Perhaps there is a reason that no one with more credentials bothers to step in.

Thank you for your opinion, but as you have conceded, your opinion isn't worth anything. And, given that it is completely unsupported by any argument or references, it's worth even less than that.

Actually, I never said that all arguments from silence were worthless. I do believe, however, that they must be made with a good understanding of the context, motives, and access that the author would have had to the relevant works.


Since there are other allusions to Acts by the early Christian writers, it is unlikely that we have scattered oral legends that were selectively incorporated by the author of Acts into his narrative while showing no other dependence on those sources. It is far more likely that the early Church fathers were drawing from existing sources, as they did with Paul's epistles and the gospels.

Why does it matter? For many reasons. The author of Acts claims to have participated in many of the events about which he writes. If he wrote around 80 CE, then this is a distinct likelihood. If he wrote in 150 CE, then this is impossible. And, if he was a participant in the events he describes, and he really did meet Peter, James and Phillip, then Doherty's thesis is in a lot of trouble.

Moreover, if it was written around 80 CE, even if not by a participant in the events described, then the author had access to sources that an author in 150 CE would not have had access to.

Acts clearly portrays an early Church, even in Jerusalem, that clearly believed in the human Jesus. If he wrote around 80 CE there are more reasons to believe his portrayal is accurate than if he wrote in 150 CE.



[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 31, 2001).]

Toto

Hi Layman

Back from vacation? I had hoped that Doherty would discuss this. I have some material at home I may post on later.

But first please tell me why a date for acts of 80 or 90 C.E. helps your case so much more than a date of 120 or 170 C.E.

Which are these? You disagree with Koester, cited above by Doherty

[This message has been edited by Toto (edited May 31, 2001).]

Yes, I disagree with Koester. And if he dates Acts to the mid-second century then most scholars would disagree with him.

I explained, at least in part, why an earlier date helps my case. Please re-read my post.

It isn't Koester, but rather John Knox that is quoted by Doherty. So far as I am aware, Koester firmly places Luke/Acts in the first Century.

Nomad

Toto: I read the scholars who seem to share my point of view and write in an interesting manner, but if they were proven wrong tomorrow, I wouldn't care.

SWL: But, in the tradition of critical thinking, what scholars do you read that DON'T share your viewpoint? Or are you just reading to build a safety-net around your "bogus" worldview?

SecWebLurker

Toto

Hi Lurker,

Doesn't it count that I read the posts from Nomad and his gang? That takes a lot of my time. From what I have read of the scholars that don't share my viewpoint, we differ on fundamental assumptions, so they are not likely to convert me.

If I were going to engage in a formal debate with someone, I assure you I would read everything they had written.