Lord Emsworth
Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,181
I interpret the Sherwin-White quote the same way you do, but I have wondered how DOC interprets it. His statement, "Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian," seems rather ambiguous. And though it's been mentioned before, I think it bears repeating that apologists quote-mine Sherwin-White and take his words out of contexts: http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html
Hokulele said:Wow. After poking around the blog Lucian linked, things get even worse for DOC and his blatant quote-mine of Sherwin-White. Read this later post from the same blog.
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/further-abuse-of-oxford-professor.html
It appears that what DOC quoted isn't quite correct. The real quote from Sherwin-White's book is as follows:
Sherwin-White said:For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (RLRSNT p. 189)
DOC left out an entire sentence, one that calls Acts a "propaganda narrative" and subject to distortions. Talk about dishonesty!
It is not as DOC had never seen this before. To quote one of my own posts from July 2009:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4949774#post4949774Lord Emsworth said:For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian
It appears that this is a quote-mine:
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/further-abuse-of-oxford-professor.html
For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (RLRSNT p. 189)
Somewhat related:
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/search/label/A.N. Sherwin-White
Talk about things getting worse.

