Nomad

Hello Peter

I agree that the author of the article is rightly cautious enough not to take too great of a leap from his argument, and assert that Josephus used Canonical Luke. At the same time, we have seen Michael already asserting that rather than presuppose that Luke and Josephus used similar primary sources, it is more reasonable to assume that Luke used Josephus.

Thus, when the author of the article says:

The new evidence shows that Meier's interpretation of the passage as a creedal statement is correct. What is not correct is thinking there are only two alternatives: either attribute the creed to Josephus or to a later Christian. There is a third way: the creed was in Josephus' source.
The evidence of the Emmaus narrative is that the creedal statement was actually in Josephus' source document, and that source was indeed a profession of faith in the form of the Lukan kerygma.

Again, using Michael's preference for using the simpler solution, rather than postulate a hypothetical "source" used by Luke and then Josephus, it is more reasonable to simply see this similarity as evidence of Josephus using Luke directly.

As an aside, I have never mentioned Canonical Luke as serving as the source for Josephus. This is an embellishment of the argument. For all we know, Josephus may have used an Ur-Luke.

All of that said, and as I have pointed out previously, I am not defending the author of the site or his conclusions. My objection was to the tactic used by Michael, in which he thought the mere presentation of a web site served as some kind of argument. In my view this is no better (and probably worse) than merely citing a book as being convincing, even as no arguments are made from that book. I have no interest in engaging in such shallow discussions. Thus, I offered the site as an example of what we could expect to see, if we did engage in such a "debate".

Be well,

Nomad

Toto

Nomad:

I am not a disciple of Doherty, don't know the guy, have never studied under him, and he doesn't answer my email either.

You are in the position of arguing that two different authors, Doherty and MacDonald, are incompatible, when you have read and understood neither.

Notice that Doherty says type of "midrash", with midrash qualified by "type of" and quotation marks, to indicate that he knows that it is not really midrash.

Spong popularized the use of the term midrash for how the Gospel writers reworked themes from the old testament, although it is not true midrash in the Jewish sense.

I have realized, as I have pursued my amateur reading in this field, that most of what Doherty writes is not original research on his part. He is taking the consensus of liberal and secular scholarship and drawing conclusions that other scholars do not want to draw, but which are there.

Both MacDonald and Doherty describe Mark as writing historical fiction, with a large admixture of Old Testament themes. MacDonald also finds an underlying structure and many details that resemble the Homeric Epics. The incompatibility is in your own mind.

I will leave discussion of the Luke-Josephus connection to the new thread, but I will note that your contention that "there is virtual [unanimity] in the NT scholarly community that Luke/Acts dates to c. 75-85AD" is just false, unless you redefine "the NT scholarly community" to be only people who agree with your point of view.

And I don't know why you keep digging yourself further into a hole on the JesusMysteries question. The JesusMysteries list is not an open forum - it is a tightly moderated list with a particular purpose. If you don't like the purpose of that list, there are other lists and forums. Your real objection is that the moderators rigorously eliminate posts based only on Christian faith, in accordance with the purpose of the list. There is no need to keep on slandering everyone involved.

Nomad

Just an FYI Toto, but Ed Tyler is not a Christian. My understanding is that he is an atheist/agnostic, and is agnostic himself on the question of the existence of Jesus. This makes your last statement rather curious.

At the same time, as I have said many times, I do not post to the JesusMysteries Boards, and they can do anything they wish there. Pointing out what they do is hardly a crime in my view. Of course, given our history, I do not expect you to understand or agree with my point, but that is alright too.

Have a good weekend.

Nomad

boneyard bill

Posted by Toto:

In defense of Spong, he claimed the gospels were "Midrashic" and said he understood that they were not Midrash in the strictest sense.

Vorkosigan

All of that said, and as I have pointed out previously, I am not defending the author of the site or his conclusions. My objection was to the tactic used by Michael, in which he thought the mere presentation of a web site served as some kind of argument

You asked me for evidence on why I believe Luke is early Second Century. I said "here's why I believe" and offered the summary of Carrier's as a quick way to establish the basis of my beliefs. That is all. There was no argument intended, so there can be no "tactic," except in the mind of those who are so rude and paranoid that they cannot relax even for a moment and engage in a simple discussion. You could have engaged and said: "oh, for such-and-such a reason, this is wrong. As I have said, I am not emotionally committed to any particular date for the Gospels.

I do not mind if you engage in personal attacks on me, as your fumbling, patronizing insolence simply slides right off. However, you made certain remarks about both JesusMysteries list and Earl Doherty. Since Godfree has shown that you are wrong, it is incumbent upon you to apologize to the JM list and SecWeb member Earl Doherty. Earl is not a dictator -- in fact, he hasn't posted to JM in a while, let alone control matters from behind the scenes.

JesusMysteries is open to anyone; you are welcome to post there any time you like. I presume your continued posting here, where there are few serious scholars, is an admission that in fact you lack both the background and the backbone to post there.

Michael

-DM-

Given that you cannot be certain that he did not read your actual post, it would be even more helpful if you didn't think of yourself as omniscient and if you were then willing to correct your overreaching accusations.

There is a marked difference between you, personally, finding the story believable and you, personally, coming up with the proof of your overreaching accusation, an accusation which, at this time, is based on speculation, which contradicts the word of a moderator of that forum who says that he knows what happened, and is slanderous.

Was the issue one of whether "anything approaching free discussion takes place there"? I thought the issue was what happened and why (as brought up by you) with this comment:
And this:
In other words, you seem to think that you know better than a moderator what happened and you also seem to think that we are supposed to take your word for it rather than a moderator's word for it.

As Michael puts it:
In the absence of a demonstrated willingness on your part to correct your overreaching accusation with an apology, why should anyone take you seriously?

--Don--

Bill

For what it's worth, yes, I was referring to surviving texts. The archeological evidence, however, isn't very reliabably datable to the first century except where it contains clearly dated inscriptions (such as appears on coinage) or where it can be clearly linked to events described in Josephus, such as the First Jewish War and the fall of the Second Temple.

The matter of coins, however, is one of the key elements to dating archeological finds. And there are lots of coins from biblical sources, as The Handbook of Biblical Numismatics points out. Yes, this reference source is done with a theistic slant. But even so, you can see how little history can be faked if you rely upon true archeological finds to construct your picture of the past.

== Bill

Nomad

I will assume that since you are a late member of the JM Group, and do not know its history, that you simply do not know what you are talking about here Michael. Since my last post, I have been in email correspondence with Ed Tyler, and have learned that my accusations are quite correct. Ed was censored off of the boards, and removed by the other moderators because they feared that he would drive Doherty away with his attacks on Doherty's theories. I have since invited Ed to participate in this discussion if he so chooses, and I hope that he will. In the meantime, I would recommend that before you side with godfry or anyone else, that you learn the facts first.

You must not read my posts before you offer your thoughts Michael, but I have already told you that I am not free to post there any time that I wish. Posts that Doherty finds to be offensive are deleted, often before they are even offered to the group as a whole.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken Michael. I would be more than happy to debate on those boards if I knew that my views were welcome, and would not be censored or deleted only because Earl Doherty or some moderator thought that they were offensive in some manner. Interesting, Tyler has since informed me that another moderator was driven off of the boards there for failing to show proper respect to Earl and Co.

I find it interesting that you should be prepared to defend the JM Boards here. As I said, I suspect that it is because you are still relatively new to that group and have not seen how they operate.

Personally, I find censorship to be abhorent. Weak ideas collapse on their own, so long as others are allowed to speak freely against such ideas. It is when ideas are protected by censors that they are given the chance to propogate themselves, and to find followers amongst the credulous.

Nomad

Toto

Those are noble sentiments. Christianity would have a better reputation if it had lived by those ideas through history.

I believe that government censorship is wrong, but that there is still a time and a place for a moderated discussion. Otherwise, people who shout the loudest and have more staying power will dominate the discussion. I think that is what the JM discussion moderators were trying to avoid - not to protect weak ideas, but to allow ideas to be considered fairly, even if they are so upsetting to some that they feel impelled to speak out in excess. Free speech does not include the right to force someone else to listen to you.

We have the problem of a finite amount of time and attention, so at times we need to focus on some things, and ignore others.

I have lurked, more or less faithfully, from the beginning on the list, and I know that it is heavily moderated to avoid confessional statements. If it were not so moderated, the noise-to-signal ratio would have driven people like Doherty away, and the quality of the discussion would have suffered. As it is, the discussion there is quite valuable.

I recall Ed Tyler's posts, and there was an edge of hostility to them that clearly was not leading to a fruitful discussion. I don't remember all of the details, and of course I can't know what happened.

I don't think this is a free speech issue - anyone can set up a list with different ground rules on Yahoogroups, and talk to their heart's content.

Nomad

I know, and even support this idea for this particular group, as it is clear not meant to be a forum for evangelizing Christian beliefs. At the same time, this was never the issue with Tyler since he is, as I have said before, an atheist, and agnostic on the question of the existence of Jesus. What he did that was so unforgivable in the eyes of the moderators and Doherty, was offer substantial challenges to his translation of Koine Greek, and other selective methodology. Exposing those weaknesses should be an accepted part of the discussion there, but it is not. So, just as Doherty was not willing to defend his ideas here, except on his own terms and conditions, he has done the same with the JM Board.

I suppose that this is his right, but to then pretend that anyone can post there as they wish is extremely misleading to say the least.

I hope that Ed will come here and present his side of the story, or failing that, I will ask his permission to post his letters to me here, together with his email address so that he may ask questions of his own. For those that are already members of that forum, they can always retreive his email address themselves, and then write and ask him.

Of course they can, but the stated objective of that board was:

The controversial question, "Was Jesus historical?" is discussed in a learning environment through an examination of the historical record. Exploration of the various viewpoints is encouraged in your search for truth. Articles, interviews, book reviews and other resources are provided in the extensive Bookmarks section to this community.

Please feel free to join and interact and to express your opinions courteously.

Needless to say, Doherty's posts were decidedly non-curteous. Speaking personally, I do not recall Tyler using any hostile language, although his treatment of some of Doherty's key theories was decidedly non-sympathetic.

That said, I do not know how a debate can take place if everyone participating is expected to agree with one another from the outset.

Just out of curiousity, have you ever engaged in a scholarly debate and seen how conflicting ideas are treated by opposing sides? This is simply for my own information, but I can assure you that the discussions often become far more than merely heated.

Nomad