But why would the late "reviser" of Acts (when was it originally written?) ignore the Paulines if that was part of the conflict? By the beginning of the first century Paul's letters where widely used throughout the churches. They were not just used by Marcion. Moreover, it seems to me that rather than ignore the other side's use of Paul's letters, you would use them to your own advantage. (like Paul's frequent references to the Old Testament).

This sounds very improbable. It sounds like he is saying that Acts doesn't mention Paul's letter because they are at the heart of the controversy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChristianSkeptic:
Ulrich: there really is scholarly consensus for the Pauline Epistles predating the Gospels

CS: A scholarly consensus may serve to give you confidence in your position but is not a good reason to believe that the point is true-it’s the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Incorrect. If anything, Ulrich is appealing to authority here. Appeals to authority are not considered invalid provided they meet some basic criteria. If Ulrich's appeal to authority is fallacious in this instance, then so are any appeals you, Nomad or Layman would make.

Do you actually claim to do all of your own research from scratch?

If you are aware of the academic consensus that Paul's epistles predate the gospels then you must also be aware of that same academic consensus that the gospels are independent of Paul's epistles. Even Acts, written as late as 80 CE doesn't refer to or rely on them.

Toto

Remember, this was before the canon was finally established. It was also before the Protestant Reformation made Biblical text the basis of belief. The author of Acts did not know that the letters from Paul would end up being part of holy writ, or that people would be arguing about why his text was different from Paul's nearly 2 millenia later. And it may be that he found the gnostic-like viewpoint in Paul's letters so repugnant or foreign he preferred to ignore them.

Other than that, you should pose this question to Doherty, or check the book by Knox.

I remember plenty. What you are forgetting, or ignoring, is the very real fact that Paul's letters were already collected and circulating as a revered corpus of early Christian writings by the beginning of the second-century. Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, at 62. Even before the beginning of the second century Paul's letters were already being alluded to authoritatively by the Roman Church (1 Clement).

You also fail to explain two other points:

1. The author/reviser of Acts was engaged in a bit of hero worship of Paul. He obviously saw him as an chosen by God to spread the gospel to the Gentiles. He sides with Paul against the Judaizers and portrays Paul as a hero from his conversion until the end of Acts. While we may not know what every early Christian thought of Paul--although the wide dissemination of his letters indicate such thoughts were generally favorable--we do not what the author of Acts thought: Paul was Jesus' chosen servant.

2. If the nature of the supposed conflict between Marcion and the early Church was based in large part on the proper interpration of Paul's epistles, and Luke/Acts is claiming Paul for their side, why in the world would he utterly and completely fail to refer to Paul's letters. It is not as if they church thought them hostile. Just the opposite in fact. The early Church had been relying on Paul's letters and distributing them for over dozens of years befor the conflict. Moreover, the author of Acts, in particular, apparently had a special affinity for Paul. Furthermore, Paul's epistles are chock full of ammo against Marcion's hatred of the Old Testament and the OT God. Paul often refers to and relies on the Old Testament. He sees a definite continuity between the two, rather than the radical separation envisioned by Marcion.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 18, 2001).]

madmax2976: …If anything, Ulrich is appealing to authority here.

ChristianSkeptic: Hello again madmax2976

The appeal in question is to a scholarly consensus . Consensus is expressed in the form of an agreed on opinion/position.

Granted Ulrich has not adduced any surveys of scholars to make his non-point.

madmax2976: If Ulrich's appeal to authority is fallacious in this instance, then so are any appeals you, Nomad or Layman would make.

CS: Writing for myself, I have never appealed to a consensus of scholarship to prove a point.

I do recall that you have made the charge that my citation of analysis and research data expressed at the 1992 international economic symposium for long-run economic growth sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City was an inappropriate appeal to authority since there does not exits a consensus among scholars on the issue.

I also recall during our exchange that you did not know the basic fact that the GDP = the economy.

My response, which you did not refute, was the economic principle in question, is supported by economists from across the public policy spectrum. I cited three liberal economists, one a Harvard professor, another serves as the president of the World Bank, and the third is a former economic advisor to president Jimmy Carter. I also quoted two conservative economists; one a former Regan advisor the other a Chairman of the Carnegie-Mellon University school of political economy.

madmax2976: Do you actually claim to do all of your own research from scratch?

CS: My claim is that my sources provide analysis and research data, which best answers the question at hand.

Toto

To Layman, regarding Paul and Act's silence:

This is veering off-topic, and you should really address these questions to Doherty directly. I will only add this, from The evolution of the Pauline Canon by Robert M. Price, which is available on the Journal of Higher Criticism site:

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 18, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 18, 2001).]

Well, this didn't address or answer any of my rather specific points and questions.

I think Doherty is too busy to answer these questions. He is, of course, free to do so. But, I have previously posted two specific posts regarding his arguments and he has decliend to join in. I don't blame him for this, I'm sure he is busy. I was hoping some of those who agreed with him could adequately defend his positions. I see, so far, that they cannot.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChristianSkeptic:
ChristianSkeptic: Hello again madmax2976

Howdy

The appeal in question is to a scholarly consensus . Consensus is expressed in the form of an agreed on opinion/position.

Granted Ulrich has not adduced any surveys of scholars to make his non-point.

In any case this will still be an appeal to authority, not argumentum ad populum. Expert opinion can and does carry a good deal of weight in many areas, whereas a mere popularity argument never does. Your simply questioning whether his appeal to authority is valid, which is just fine.

Do you disagree with Ulrich's claim that most scholars concur with the dating he described? If no, then all you need to do is state as such. He could then dig up the necessary evidence (quotes?) to support his appeal. If you do agree, then there would be no point in bothering to collect such evidence.

I for one am suprised that you do question it, since I have never heard anyone seriously argue that the gospels predate the epistles.

It may also be that you agree with his appeal that there is a scholarly concensus that dates the epistles and gospels as he laid out, but believe that those scholars are wrong. In which case it would be beneficial if you were to show why we should believe you instead.

You could each directly debate the evidence for the datings of the writings themselves, an extremely vast undertaking I would think in this forum (or in any venue).

And just as a side question, if most scholars agree that the Pauline epistles do pre-date the gospels, why would you consider this a "non-point"? Wouldn't this be something at least worth investigating for your own benefit? Seems this is what a thorough, unbiased researcher would do. You could then argue for your early dates and argue against the later dates, thus making your case all the more stronger.

CS: Writing for myself, I have never appealed to a consensus of scholarship to prove a point.

So it would follow that you think Nomad, Layman and any others are equally fallacious for doing so - yes?

I do recall that you have made the charge that my citation of analysis and research data expressed at the 1992 international economic symposium for long-run economic growth sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City was an inappropriate appeal to authority since there does not exits a consensus among scholars on the issue.

Actually I challenged your appeal to authority on several fronts. There are basic criteria necessary to avoid fallacious appeals to authority and you didn't meet them.

I also recall during our exchange that you did not know the basic fact that the GDP = the economy.

Yes, a totally irrelevant point since I did not have to be versed in economics whatsoever to point out the flaws in your argument. But your expected attempt to insult me has been noticed if thats what your were looking for in this statement.

My response, which you did not refute, was the economic principle in question, is supported by economists from across the public policy spectrum...

I beleive you were/are actually guilty of using statements out of context in an rather weak attempt to essentially say, "Eww, atheists have no "good" reason to be moral, isn't that icky?". With the idea firmly entrenched beforehand that the only "good" reason to be moral is because your God says so.

CS: My claim is that my sources provide analysis and research data, which best answers the question at hand.

Certainly it would be nice if we could all take the great deal of time required to obtain the necessary education to have the necessary expertise to be able to properly critique your "sources" and "data". Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be a reasonable expectation. (Depending on what these things are.) Therefore you will have to give us good reasons to accept whatever dates you would offer over the dates that are believed to be the common ones offered.



[This message has been edited by madmax2976 (edited May 18, 2001).]

Toto

You claim that the author of Acts was engaging in hero worship of Paul, and I countered with a quote from a reputable scholar indicating that the author of Acts was more concerned with rewriting Paul to be a theologically correct Christian ("Thus it presents a Paul who, though glorified, is co-opted, made the merest Narcissus-reflection of the Twelve") How does this not address one of your points?

Doherty addresses your precise questions in this post and your last in his book, which you want to attack without having to read. He says that the "primitive" ecclesiology is actualy typical of the mid-2nd century. He spends several pages of his book discussing this, and cites the earlier book by Knox, which is a book-length treatment of the subject.

I would suggest that you email him directly and alert him to your posts if you want him to respond here. He may chose to include those points in his posting in the formal debate even if he doesn't want to debate you along with Nomad. Or he may have that part of his book on his web site, but I missed it.

What it comes down to is that you have made an argument from silence, but you have shown no compelling reason why the author of Luke/Acts had to cite Paul's letters in what was purported to be an early history of the church.

And how exactly do you explain the many conflicts between Acts and Paul's letters? Which one is false?