Layman

I can see now that you are simply picking fights. It's irrelevant to my point whether Luke/Acts is a composite work or not.

If you want to argue that Acts is a composite work--and explain what you mean by that--feel free to start another thread on it.

Toto

"putting the car well before the horse"? I think that was a typo but I like it.

Layman: the topic of this thread, as I recall, was your charge that Doherty used the many coincidences between the OT and the NT to conclude that the authors of the NT had invented the stories. You gave evidence that Jewish writers of the time used OT references as a literary device, and that citing the OT could not be evidence against the historicity of the NT.

Are you claiming that because some history that uses OT references is straight history, that all of it is? I don't think you can be.

So when we see a story with OT references, we cannot dismiss it absolutely as nonhistorical, but then we cannot use it as history either. So what are we left with? No evidence for a historical Jesus based on the gospels or other NT writings, I'd say.

Layman

You almost had it there but you lost it. If similarities to the OT is not evidence of ahistoricity or historicity per se, then what we are left with is that Doherty's attempt to use such similarities as evidence of ahistoricity is inappropriate.

You have argued a classic non sequiter here Toto. I'm not arguing that because of their similarities to the OT that these events are necessarily true. But you, despite your initial comprehension, are arguing that b/c these verses contain similarities to the OT they cannot be used as evidence of the historical Jesus. But as I have shown there is no basis for such a methodology.

Toto

I don't think that Doherty is using the similarlities as evidence of ahistoricity. I think that he is merely assuming that the burden of proof lies on the historicist case, and that if the evidence can be explained as a literary work, there is no evidence.

After all, it has been argued that Jesus must have existed because no one could have made up such a character. This argument is refuted by showing that the Jesus character could be constructed from OT references.

What is the non-sequitur?

If you are not trying to slip in the idea that the NT stories are true because other true stories use OT similarities, what are you doing?

On what basis can the NT be used as evidence?

Layman

In other words, you "don't think that Doherty is using the similarities as evidence of ahistoricity" but on the other hand "if the evidence can be explained as a literary work" the similarities demonstrate ahistoricity.

It is not that complicated. I'm pointing out that Doherty's tendancy to dismiss passages that appear to be describing actual events because of their similarities to the OT is unfounded.

That's far beyond the scope of this thread.

Toto

No - just what I said. You are looking for evidence of historicity. You find a NT passage that might be a historical account, except that it tracks an OT passage, and could have just been a literary construction based on the OT. So you go on looking. If you don't find anything else, you have no evidence of historicity, so by default, there is no historical character.

That's why I asked what would be the basis for using the NT as evidence, but you don't want to discuss that for some reason. If there is no positive reason to use the NT as evidence, it's just a story.

I think you are missing the point of Doherty's method, which is not much different from liberal scholarship. I don't think that Doherty has taken Crossan's method to new levels- Crossan thinks that 80% of the Passion Narrative is mythic, Doherty 100%, and John Meier 20% (as I recall - to late to look it up.) So who is closer? Where is the new level?

If you are going to criticize Doherty for rejecting a historical value to passages that look like OT midrash, you have to criticize Crossan, Mack, and a lot of other scholars.

The answer to your OP has to be a big "so what" unless you have a positive reason why the NT should be taken seriously as a historical document.

Layman

Actually, I'm questioning a particular methodolgy employed by Doherty.

Since the OT was used frequently by Christians and Jews to describe historical events, there is no basis for assuming that it is a literary construction based on the OT.

You've ignored the whole thread, Toto.

I'm trying to keep the thread on target. I've noticed that when a point is made, you guys want to jump ahead and fight other battles.

Either similarities with the OT is a sufficient basis to dismiss purported references to historical events or it is not. I've argued it is not. You've argued both sides of the equation.

I'm not talking about the passion narrative, I'm talking about the methodology itself. That Crossan uses it to dismiss much of the passion narrative and Doherty uses it to dismiss Jesus altogether certainly seems to justify my description of taking the methodology to new levels.

If they use it like Doherty, sure. I'm not reluctant to criticize "a lot of other scholars."

The NT is not one document. It's many accounts by varied authors.

If one of Doherty's reasons for claiming that some of Paul's apparent references to a human Jesus are not such references because of OT similarities, then showing that the existence OT similarities is not a perusasive argument for ahistoricity negates one of Doherty's arguments. You may be right that there are other reasons to doubt historicity. It could be that Paul had no foundation for his belief that Jesus was born of a woman according to the flesh or born a descendent of David. It could be that Paul had insufficient foundation to know if Jesus was crucified or not. We have and will argue about such things.

For now, I'm just pointing out that it is an error to use OT similarities as evidence for ahistoricity or nonhistoricity. If you agree with that, great. We can argue about making a positive case when I or someone else tries to make that case.

spin

Well, not really. The comment you are chafing on was a parenthesis.

You need to reduce your assumption load in conversations here -- even if you think it's a no-boner like the widely held, and little analysed, view of the same author for those two works merely because of a preface on each.

When so much of what you say seems to be based on assumptions, how many other threads must be started?


spin

Amaleq13

I think you make a valid point that the apparent utilization of OT passages to create portions of the Gospel narrative alone is not sufficient to warrant concluding the events described never happened.

However, I have not found Doherty or Crossan to be guilty of basing their conclusion solely on this criterion. Do you have specific examples? I would be surprised if there are any for Crossan because one of the reasons I like his books is the careful methodology he employs. I would be less surprised if there are examples from Doherty but I would expect them to be given within the context of an already established suspicion. That context does not, however, seem to be sufficient to rescue the conclusion from the inadequate basis. More than simply noting an OT parallel is required to conclude a given claim, detail, or story is fiction.

Layman

I provided several examples in the OP. Doherty, of course, would argue that it's not "alone" b/c, for example, Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus because he did not jabber on about visiting holy sites in Jerusalem. Such exegesis, however, is highly tangential.

I'm not challenging Crossan directly here.

I would say its irrelevant to the question of historicity.