James Still

Wow, I just don't follow this line of thought at all. It seems to me that Bill is not hatching some wild textual dependence theory but rather speaking plainly to the fact that Christians preserved Josephus through the centuries by copying his books while letting many pagan histories languish. In other words he seems to be speaking about an editorial decision and not textual dependence.

Nomad

No, what you said was:

Originally posted by turtonm:
As for the dating of the gospels-Acts, I think they all slide somewhere into the 110-130 period, with Mark possibly as early as 90, and Luke-Acts as late as 150, maybe.

I did not see you mentioning anything about your awareness of a much more widely accepted date range of 75-85AD.

Additional appeals to authority do not help your case Michael. Quoting from a scholar without supporting arguments of any kinds does not change the fact that you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of any of the arguements either supporting or refuting your beliefs. This is why I asked you to do better.

Perhaps. At the same time, I asked you to address any of the arguments put forward by me or Layman. Instead you chose to address a strawman from Dr. Wallace. Why the evasion?

Actually, pretty much all of them reject his views Michael. But if you will not present an argument, then just admit that you are accepting his authority and expertise in this matter and leave it at that?

Actually, what I recommended was two threads on this very site. Here they are again:

Redating the Books of the Bible

The case for dating the Book of Acts to the mid-second century

Note that neither thread spends a lot of time quoting from, or depending upon Dr. Wallace. If you can, please deal with the issues and arguments. If you cannot, just say so.

Adding assertions to previous assertions still does not make for a stronger case Michael.

The problem is that literary dating of NT and non-Canonical works is quickly losing much of its appeal, largely because it is so unreliable. Do you understand the historical critical reasons for dating the Gospels, and especially Luke/Acts to much earlier dates than you or Ellegard tend to favour? A lack of understanding of arguments makes the formation of an informed opinion much more problematic. That is why I ask the questions that I do ask.

Nomad

[ August 14, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

boneyard bill

Peter Kirby

I have no knowledge on that, I speculated that he could have had Paul in a previous post and then I inferred from your post correcting my mis-statements that he had Paul. So really the sense of my post is that he could have had Paul.

If he didn't does that imply that he comes from another tradition?

I read Mack's Who wrote the New Testament?
Perhaps I should read it again, I remember it as an interesting book even if I wasn't convinced on the Markan question.

Toto

Logic has never been your strong point.

Since you know that Bill is an infidel and a self-described agnostic, it makes more sense to assume that Bill believes that the Gospels record myths and legends based in Palestine which are not historically reliable by themselves. There is no need to assume that the Gospel writers used Josephus, although the writer of Luke probably did.

See how simple that is when you stop trying to twist things up and cause trouble?

boneyard bill

Peter Kirby:

I can't help asking the question, if Mark didn't have Paul, didn't have an oral tradition, and didn't have Josephus; what did he have? I suppose Old Testament prophecy will go a long way, but even that won't give us the head of John the Baptist.

I know there's a great deal that we don't know about this period and especially about someone as obscure in his time as Mark must have been. But when do we say scholarship ends here and now we're just guessing?

Nomad

Actually, Toto, rather than insulting me, perhaps you could actually read what Bill wrote, and comment directly on what he said. He tells us that Christians got the bulk of their info on 1st Century Palestine from Josephus. Since Mark, Matthew and John (as well as Luke, of course) gives us considerable detail about the geography of 1st Century Palestine, where do you think that they got this information? Bill appears to believe that they got it from Josephus. Do you agree with him?

If not, then what are you doing on this thread? Let Bill speak for himself, and if he did not mean what he said, then all he has to do is say so.

Nomad

Toto

Nomad:

Bill has previously indicated a reluctance to get involved with debating you. (You've had that effect on Doherty, Carrier... but I have no life. Or pride.)

Let's parse through what Bill said.

the bulk of the . . facts that we have . . comes from what the Christians chose to preserve out of . . Josephus.

First, you note that the statement is qualified with "bulk of" . . . facts come from Josephus. So he does not deny that some information might come from the gospels.

The authors of the gospels may have had knowledge from their own experience, rumors, travel, guesswork, etc, or other works that have disappeared. But since they wrote legend, we can't rely on what they said as history. But we assume that Josephus was writing history, and we accept his account as factual, or as close to factual as we are going to get.

You really have to contort what Bill said to get it to mean that all the writers of the gospels relied on Josephus.

That's it for me on this metadiscussion. I think that anyone reading it will realize that you don't have a point here.

I have yet to read Ellegard, but I understand he has some interesting arguments for redating various documents, based on reading a review by Doherty. After I read that book, I might get back into the substantive questions. (No life.)

Vorkosigan

Nomad --

If Luke knew Josephus, then that puts his date after c. 95 regardless of what any other method might tell you. That simple fact alone trumps any other argument.

When an external date can be shown with strong evidence, then internal evidence (literary, stylistic or historical-critical)is secondary. That is why nobody dates Gone with the Wind to the 1870s, even though it refers to events of that and preceding eras.

I have referenced a summary of Mason's work, and asked you to read it to understand why I believe that Luke knew Josephus. It is now incumbent on you to demonstrate why I should not buy these arguments.

Michael

Nomad

And if Josephus knew Luke, then Luke is obviously pre-95. OTOH, maybe neither knew of the other. All are very real possibilities, and as of right now I have not seen you put forward any reason to accept any of these possibilities as more probable.

Now, you have yet to deal with any of the other evidences offered to you twice now. I will assume from your silence that you have no arguments to make, or do not wish to offer them. C'est la vie.

Agreed. Just out of curiousity, as you have attached so much imporance to Luke not being mentioned in what is commonly accepted non-existent 1st Century documents, what importance do you attach to the fact that Luke shows no awareness of any of the letters written by Paul? After all, if it is somehow important that Luke is not quoted for several decades after the possible date of composition, why is it not equally odd that Luke (written several decades after Paul's death) never quotes from the letters of someone he considered to be a hero?

No Michael. I can easily reference a site that argues that Josephus knew Luke. Offering such a document without presenting a single argument from it is no more than appealing to authority. After all, such a citation does not even prove that YOU have read it.

You wish to tell me that the lengthy posts offered by me and Layman are unconvincing, even as you fail to demonstrate that you have read them. You then argue that a web site you will not quote refutes our claims. Again we have no way of knowing what of it you have read. THEN you wish to tell me that it is incumbent upon me to read more of your sources, then start to pick them apart. Now you know why I find your arguments and methods of arguing to be so lame. I imagine you do not even see the hypocracy of your double standard.

For the record, the site is:
http://user.aol.com/fljosephus/meierCrt.htm#Mgrounds

Personally, I have no interest in debate by links. But if that is the best that you can do, then so be it. For myself, I will wait to see evidence that you understand this debate, my arguments, and my evidence before going any futher with you.

Nomad

Peter Kirby

Who said that Mark didn't have access to any oral tradition? It's practically certain that Mark did, or at least I think so. Many of Mark's stories, such as the beheading of the Baptist that you mention, have all the signs of folklore.

best,
Peter Kirby
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/