Nomad

Doherty does, in fact, argue that Mark did not use any sources except his own imagination for his Gospel. In his view, there are no earlier traditions, and nothing beyond possible "Q" sayings (which Mark, of course, did not use) that served as sources for for any of the Gospels (excepting Mark himself). It is his rejection of earlier sources that makes him so radical, and almost certainly wrong on this point.

Doherty also cannot conceed that Homer served as such a source, since he wishes to argue that Mark used Jewish Midrashic traditions and methods to develop his fictitious story of Jesus' life.

Personally, each time I have seen someone cite both Doherty an MacDonald in the same breath, I wonder if they know what both men have argued. Very simply, if MacDonald is right, then Doherty must go back to the drawing board, and if Doherty is right, then MacDonald does not have a clue what he is talking about. The two contradict one another on every front (except in arguing that the life of Jesus as presented in Mark is a fabrication).

I'm going to bump the discussion on Homer and Mark, because this fallacious argument was demolished some time ago on these very boards, but some members may not have had a chance to read or comment on the arguments presented.

As for Doherty's theories, and their overall defensibility, I will refer the members here to my debate with Doherty back in May.

The Jesus Puzzle Debate

I am happy to let people draw their own conclusions from that debate, and if they have any questions for me, please ask, and I will do my best to answer them.

Brian (Nomad)

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Toto

I read the link. It does not argue that Josephus read Luke and copied numerous details from him - it argues that Josephus got the words from the Testimonium from Luke or a source that Luke used. And it is fairly unpersuasive.

I do not think you are correct in your characterization of Doherty's arguments on Mark. Doherty only believes that Mark created his gospel as fiction, but his theory does not depend on any particular source of the plot line or the details. It is Spong who bases his theory on Mark being midrash of old testament themes.

If you have a source that refutes the Mason-Carrier thesis, I would appreciate seeing it. It would be more productive than the current discussion.

I do not recall any clear proof that Luke was written around 62 A.D., and certainly most NT scholars do not date it that early or that precisely, so the proof cannot be that persuasive. If I have time, I will review the prior threads.

BTW: This is not meant as a hostile question. Nomad, what is your first language - English or French?

Nomad

The broader point within the link is that we cannot tell from literary evaluations of the texts alone who wrote first. Even if the to use similar language, for example, it is not a given that either copied from the other, but the case that Josephus copied from Luke (or vice versa) hinges entirely upon this kind of dependence. As I have stated before, I do not see any reason to accept that either Luke or Josephus necessarily knew of the other, although the use of similar or common sources does not seem to be out of the question. I think this is especially true given that both men were attempting to put together a history set in 1st Century Palestine.

Quite simply, to say that one copied the other requires a selective use of the available evidence, and the careful ignoring of significant counter evidence.

Actually, it does. I would have to go back into his site and my notes to find it, though. If you consider this to be an important issue, then I will do so.

I will do this myself. First I wish to see if Michael (or someone else) accepts my offer.

The proof does not have to be clear or conclusive, but if the probability that Luke wrote before the fall of Jerusalem is better than that he wrote in the second Century, then any case that Mason or Carrier may be trying to build collapses.

If you have comments on the threads that I have offered, I welcome them (again, from you or anyone else).

English.

Nomad

boneyard bill

Single Dad:

It is the lack of evidence argument. This is weak on the face of it, but valid in some circumstances. Doherty uses the lack of evidence argument in support of his case so he can't very well object to it being used against him in a similar situation especially since he's the one holding the burden of proof on this issue.

I think your other points were answered by Nomad a lot better than I could so I won't address them.

godfry n. glad

Heh..yeah, right...

I don't need to deny what happened because I KNOW what happened and you got it ALL WRONG.

You may be a member of the group, but I've been a moderator of that group since its inception. Your homework was very poorly done. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion by misinterpreting the information you had available. The listowner and the moderators did NOT remove Mr. Tyler from the list at Mr. Doherty's demand. In fact, Mr. Doherty strongly urged the removal of Mr. Tyler as a moderator, not from the group; the moderators refused that demand. And, the moderators did not remove Mr. Tyler, because, in fact, HE UNSUBSCRIBED HIMSELF in a fit of pique when the other moderators attempted to mediate another, later, dispute involving the two.

As for the missing posts, Mr. Tyler's posts were removed by Yahoo.com at _HIS_ REQUEST, over the objections of the listowner and moderators. If you don't like the absence of the Tyler posts, take your complaint to the source - Mr. Tyler, rather than smear the group and its moderators with specious and malicous rumors spread on other groups.

Your claims about the group are basically naught but misinformed and malicious gossip.

None of this is your business to begin with, yet you've seen fit to act in an irresponsible and reprehensible manner. You need to make a public apology to both groups for your manufacture and distribution of unwarrented, specious, irresponsible and malicious gossip.

godfry

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: godfry n. glad ]

Toto

It is important enough that I want you to check your memory. After all, you have not read his book, so you are not that familiar with his theories.

This is completely off the wall. How do we get from merely being more probable than not, to the sort of proof that would invalidate Mason's thesis? Given the inherent uncertainly in dating a document such as the 3rd Gospel, how can you have enough confidence in any probability to absolutely rule out any other viewpoint?

The evidence that Mason presents is part of the evidence that must be considered in dating Luke.

Peter Kirby

KIRBY
Again I point out that the link does not argue that Josephus knew the finished Gospel of Luke but rather posits that a Christian source lies behind the Testimonium by Josephus and the Emmaus narrative by Luke. Given that the author thinks it unlikely that a later Christian would have inserted the Testimonium based on a knowledge of the Emmaus story, given the obscurity of the Emmaus section, the author could likewise argue that it is improbable that Josephus latched upon this particular section of Luke for his material and more likely that Josephus and Luke both redacted a shared source. In any case, the author doesn't say that Josephus knew canonical Luke. I would like a recognition of this point or a quotation from the author to the contrary.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/

Vorkosigan

BTW, since you have demanded I respond to you, Nomad, on Luke/Acts, I have. A new thread has been started. I expect, now that I have responded, that you will finally put up a response to the Luke/Josephus claim.

Michael

Brian Trafford

It would help if you would read my actual post godfry.

Interestingly, I might even find your story believable if you had not also deleted Earl's post in which he did advocate the censorship of Ed's posts, his removal as moderator, AND his POSSIBLE banning from the group.

I wrote to Ed to ask him what had happened. He never replied. Since the only thing I know with certainty is what I saw happen, namely Ed called Doherty on his brutal and self serving translation of NT Greek, Doherty had a fit, and Ed vanished from the list. From that point forward, the board continues to delete posts as they see fit (and is their right, again as I said before, it is their boards). But do not pretend that anything approaching free discussion takes place there.

And you deleted Doherty's posts as well.

Forget it godfry. My accusation stands, and so far as I am concerned, it is the policy of stifling debate that got the JM Boards in the position they are in. True dissent is all but non-existent there. Further, the behaviour of the moderators has been a disgrace from its inception, and the handling of disputes has been a joke. Do what you will on that board, but now I know why Doherty insisted that the only way he would debate anyone on his theories would be privately, or on the JesusMysteries Boards.

Brian Trafford (Nomad)

Nomad

As one of Doherty's earliest disciples on these boards, and a self proclaimed reader of his book and works, together with your history on these boards in which you had an opportunity to follow my debate with Doherty, and the follow up discussions, I would have thought you would be more careful, and actually know what you are talking about here Toto.

You made me have to look up my information again. That is fine. I don't even mind having to do this. At the same time, if you are going to promote a position like Doherty's as being defensible, and even convincing, at least familiarize yourself with the key elements in his argument.

From Part Three of the Jesus Puzzle:

Did the evangelists see themselves as writing history? Their wholesale practice of altering earlier accounts, rearranging the details of Jesus' ministry, changing the very words of the Lord himself, would suggest otherwise. It is now a maxim that the Gospels are faith documents; the evangelists had no concern for historical research as we know it.

Rather, they were engaged in a type of "midrash". Midrash was an ancient Jewish practice of interpreting and enlarging on individual or combinations of passages from the Bible to draw out new meanings and relevance, to get beyond the surface words One way to do this was to embody them in new stories with present-day contexts. In the minds of the evangelists, the Gospels expounded new spiritual truths through a retelling of scripture. So many New Testament stories are simply a reworking of stories recorded in the Old Testament. Jesus was cast in tales like those of Moses, for example, presenting him as a new Moses for contemporary times...

Just so that you know, midrash is not using Homer to create fiction. Midrash, as Doherty notes correctly, draws on the Old Testament for its information, although in this case Doherty is failing to understand that midrash is intended to interpret the Old Testament, not to use the Old Testament to interpret new events to the author (like the life of Jesus).

As I said before, one may find Doherty convincing, or one may find MacDonald convincing. It is contradictory to claim that both may well be right.

A couple of points here as well Toto. Carrier feels so confident that Mason is right, that he says that it is virtually certain that Luke used Josephus, even as he fails to address the broader question of dating Luke/Acts in the first place. Thus, by placing his theoretical cart before his evidentiary horse, Carrier demonstrates yet again how he is willing to make evidence fit his theories, allowing him to disregard problematic evidence that runs counter to those theories.

Look at it this way:

To make Mason and Carrier's argument work, one must assume that Luke could not have preceeded Josephus. But this merely begs the question, as the reasons to date Luke to, at best, the same time period as Josephus is so great that there is virtual unanimoty in the NT scholarly community that Luke/Acts dates to c. 75-85AD. This determination has been made independent of the questions that Mason and Carrier raise. Yet these gentlemen wish to leapfrog these arguments, assert that the literary similarities of Luke and Josephus are compelling, and that this proves that Luke used Josephus! The logic is dizzying, but only because of the leaps of faith being taken. It should make one's head spin.

As I argued before, rather than begging the question, it is better to first establish from the evidence that Luke is more probably a 2nd Century document, THEN we can evaluate if one of his sources was Josephus. Otherwise, if the more probable date for Luke is pre 85AD, then if we establish a literary link between Luke and Josephus, then we can theorize that the latter was using the former, or that they at least shared sources.

This is not hard to follow Toto. If Luke came first, then at most, Josephus used Luke or his sources. At the same time, if Josephus did, in fact, write first, then it is reasonable to ask if Luke included him as one of his own sources.

It looks like we will get into this in more detail in the discussion of Luke and Josephus directly. The thread is now started, so the dangers of over reliance of literary similarities can, and will be examined in that debate as well.

Nomad