FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-2001, 10:14 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Layman - I only jump in because I don't want to see the theists totally take over this board based on their long-windedness and bogus assertions of expert consensus, and because I spot certain irrationalities that I can't ignore. I would be happy if someone with more credentials than me would take over. </font>
Perhaps there is a reason that no one with more credentials bothers to step in.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I don't know why Doherty dates Acts and the Gospels the way he does, and I will let you direct this question to him. It is not that important to me. I think they all are fictional, whenever they were written. </font>
Thank you for your opinion, but as you have conceded, your opinion isn't worth anything. And, given that it is completely unsupported by any argument or references, it's worth even less than that.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> You have made an argument from silence when you argue that if Acts were written at a later date, it surely would have included references to Paul's letters. How is my pointing this out a "reverse" argument from silence? It is only because you have decided that arguments from silence are bad that you don't want to use this label. </font>
Actually, I never said that all arguments from silence were worthless. I do believe, however, that they must be made with a good understanding of the context, motives, and access that the author would have had to the relevant works.


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I myself have not expressed an opinion on when Acts was written, rewritten, or edited by the theological spin doctors of the early church. Perhaps Justin Martyr does refer to Acts, or perhaps he refers to an oral legend that was used by the author of Acts. How would you know? What difference would it make?</font>
Since there are other allusions to Acts by the early Christian writers, it is unlikely that we have scattered oral legends that were selectively incorporated by the author of Acts into his narrative while showing no other dependence on those sources. It is far more likely that the early Church fathers were drawing from existing sources, as they did with Paul's epistles and the gospels.

Why does it matter? For many reasons. The author of Acts claims to have participated in many of the events about which he writes. If he wrote around 80 CE, then this is a distinct likelihood. If he wrote in 150 CE, then this is impossible. And, if he was a participant in the events he describes, and he really did meet Peter, James and Phillip, then Doherty's thesis is in a lot of trouble.

Moreover, if it was written around 80 CE, even if not by a participant in the events described, then the author had access to sources that an author in 150 CE would not have had access to.

Acts clearly portrays an early Church, even in Jerusalem, that clearly believed in the human Jesus. If he wrote around 80 CE there are more reasons to believe his portrayal is accurate than if he wrote in 150 CE.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 31, 2001).]
 
Old 05-31-2001, 11:15 AM   #12
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Hi Layman

Back from vacation? I had hoped that Doherty would discuss this. I have some material at home I may post on later.

But first please tell me why a date for acts of 80 or 90 C.E. helps your case so much more than a date of 120 or 170 C.E.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Since there are other allusions to Acts by the early Christian writers, . . .
</font>
Which are these? You disagree with Koester, cited above by Doherty

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Scholars such as Helmut Koester have concluded that any earlier "allusions" to Gospel-like material are actually floating traditions which themselves found their way into the written Gospels. </font>
[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 31, 2001).]
Toto is offline  
Old 05-31-2001, 11:22 AM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Toto:
Hi Layman

Back from vacation? I had hoped that Doherty would discuss this. I have some material at home I may post on later.

But first please tell me why a date for acts of 80 or 90 C.E. helps your case so much more than a date of 120 or 170 C.E.

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 31, 2001).]
</font>
Yes, I disagree with Koester. And if he dates Acts to the mid-second century then most scholars would disagree with him.

I explained, at least in part, why an earlier date helps my case. Please re-read my post.
 
Old 05-31-2001, 01:42 PM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:

Yes, I disagree with Koester. And if he dates Acts to the mid-second century then most scholars would disagree with him.</font>
It isn't Koester, but rather John Knox that is quoted by Doherty. So far as I am aware, Koester firmly places Luke/Acts in the first Century.

Nomad
 
Old 05-31-2001, 03:02 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question

Toto: I read the scholars who seem to share my point of view and write in an interesting manner, but if they were proven wrong tomorrow, I wouldn't care.

SWL: But, in the tradition of critical thinking, what scholars do you read that DON'T share your viewpoint? Or are you just reading to build a safety-net around your "bogus" worldview?

SecWebLurker
 
Old 05-31-2001, 10:05 PM   #16
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by SecWebLurker:
SWL: But, in the tradition of critical thinking, what scholars do you read that DON'T share your viewpoint? Or are you just reading to build a safety-net around your "bogus" worldview?
</font>
Hi Lurker,

Doesn't it count that I read the posts from Nomad and his gang? That takes a lot of my time. From what I have read of the scholars that don't share my viewpoint, we differ on fundamental assumptions, so they are not likely to convert me.

If I were going to engage in a formal debate with someone, I assure you I would read everything they had written.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:29 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.