Nomad

The problem with your reasoning here, however, is that we could make the same statement about any work of history, especially when it comes to the ancients. Very often, the only hard evidence we will have for the existence of anyone will come from texts we read. If external evidence leads us to believe that the texts are talking about a fictional character, so be it. But in the case of Jesus, we have no such counter evidence, and, in fact, the mere existence of the numbers of texts relating to Jesus, as well as the existence of the Church itself (universally dated to having been founded in the 1st Century in Palestine) argues for an historical person as well.

If there was a consistency of application of scepticism in such questions, then I suppose the person could be forgiven for thinking Jesus was a myth. But if they are willing to accept the existence of John the Baptist, St. Paul, Peter, Socrates, Homer and a host of other characters, I see no reason for making an exception when we consider the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Nomad

[ August 15, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

boneyard bill

Single Dad:

Of course not, but there are many views out there that can't be absolutely falsified. I don't supposed Biblical fundamentalism can be absolutedly falsified. I'm sure Doherty is holding himself to a higher standard than that. Doherty is trying to show (I think "prove" is a little too strong a word at this point in the debate) that there was no historical Jesus. The "you can't prove me wrong" argument isn't going to cut it.

boneyard bill

Single Dad:

An inaccuracy that serves no apparent purpose would argue against the depiction as the independent invention of a single author. Gone with the Wind wouldn't have made much sense if Margaret Mitchell suddenly brings in the Battle of Waterloo or the Fall of Constantinople.

An accurate detail that shouldn't have been available to author writing many decades after the fact suggest also argues against the claim that the writer was making the story up.

SingleDad

Nomad

This is a tired old argument. Obviously your conclusions differ from Doherty's. I am personally agnostic to the issue; my interest comes in evaluating the evidence. However, the statement that there is no evidence that the Gospels might be fictional is an overstatement. Doherty presents quite a lot of evidence. Even you yourself have claimed that Mark was not writing historically (according to the standards of the time), but rather theologically. To simply dismiss the controversy as absurd and claim you have won the field is entirely unpersuasive.


boneyard bill

But you seem to be offering your critiques as falsifying Doherty's thesis, and I am challenging that argument. Doherty makes a lengthy positive case from the preponderance of evidence. And, like any evidentiary case it should be falsifiable. While the points you mention, taken alone, show some evidentiary value for the nonmythicist position, they do not fulfill the initial tenor of your post as falsification.

Remember, I am not arguing that Doherty's thesis is true because it cannot be falsified (an absurd position, as you yourself point out). Rather I am claming merely that your evidence does not falsify Doherty's lengthy positive case.

All an inaccuracy proves is that the author had inaccurate historical information about that particular detail or that he was speculating beyond his information. But where did this inaccuracy come from? Now if this inaccuracy could somehow be linked to an independent source about a person, we could certainly use that linkage to show that Mark was indeed writing about the person named in the independent source.

However, without such a linkage, we can only speculate about the possible causes of such an inaccuracy. And the possiblities are too broad to really reach any conclusion about this piece of evidence.

I see this differently than you. To me, an accuracy proves that he had some accurate historical information about the setting.

And I don't know how you claim that Mark "shouldn't" have known this fact; apparently he did know it. So what?

Overall, Mark was certainly using something for background and reference. Could it have been an actual story about Jesus? It's possible. But it's also possible he was working on something as prosaic as a somewhat flawed "My life in Palestine" by a former centurion with literary asperations.

If alleged consistencies and inconsistencies in Mark's gospel were the only evidence we had for or against the mythicist position, I would probably be inclined against it. However, Doherty's work seems pretty solid, and your points really don't weaken that case substantially.

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: SingleDad ]

boneyard bill

Single Dad:

And if Doherty concedes (as you just did in the above post) that Mark was using information that was not generally available, the burden is on him to show that such a source cannot be traced back to a historical Jesus figure. Since we know very little about such a source that would be almost impossible for him to do. That is why he is arguing that Mark wrote his gospel independently of any oral tradition.

Conversely, any argument that provides evidence of an oral tradition defeats Doherty's claim of independent invention. This forces him into the almost impossible position of proving that Mark's source was invalid when the source itself is unknown and is only evidenced by the presence of information that Mark himself could not have known.

Personally, I have no strong stake in this argument. I just think it's fun. I pick out these point off the top of my head and I'm fairly certain that there are arguments (but not necessarily absolute refutations) against all of them. My only interest was in getting the discussion going.

godfry n. glad

I don't suppose you'd like to divulge where you got this slanderous and spurious tidbit of gossip? Or, is it another example of your faulty logic; jumping to an incorrect conclusion based upon insufficient or inaccurate information? As a moderator of the JesusMysteries group, I can assure you that it is not true.

Nomad

Hello godfry

Back in May of this year Ed and Doherty got themselves into a very nice how do you do about Doherty's use of Greek. Doherty blew his stack, and demanded that such a biased individual was clearly interested only in misrepresenting his position, and that this was unbefitting a moderator of the forum. In his list of demands (and after telling the group that he would no long reply to anything Ed posted), he wanted Ed censored, his title as moderator removed, and that he may even be banned.

Subsequent to that time, I have noticed that none of Ed's posts remain on the boards, and large holes can be seen in the posts (simply looking down the list numbers can tell you this). Since the replies to some of Ed's posts remain, however, it is easy to identify that some are his (for example, try and find post number 2910 from Ed, and you get this message:

Oops...
Message 2910 does not exist in JesusMysteries

Interestingly (or perhaps through negligence), Kelly's reply (number 2913) is still there, so we can see the portions of Ed's posts that "no longer exist" in their original form. Equally, true, if we try to find out if Ed replied at a later date, there is no way to tell. Is his one of the messages after 2913 that has been deleted? I cannot tell.

The very last time we encounter anything from Ed is in a reply posted by Dave Barrett dated May 24, 2001 (post number 2993), but if you look for Ed's post you will get the following message:

Oops...
Message 2967 does not exist in JesusMysteries

Again, we never get to find out if Mr. Tyler responded or not to Dave's complaint. He simply vanishes from the list.

I am a member of the JesusMysteries discussion board. I have had my own posts deleted, and I have known others who have had their posts deleted as well. Some are members of the SecWeb here. As a result, the fact that Ed Tyler was censored and banned is not a surprise, nor should it be a surprise that I refuse to post on that board. I read the posts from time to time when it interests me. But that is it.

What I found especially interesting was that Doherty's own flaming attacks on Ed were also deleted. I read his posts. As they have been deleted I cannot reproduce them. But I will not forget what happened, and I do know the truth in this matter.

So, do not accuse me of slander when what has happened is very obvious, and can be learned by anyone that is a current member of the JesusMysteries Discussion Group. I will not ask you for an explanation for why the moderators chose to act as they did towards Ed. It is their boards. But I do not level charges lightly. And I did my homework. So do not try to deny what happened.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Nomad:
No Michael. I can easily reference a site that argues that Josephus knew Luke.

Please do.

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.

Nomad, I offered the document simply because I would rather do that then cut and paste, and in any case a cut and paste job would not do justice to the argument.

Of course I have read it. This is the usual Nomad argument, a dodge followed by a slur on my integrity.

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.

Why, yes. If Luke knew Josephus, and I am sure that he did, that sort of obliterates any argument you could make to date Luke-Acts prior to ~95. That's very simple. I also don't listen to the lengthy posts of people who want to date Luke later than 180, nor to the lengthy posts of those who think that Luke did not write Acts. I think those issues have been settled. The question is, where does Luke-Acts belong in the period after 62 and before 150?

Now, the article in question explains why Luke had to have the actual text of Josephus in front of him. I do not agree with Still and others that they "shared a common source" simply because of the close affinities listed in this article between the two. A common source is unnecessary and redundant, and I think, a solution concocted with an eye more toward diplomacy than scholarship. Also, the article explains why Luke depends on Jospehus, not the other way around. Since it is short and quick, but good, I referenced to help you understand where I am coming from. You DID ask to know what my evidence was, and I have most helpfully supplied it to you.

I have already stated that last, and I wonder how you could continue to claim that you do not know if I have read this article, when, in fact, the only way I could know what arguments are in it was if I had read it!

I am awaiting your refutation of the claim that Luke knew Josephus. Believe me, I have no emotional commitment to a particular date for any gospel.

Again we have no way of knowing what of it you have read.

Interesting, then, how I would know the contents of an article I hadn't read. Is this how desperate you have become?

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.

What hypocrisy? Several weeks ago, I asked for references against this idea after reading article in a hread on this site -- Layman promised to look something up, but apparently never found it. I asked quite politely too.

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.

Well, good luck. I assume that means you cannot refute Mason's/Carrier's article. I understand this debate very well, thank you. That's why I know that fixing Luke after Josephus clearly trumps any argument for a date in the 60s, 70s, or 80s.

You know, if you stated you had read XYZ, I would take you at your word. I expect the same courtesy. Would it have been so extraordinarily painful to have clicked on the link to the Mason-Carrier article and read it? After all, when you recommended Wallace, I read a bunch of his articles, and posted responses here to a couple of the really stupid ones.

Michael

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]

Nomad

I did. I will assume that you have not read it yet.

And this is why I told you that I am not interested in playing such games. Anyone can say "my argument is proven, if only you read this or that book or article", even as you refuse to present a single argument offered by that book or article. Further, when I offer links to posts where I have already dealt with a good number of the arguments put forward, and invite you to offer challenges to my arguments, and then encounter silence from your end, I must assume that you:

a) did not read my arguments
b) do not understand the arguments or
c) are so committed to your views that you hold them them regardless of evidence and supports

I am not attacking your integrity. When I meet people that say "read such and such" and you will discover the truth", and I ask them, "well, what did you find convincing", and they reply, "read it and you will see", I am left to wonder if they know what they are talking about.

Knowing the conclusions of an author does not prove that you have read his material. Personally I think that you have done this, but I have no evidence beyond your statements to that effect to prove it.

Why are you certain of something when the author of the article you are siting says:

"(the) coindidence...of aim, themes, and vocabulary...seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism,"

Obviously the author does not share your certainty, and sees it as something that is merely possible. Why your excessive enthusiasm?

I will not play this game Michael. As a rule, if all people will offer is citation of an article or book without advancing the arguments from that source that they find most interesting, then I drop the issue. To me, anyone can do this, including those that have never bothered to read the articles and books they are citing. This is not debate, it is merely an exchange of sources, and while some may find that interesting, I do not. Basically, I am interested in debating and discussing issues with people that will try to make their own arguments, then use sources to provide supporting evidence.

Knowing a conclusion does not prove that one has read the bulk of the article. And given the fact that you have drawn a far grander conclusion than did the author himself does not help make your case more credible.

Given that I have argued that Luke was written c. 62AD, it is not possible for Luke to have used Josephus. It is, of course, possible that Josephus used Luke. If you cannot refute my arguments for dating Luke/Acts to the early 60's, then your case collapses like a house of cards.

Actually, if you could demonstrate that you knew the contents of the article, that would help. Right now things do not look promising.

First, how could Layman's actions make me a hypocrite? I am not Layman. Second, I am not interested in unsourced accusations. It is possible that Layman has forgotten, that he has gotten busy, or a myriad of other things have happened. On the Dating of P46 thread I am still waiting to hear back from rodahi. What I am interested in here, is knowing why you believe what you believe, and why your belief is more extreme than that of your supports.

Look, I know you wish to side with Carrier's extremist views here, and his conclusions, but to be candid, I do not think that you understand the arguments sufficiently to form an opinion. The dating of Luke to c. 62AD destroys the theory before it even begins, and that issue is not even addressed at all by Carrier. In fact, given such an early date for Luke, it would be very reasonable to assume that Luke was a source for Josephus. Further, Carrier does not bother to address the evidence that Luke knew a good number of historical details that are not reported in Josephus, nor does he address the fact that Luke omits details that would have been very helpful to his theological story (like the stoning of James the Just, and Josephus' presentation of the resulting fall of Jerusalem from this travesty of justice). Once again I think you have been taken in by a theory that fits in with your preconceived ideas, and until you demonstrate a better understanding of opposing arguments ALREADY given, I am not going to waste time responding to every link you can find and cite.

You still do not understand my objection Michael. I have read your link. But until you demonstrate that you understand why Luke can or cannot be dated independently of Mason and Carrier's arguments, I am not going to go on this wild goose chase. Carrier is especially guilty of presenting theory driven evidence, and his arguments on dating Luke to after 95AD have been addressed by a great many scholars in the field. Would you think I had done my job if I simply told you to read this article, or that book, and you would see the errors in Mason and Carrier's thinking? I expect not. So do not expect me to find them convincing merely because you do. Defend what you have offered, and tell us why you like it.

Here is my promise to you:

Demonstrate, independently of the arguments from Mason and Carrier why Luke/Acts cannot be dated to the early 60's or 70's (before Josephus wrote his own history). Once you have offered your arguments, I will then go through Carrier's article, and show you why it is flawed. Does that sound satisfactory to you?

Nomad

SingleDad

What evidence do you have that such a source was not "generally available"?

AFAIK, Doherty does assume the burden of proof and presents a strong case that we are not entitled to infer overall historical accuracy from Mark.

I'm not intimately familiar with Doherty's thesis. Can you point me to this specific argument? If Doherty argues that Mark wrote his gospel independently of any historical tradition, oral or written, then your facts do indeed weaken his argument considerably.

However, regardless of Doherty's particular argument, the argument from historical fiction still seems to have some power. The argument from historical fiction says that if Mark was not writing historically (again, according to the standards of the day), the inference from known independent external nature of some facts to the externiality of other facts is weak. There are three important points of evidence that argue in favor of the historical fiction view:
[list=1][*]The overall theological nature of the document. Mark had an agenda: To convert people to christianity. [*]Liturgical timing (as noted earlier). The pacing of the story fits suspiciously well with the liturgical calendar.[*]Parallels with the Homeric Epics (see The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark[/list=a]

These three points argue that one cannot infer the overall historical quality of Mark from the individual historical quality of certain passages. Thus, an argument from the historiocity of Mark does not argue strongly against Doherty's other points, notably the silence of Paul and the first-century apologists regarding the physical Jesus.