Toto, this is extraordinarily untrue. I go into a large degree of detail, discussion, and anlaysis regarding why your late dating theory are without merit. The system wouldn't even let me fit it all into one post!

I explained at length why your version of the Marcionite theory was incorrect. I focused on earlier references to Acts, I focused on the particular redacting Marcion engaged in (the Birth Narrative and excising of John the Baptist) and explained how we know from earlier sources that these materials were not late church inventions, but existed in the very church Marcion began his heretical movement from (Rome), I pointed out that if Luke was written in the mid-second century his reliance on Mark and Q instead of Matthew was inexplicable, I pointed out why Luke would rely on Paul's letters in a church fight over Marcion's heresy, I pointed out that Valentinus as a gnostic would not be inclined to rely on Acts if it was a mid-century invention by the church written to combat heresy (at least somewhat similar to his own), I rebutted your claim of silence (from Papias), I posted discussions about the linguistic similarity and unity of authorship between Acts/Luke, I discussed the textual traditions of Acts and pointed out that it provides no support for Marcionite controversy/late dating theories, I explained that the prologue was written by a second-generation Christian, I explained why Acts' ecclessiology is more primitive than 1 Clement's and Ignatius', .... and more. [And very little, if any, of the above points rest on Acts being written by a companion of Paul] Do you think that people who have read this thread can't see that?

Rather than take the time to do the research, you have attempted to pretend that we both just referred to a few scholars that disagree with each other and presented roughly equivalent cases that are really nothing more than appeals to authority. That is very insulting, and not only because it is so obviously untrue. I put a lot of time into this because you seemed genuinely interested in probing this issue. YOU initiated the post, NOT me. I accepted YOUR invitiation to discuss this issue. I should have known better.

Toto, I addressed substantively every single issue you raised in your opening post. Rather than return the favor, you lie and say that I've just written in generalities. Anyone following this thread can see that you are grossly distorting it. If you don't have time to invest in research and writing, fine, I understand that. I would give you all the time you would need to respond without chiding or making fun. Heck, I took several days myself to look into it. Thankfully my wife was out of town and work was light that week.

But rather than say you don't have enough time, or just delaying a substantive response, you lie about your opponent. If you don't want to invest the time just admit it and don't insult your opponent by lying about his efforts.

YOWZA!!! Talk about Projecting! Considering that I have demolished your "case," which I don't think you ever really understood, I find this statement truly arrogant. At least I understand my theory and have looked into it. I suspect that your case is based on nothing more than your pride and your desire to attack the Christian faith at any level possible.

Oh, ONE last thing before I go. Please provide me with the scripture reference for the census that you said Matthew refers to? Please, please, please.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited June 12, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited June 12, 2001).]

Toto

Excuse me, Layman, but you are misstating things. Where did you ever provide any evidence other than a citation to authority and a conclusion that the Marcionite theory was incorrect, or that these materials were not late church inventions or redactions?

Your arguments on internal evidence are interesting but not conclusive. You may have a point on your argument that the prologue of Luke indicates a second generation Christian rather than a much later time period, but you have not explained why there could not be a later redaction.

You did indicate that the argument from silence based on Papias is not very strong, but it's not really possible to "rebut" an argument from silence. You continue to make your own argument from silence, that the author of Luke would have used the letters of Paul if they had been available. There's not much I can say about that. It is evidence, but not proof.

You claim that if Luke were written in the mid second century, he would have used Matthew as a source, instead of Mark and 'Q'. In fact, Q is a hypothesis, and the major scholarly alternative hypothesis to the existence of Q is that Luke relied on Matthew directly. While the Q hypothesis is the majority opinion, there is some respectable support for the alternative.

And I don't know how you can continue to claim that the fact that Acts contains passages written in the first person is any kind of evidence for the existence of that person.

You are willing to put more time in this than I am able to. I started the thread to lay out Doherty's case, to see what the opposition said. (I have no pride, and no need to attack the Christian faith at any level possible.) You have given me some sources that I still have to check out, and some arguments. (But you are not willing to read my secondary sources.)

I do recognize that you have put a good amount of effort into this. You addressed all of my points in the initial post. But you have not persuaded me that they are all wrong.

And you are right, I was wrong, there is no census in Matthew. There is an indication of his birth "in the days of Herod the King" that is held by skeptics to be incompatible with the date of the census under Quirinius that Luke refers to. I have been skimming too much and not paying attention to details. I'll try to do better.

Sure Toto, here's the link:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000600.html

Ha ha. Seriously, I included an entire section on refuting Knox's version of the Marcinoite controversy, which you have seemed to swalled hook, line, and sinker.


Of course it's possible that there could be later redaction, but you have provided no evidence that there was such a later redaction. There certainly is no textual evidence of such a thing. The literary style and use of Greek is smooth and certainly doesn't suggest it. In fact, the only reason you have provided to think there might have been is because you assume Knox's version of the Marcionite controversy is true (even though you haven't even read his theory or understand its implications).

What is funny is that you first seemed to argue that Papias' silence was the strongest evidence. Then you said that you prefer to focus on the internal evidence. Now you are saying that the internal evidence isn't persuasive because its hypothetically possible that there could have been later redacting.

Moreover, you don't have any details of what such later redacting might have been, except that you think it was made in resposne to Marcion and that Marcion's version was more original.


And just what is the metaphysical difference between evidence and proof?

And there you go again, pretending that because we both refer to silence that our arguments have similar explanatory power. We are referring to two different types of silence. I've explained why your argument had little probative value, you have done no such thing regarding mine.

Here we go again. Do you really believe that Q did not exist? Or are you just grasping here to keep your theories alive? Shall we now shift the debate to show that Mattew and Luke depended on Q?

And you do know, don't you, that most of those who reject the theory of Q are fundamentalist scholars intent on proving that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collecting disciple of Jesus Christ? I'm glad that you consider them to be "respectable," but I can't help but think that you don't offer them such deference on other issues.

Well, because it is prima facia evidence that the author was there. The author claims to have been there. He has accurate knowledge of those things about which he claims to have written. He has less knowledge about those things that occured when he wasn't there. For example, if you track the "we" sections you will note that they do not overlap with any of the Pauline epistles.

What you have failed to explain is why you reject the author's first hand account and attestation? Other than the fact that it doesn't fit your version of the Marcionite controversy.

So you started the thread to lay out Doherty's case, but you've also said in this thread that "I am not Doherty's surrogate and can't speak for him or anyone else." You then told me to buy the book. Are you here to defend his theory or not? Which is it?

And Toto, we all have pride. And your posting activities on this board, and willingness to grab any arguement (no matter how poorly understood) to assail even a dating of Acts to 75-85 CE, suggest to me that you do indeed want to attack the Christian faith.

Fine. I didn't really expect to persuade you that you are all wrong.

No biggie. We all make mistakes.

Toto

On Q:

Not all Q-skeptics are fundamentalists. We discussed this on a prior thread.

Mark Without Q: the Synoptic Problem web site for Q sceptics

more later.

I never said all I said most.

So you really reject the concept of Q? Or is this just another ploy?

And by "we" I guess you don't mean "we." I don't remember participating in such a thread.

Do you reject Luke's dependence on Mark as well?

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited June 13, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited June 13, 2001).]