I was in one of Steve Mason's courses at York University, Toronto. He had memorized the NT by chapter and verse, but I suppose most bible scholars have done this. Pleasant fellow.

Yes, I just read it. It's awful. It isn't a refutation of anything. It uses a highly disputed passage and argues that Luke and that passage are the same. It then interprets that passage to say that both had a common source, but there is no evidence for that. All you can demonstrate from what the author says, is that one knew the other. To me it proves that the disputed passage in Josephus was copied from Luke!

A real refutation would range much more broadly across the historical evidence.

Michael

Toto

Another resource:

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.html

an online review of Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(snip)
"Eisenman's originality at this point lies not in the technique but rather in his willingness to take seriously Luke's use of Josephus as a source. (Again, this is something no one who wants an early date for Luke or a historical basis for Acts is likely to consider seriously, but then we have another case of apologetics masquerading as criticism.)"

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

Be serious Toto. Everytime someone disagrees with your radical ideas, you just label their arguments as apologetics and pretend they do not have critical arguments. What is really funny here is that you provided us with the first source which stated that most scholars reject the idea that Luke used Josepus:

In the great debate concerning possible influence exerted by either Josephus or the author of Luke-Acts upon the other, Sterling sides with the majority of scholars who conclude that no such influence exists, especially since the Antiquities and Luke-Acts were roughly contemporaneous works (80-100 CE)

Any proof that the "majority of scholars" are nothing but a pack of apologists?

Toto

Not my words - I was quoting the review by Robert Price. I should have put quotes around it - I will go back and fix it.

While I appreciate the clarification, does this mean that you don't agree with the statement? If not, why is it the only portion of the entire article that you bothered to cut and paste?

Toto

This was just a short cite relating to Luke's use of Josephus, which is not the main issue in the review and not listed in the title. Just a way of alerting the reader that there is something in the article relating to Josephus and Luke. If you think this is taken out of context, you can follow the link to the review (or book) and read it.

When you act this defensive about every perceived slight to apologists, I wonder what is really going on. Chill out, man.

I didn't suggest it is taken out of context (I would expect nothing else from Robert Price), just that the parenthetical fit nicely into your recently made allegation that my position on the dating of Acts was merely a product of my faith.