Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Similar, yes, but Stuart neglects several key points (or just didn't discuss them). I owe him that, though, and if my book is ever finished, he will be credited with it.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:09 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:33 am This thread is a response to interesting recent discussion's about Josephus Pilate Luke 3:1 ans other matters.

However I am trying to answer a specific point. Can we determine when Luke understood the crucifixion to have occurred without relying on either our present text of 3:1 or our present text of Josephus.

I think we probably can. The correct text and translation of Luke 23:45 is in all probability the sun was eclipsed
A solar eclipse cannot happen at Passover but if Luke is associating the crucifixion with an historical eclipse in Palestine it must be the eclipse of november 24 29 ad. This implies that Luke understood the crucifixion as occurring around 29-30 CE.

(This is not a claim about the actual date of the crucifixion merely about what Luke believed.)

Andrew Criddle

What Luke believed? That we don't know. All we have are the written words attributed to him....Hence, it's up to the reader of those words to interpret them.

As for an eclipse: Wikipedia details, in addition to the one mentioned above, two others. 18 March 33 and 1 July 37.

IIUC neither of these would have been anywhere near total in Palestine. Maybe not visible at all,

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:26 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:09 am

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:33 am This thread is a response to interesting recent discussion's about Josephus Pilate Luke 3:1 ans other matters.

However I am trying to answer a specific point. Can we determine when Luke understood the crucifixion to have occurred without relying on either our present text of 3:1 or our present text of Josephus.

I think we probably can. The correct text and translation of Luke 23:45 is in all probability the sun was eclipsed
A solar eclipse cannot happen at Passover but if Luke is associating the crucifixion with an historical eclipse in Palestine it must be the eclipse of november 24 29 ad. This implies that Luke understood the crucifixion as occurring around 29-30 CE.

(This is not a claim about the actual date of the crucifixion merely about what Luke believed.)

Andrew Criddle

What Luke believed? That we don't know. All we have are the written words attributed to him....Hence, it's up to the reader of those words to interpret them.

As for an eclipse: Wikipedia details, in addition to the one mentioned above, two others. 18 March 33 and 1 July 37.

IIUC neither of these would have been anywhere near total in Palestine. Maybe not visible at all,

Andrew Criddle

If that is so, re the two eclipse dates above, then the question remains as to why does the gospel of Luke appear to reference an eclipse at the time of the crucifixion - when in fact the eclipse only occurred around 7 months later. If, in this instance, the Lukan writer is condensing events - then why would he not do so in other instances ? For example: When naming historical figures in 3:1, Luke makes mention of Lysanias of Abilene - a ruler dated to 40 b.c. - 70 years prior to 15th year of Tiberius. Perhaps we should no more think the eclipse of 29 c.e. had to do with a Jesus crucifixion in that year than we should rush to the idea that Lysanias of Abilene was ruling in the 15th year of Tiberius. Seems to me the Lukan writer was more interested in the 15th year of Tiberius (and that years eclipse) than attempting to confine his crucifixion story to that year.

The Lukan writer linking events from one time period to another time period (events whether actual or literary) opens up a can of worms for Jesus historicists......

I don't think a solar eclipse at only around 50% or less would even be noticed.

Exactly. Like these gospels are "documentations" of history written generations after the events in question! Scribal reporting at its best. I guess Andrew's point is - even if the author was consulting a table of astronomical knowledge, does Luke demonstrate that he "knew" or thought that the year was 29 CE. I am not so sure. He is likely just dramatizing or heightening the implications of Mark. But then again maybe not ...

It would be interesting to check if there was an eclipse 19 years or so later too given what Irenaeus thinks.

Another errancy focus based on an ultra-minority scribal error of a bumbling Egyptian, that knew little about the NT, and that worked its way into Vaticanus.

The sky was darkened.

No eclipse.

Lule 23:45 (AV)
And the sun was darkened,
and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst

Do you ever notice Steven that all your judgments uphold or are aligned in favor of inerrancy? Disqualifies your opinion no less than the mythicists at the forum. You should get together and make selfish, self-centered, self-righteous children. Of course you think you are defending God. (rolling on the ground laughing emoticon). You're just defending 'your team.' I see it on your waffling about Trump on Facebook (= I am not really for the President but ... ). If you were born to mythicist parents you'd be here arguing the exact opposite. The common denominator is selfishness. There are only so many years before you die. Learn to unself-yourself. That's what the early Christians like Clement were talking about (with Christ watching Jesus crucified). There's the self you were born with and then the 'Christ' self. You think that your 'Christian self' = Christ self. But that's just a team self. Not the same thing. You might as well be rooting for a football team. Nothing holy about being a partisan. It's dishonesty for God and dishonesty is dishonesty.

So you operate on an a prior presumption of Bible error and corruption? And thus accuse me, because my Bible does not have various errors that were placed in the Westcott-Hort recension?

Makes no sense.

As for Trump, my most recent comment was “amoral sleaze”. Then I ripped his being duped on the phoney poison gas claim (exposed on OAN, to my surprise.) Some waffling. And I did not vote for him, in the 2016 “race to the bottom” election.

I did wonder about the sniffles and the weird coloring. The colouring might be Bad Tanning Syndrome.