my neighbour Riesner was more negative, i.e, that the alleged fundamental untrustworthiness of Acts as history gives ground for fundamental distrust of the text. Then, given this fundamental distrust, scholars ransack other hardly harmonisable passages in order to arrive at an other-attested ‘historical kernel’. But the whole mechanism is short-circuited when it is realised that the claims of Lüdemann etc. are exaggerated. This, I think, the scholars mentioned do, and thus means I come to the account in Acts not expecting something created ex nihilo (because it has been allegedly shown by Lüdemann that so much is totally ‘made up’), though certainly nothing perfect, unbiased, etc.
You continued: ‘In my view this is simply bad historiography in so far as it flattens out the different kinds of material in a text like Acts into a single category (that of relatively accurate 1st century Greco-Roman historiography)’.
That was not my point in citing Riesner etc., though. I want to recognise variety in the text, and allow for movement ‘between myth and history’ as you say. I suppose my point was threefold: 1) Fundamental distrust is based on exaggerated reasons. 2) Based on this distrust, the suggested need to externally verify the Pentecost account isn’t fair because (I didn't make this bit explicit) there isn’t another indisputable account of the alleged event to compare it with (even though John 20:22 etc.). Things are different, in my opinion, when we are comparing details in Acts with Paul’s letters. Here, the ability to make such comparisons can yield more fruit. 3) Nevertheless, historical discrepancies are there.
Posted by: Chris Tilling | Wednesday, 07 June 2006
Oops, the above included text for my post on my blog about this. The e-mail address for Alison didn't work, btw.
Posted by: Chris Tilling | Thursday, 08 June 2006
The comments are closed.