Ted Hoffman

Layman's work, which we can refer to as Layman's Contra-Doherty Corpus is made up of 3 main articles with one of them divided to three: Doherty's use of Kata Sarka, Doherty's use of the Epistle to the Hebrews (3 articles) and Earl Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition.

I recently studied Doherty's take on the Apostolic fathers: the writer of Didache, St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, the writer of the epistle of Barnabas and some extra-canonical literature, like Sheperd of Hermas of the sub-Apostolic age. So I decided to first examine Layman's article on Earl Doherty and the Apostolic Tradition .

Overall Impression of the Work

Its a 10 page article. Well organized. Well written (just one typo). Easy to read.

Even though Layman clearly defines Doherty's meaning of the phrase "apostolic tradition", a few pages later, he evidently forgets what apostolic tradition means and where he finds phrases like 'books' as in Papias, and even 'gospel' or "common tradition", he clamps on such phrases as indicative of apostolic tradition. He even spends time using Luke as evidence of existence of apostolic tradition. One would expect Layman to be well aware that canonical Luke is dated post Marcion meaning we are talking mid second century or later: the time the apostolic tradition was fabricated by the author of Luke-Acts among others.

Layman imports huge baggages of assumptions into his arguments. For example, when examining Hebrews, he assumes, without good reason, that Lord/God refers to the historical Jesus he assumes that "gospel", where written by the author of Hebrews, refers to the canonical gospels. He even attempts to argue that 'established tradition' is equivalent to apostolic tradition. Layman pays no attention to semantics and reads a lot into what the authors write.
He assumes that any semblance of something that could be a tradition (he uses phrases like "common tradition", "gospel tradition" "established tradition"), however unclear, however vague, however remote, is an apostolic tradition. Thus he assumes the conclusion of what he is supposed to prove and thus begs the question plenty of times.

He makes inconsistent arguments re: Papias and Paul's receipt of his Kerygma via revelation etc and more than once attacks strawman arguments. All these I will show below. In examining Layman's article, I used Doherty's book to extract the main thrust of the arguments Layman is attacking. Whats clear is that Layman, as Doherty himself noted, is either unfamiliar with Doherty's work, or chooses to ignore Doherty's other work. For example, Layman quotes Papias as evidence of existence of apostolic tradition yet Doherty has handled the unreliability of Papias in pages 264-267. Is it in order for my learned friend to treat a bogus source as an authentic source without disproving arguments that have been made about the documents' unreliability?

In the last five pages, Layman contradicts himself and seems to raise arguments without considering his earlier arguments - even where the arguments are conflicting. Thus his arguments lack direction and self-destruct. This is clear in my assesment of Layman's conclusion.

I would suggest that Layman reads Doherty's work on the Apostolic fathers and his Supplementary Article No. 1: Apollos Of Alexandria And The Early Christian Apostolate: "Apostles" in Early Christianity to get a fuller and perharps more focused exposition of the use, meaning and appearance of the word apostle, before looking at Supplementary Article number 12: Crossing the Threshold of History: Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers at the Turn of the Second Century., and then topping it with this subject on the Apostolic Tradition.
If he does so, he will be able to appreciate the semantic mistakes he makes and the baselessness of his assumptions.

Doherty's Argument

1. The apostolic tradition, as formulated by Acts and the Gospels, was a conduit that originated from the original eyewitnesses and that provided an unbroken chain of authority extending from the earliest apostles of the Church and Jesus.

2. We see no mention of such a Tradition in Paul's ministry (as in Hebrews, Galatians and Corinthians), Johannine epistles or in Didache (and more sources can be cited, but in Chapter 4 of the Jesus Puzzle, Doherty doesn't).
There is no mention of the apostles as an authority on Jesus' sayings/teachings. Paul believed true doctrine comes directly through the spirit and receives directly from revelation and passes on to the communities. Neither a historical Jesus, nor the apostles, is cited to have taught anything. Instead, the people rely on revelatory sources / 'God'.

3. If there was indeed an apostolic tradition in the first century (pre - the canonical gospels), it would have been used as the source of authority by religious leaders (the 'elders') and by Paul and his rivals ('apostles' in Corinth), and as a test of correctness and authority of certain doctrinal matters and as a test of the truth of what an apostle is saying.

4. The apostolic tradition did not develop until the second century and this tradition flowed from a HJ, to the apostles, to the apostolic fathers to the bishops. Each link in the chain drawing authority from the succeeding link and the source.

Acts was written decades into the second century as supported by John Knox, J. T. Townsend, Burton Mack, J. C. O'Neill and others. The Gospels, which talk of the twelve, were written decades after the alleged death of Christ. Doherty notes that some scholars like Rudolf Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament I,p.37) have outrightly rejected the hsitoricity of the twelve as an inner circle accompanying Jesus in his ministry.

This argument basically proves that the life of a historical Jesus and the twelve apostles was fabricated later. This was done partly as a counter to Marcionism but mainly as a response to the growing need that Christian congregations felt for tracing their authority back to him - a source: "a guarantee that the doctrines they held had been instrituted by Jesus himself...A reliable conduit of the original eyewitnesses had to be formed, a supposedly unbroken chain of teaching and authority extending from the earlist apostles to the later church".

To disprove this argument, one needs to demonstrate that in the first century, outside the Gospels, an elder or preacher or one of the many wandering 'apostles' cited the apostles as the source and more importantly, the authority of what they were preaching.

Layman does not do this. He does not even attempt and thus leaves the whole argument intact.

But lets look at what Layman does, which, in part, I have in part explained above.

My Assesment of Layman's Criticism

Didache 11

Layman cites Chapter 11 of the Didache and states: "While this passage is despite Doherty's assertions, there is nothing in Chapter 11 about using direct revelation or prophecy..."
This is a strawman argument. Doherty does not argue that Didache 11 shows that doctrine comes through revelation. To be clear, Doherty states that Chapter 11 does not contain any tracing of authority of the teaching of wandering apostles back to Jesus as a test of the legitimacy of what the 'apostles' were preaching.

Doherty uses Chapter 11 of Didache to demonstrate that even where there was need to cite an apostolic tradition as a source of legitimate teaching, assuming there was one, its not cited hence did not exist.

Letter to the Hebrews, Chapter 13

Layman admits that Hebrews 13:7 does not mention that 'the leaders' are the apostles. Nevertheless, he still proceeds to state that they "might very well go back to the earlist apostles". Might very well? This is not an argument so I won't spend time on it.

He then cites Hebrews 2:2-4. Which, based on the argument Doherty makes with regard to Hebrews 13:7, is not any different. But Layman gallantly proceeds to argue that the passage refers to the gospel traditions about Jesus.
This is a classic case of repeating an argument that has already been addressed. Using another form and leaving the former argument intact. It is what Doherty identifies correctly as a red herring.

Hebrews 2:2-4, like 13:7, does not mention Jesus or even Christ. It does not mention any apostle or any disciple. It does not even state that the Lord spoke the word. It mentions wonders and miracles but doesn't mention even one work or miracle by Jesus.

The passage states that the word is spoken through angels, through the Lord (and NOT by the Lord) and God testifies through those that have heard by signs and wonders. More importantly, the passage does not identify who "those who heard" refers to. And it does not trace them to the apostles or to a historical Jesus.

There is no reason to assume, as Layman does, that this passage's contents were derived from the 'Gospel traditions' about Jesus (whatever that means). The passage proves the author was ignorant of what Layman calls "the Gospel traditions".

As such, Doherty's arguments regarding the apostolic tradition and Hebrews 13:7, remains untouched and introducing Hebrews 1:2-4 does nothing to change that.

Besides dating problems Layman would have, he fails to notice that in Hebrews 2:2-4, by the word "Lord" and "God", the author could not have been referring to the Jesus of the Gospels because:
a) Jesus would not have taught the unique Christology contained in Hebrews: no second coming (debatable according to Layman), no Eucharist, no earthly resurrection etc.
b) The author doesnt state that Jesus taught anywhere on earth. Everything 'the son' says comes from scripture. Even when works and miracles are mentioned, the works and miracles of Jesus are not mentioned.

First Letter of John, Chapter 4

Layman, after quoting John, states "...Moreover, the author of 1 John is emphasizing that the ultimate standard of authenticity is whether the preaching focused on a historical, human Jesus"

This is a red herring. Doherty's argument is that 1 John 4:1 proves that there was no apostolic tradition that could be used to test the legitimacy of the teaching of (false) prophets. Layman is preoccupied with the content as a way of determining legitimacy. The argument is about the source.

Layman cites James DG Dunn, who uses the phrase "established tradition". A meaningless phrase. The established tradition is not the apostolic tradition. In any case, the author mentions Paul's other test of "authoritative tradition": the confession that "Jesus is Lord".

"Established tradition" assumes what the christian communities believed was consistent and uniform - at least to a reasonable degree. Doherty colourfully depicts the riotous diversity of the beliefs of the early christian communities. The works of Ron Cameron in The Gospel of Thomas and Christian Origins, Burton Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament and others prove that the anachronistic phrase 'established tradition' would be incongruous in the cultural and religious milieu in question. Christianity developed from strands that often conflicted in many respects.

Non-Pauline Early Christian Epistles

A: Papias' Sayings of the Lord

Layman writes that by the time Papias wrote, the 'books' Papias mentions in his Exposition of the Reports as quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History appear to have become established.
This doesn't make sense since Papias himself rejected the 'books' as unreliable and preferred info from the living and abiding voice. How could he have rejected them so openly if they were already 'established'?

Layman argues that Papias seems to have collected stories from 'many people' including what the disciples stated about Jesus.One question I would like to ask Layman is how does one distinguish Papias (or his memory) from his source - the elder/presbyter?
Does Papias cite any 'works'? How did he 'collect' these stories? Using his memory? Is his rejection of 'books' without any explanation indicative of his reliability as a source?

Layman concludes: "Accordingly, there already exists in Papias' time books purporting to represent an apostolic tradition and Christians claiming to have known Jesus' disciples and repeating an apostolic tradition"

How does Layman know the 'books' represented an apostolic tradition? Can he provide evidence for this.

What dating of Papias' work is Layman using? - on what grounds is the date assigned?
If Papias wrote after the apostolic tradition was widespread, or when it was being 'championed', how does that work to disprove Doherty's thesis that early Christians had no such tradition?

Can we rely on Papias for anything? Doherty argues that among other things:

a) Papias is unreliable because of his attribution to a HJ a passage taken from 2 Baruch 29:4-8 as cited in Irenaeous' Against Heresies , Bk V. 33:3-4.
b) Papias' fanciful and gruesome death of Judas, his incredible account of how Barsabas drank snake poison yet survived unharmed. His claim that the dead raised by Christ survived until the reign of Hadrian (117-138 CE).

Thus Papias as a witness to anything is highly suspect.

I am sure I neednt go to Eusebius' reliability. It would simply make things gruesome.

The Gospel of Luke

Adressed in my opening remarks. In a nutshell, Layman misses the point by arguing Doherty's case for Doherty.

The Pauline Evidence

A. Paul's Revelation

Layman states that the first passage in Galatians 1:8-12 "states that no revelation could supplant the tradition already established in the Church".
This is an eisegetical argument and Galatians 1:8-12 states no such thing. Moreover, Layman states that "Doherty mistakenly assumes that every time Paul uses the term 'received', he is referring to a divine relevation directly from God"
I encourage Layman to cite where Doherty makes such an argument or assumption. Otherwise, he should withdraw this strawman.

B. Received and Delivered Tradition

Layman redefines the apostolic tradition, using 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, to contain the ideas that "Jesus died, was buried, was raised again according to the scriptures and appeared to many of his followers".

This is incorrect. The two main facets of the apostolic tradition are that:
(a) Claims are made to Jesus' own words and actions
(b) These words and actions are known through the apostles who had been chosen by Jesus, saw his deeds and heard his words. Then by associating themselves or their ideologies with the apostles, many church leaders drew authority - by inserting themselves in the chain of command.
To attempt to redefine this in the manner that Layman does is to create wriggle room for himself and yank Doherty's argument loose.
Based on this redefinition and an loose meaning of the term 'apostolic tradition', Layman constructs tangential arguments over three pages. He allows himself to blissfully miss the point as is evident in suceeding sections of his 'criticism'.

Receiving the Eucharist

Under this section, Layman engages himself in an orgy of confusing 'established tradition' with 'apostolic tradition'. And raising arguments that have been beaten to death. Paul nowhere cites the apostles as an authority to support what he teaches. In fact, he argues that no one is superior or better than him, thus effectively obliterating any supposed apostolic tradition.

Other Pre-Existing Creeds, Liturgies and Psalms

Under here, Layman continues to mightily miss the point as he examines red herrings. This is facilitated by his loosened definition of the phrase 'apostolic tradirtion'.

Summary of the Pauline Evidence and Layman's conclusion

Layman states:"Doherty’s argument that the early Church had no concept of passing along established tradition is refuted". This is an invalid conclusion given that Layman (1) does not demonstrate that there is, among the early Christians "a teaching passed on between generations, arising out of an apostolic past",(2) that any early Christian uses this chain/conduit to draw authority for his message/teachings.

His conclusion is a claim of victory for a battle that he has not fought, leave alone won.

He adds: "Indeed, his favoured explanation—that the church obtained its teachings from direct revelation—is similarly weak." This is inconsistent with Layman's own statement's in his article like: "Doherty begins by discussing what all agree is Paul's reception of a revelation from God.". "even though Paul claims in Galatians that he had a direct revelation from God..." and "...So while Paul claimed a revelation from God".
Layman severally admits to the veracity of the fact that Paul received direct revelation from God. Thus the statement in his conclusion that "...that the church obtained its teachings from direct revelation—is similarly weak" is baffling and unfounded.

Layman adds: "Even Paul, who claimed that his Gospel came directly from God, recognized that he had to subordinate his revelation to established tradition." Whether Paul recognized any established tradition is irrelevant given he never subscribed to it himself and did not rely on it for inspiration and authority. And Layman has not proved that Paul subordinated his message to an established tradition. Laymans arguments regarding Galatians 1:22-23 and Galatians 2:2 is contrived and baseless. He equivocates by equating the phrase "submitted to" with "subordinated". This is false.

Secondly, there is no evidence that there is anything that can qualify as "established" tradition in the works cited. And thirdly, even if we could allow that there was anything that can be referred to as "established" tradition, Layman has yet to demonstrate that it qualifies as an apostolic tradition and is traceable to a historical Jesus and passed on to generations via apostles.

Layman continues: "Paul is also clear that the Gospel he preached was the same that the other Apostles were preaching".
If Paul's Gospel was "the same" as that of other apostles, it means the other apostles had equal authority as Paul, thus supports Doherty's argument that there was no apostolic tradition for the "apostles" to draw authority and legitimacy from.

Secondly, Paul's meaning and usage of the word "apostle" invalidates this argument as framed by Layman (Layman assumes that 'apostles' are those that were chosen by Jesus.)
What is in question is the source and authority from which the brethren, the twelve, the apostles or whoever Paul's rivals drew the authority of what they preached. They certainly did not draw it from a historical Jesus.

Thirdly, if it was "the same", it contradicts Laymans argument that Paul admitted that his Gospel was subordinate to the "established tradition".

My Conclusion

Its my considered opinion that Layman should reread Doherty's arguments and not read into them what Layman thinks and not change Doherty's meaning of terms, phrases and their application. Layman tends to create new goals and show how they are not met by Doherty.

I would suggest to Layman to frame Doherty's arguments first before embarking on a 'rebuttal', that way, if he is missing the point, he will receive early warnings and may save his critics a lot of time.

Layman

All of the articles, and more, can be found here:

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusindex.htm

How recently? I suppose it was after you came off your multi-post defense of the idea that Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen never refer to a historical Jesus? You are hardly qualified to throw stones about not understanding Doherty's theory.

I aim to please.

Neither I nor most scholars accept Doherty's radically late dating of Luke-Acts. Nor am I obligated to accept Doherty's theory as established or even reasonable. He spends very little time on it. As Peter Kirby explains, Acts was likely written by a companion of Paul in the later half of the First Century:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Nor do you properly understand the points being made about Papias' references.

First, you are being much to broad here. Please be precise.

Second, your characterization is grossly unfair. I devote over 30 pages to arguing that the author of Hebrews believes in and refers to a historical Jesus. You've devoted 0 pages to responding. You may disagree but it my conclusion is the result of a thorough discussion of the issues--not merely an assumption.

Since I believe that Hebrews was written before all of the canonical gospels, you have obviously mischaracterized my position. Please do not.

Sometimes it is. In any event, it is much more supportive of my view than Doherty's.

We'll see.

I have given careful attention to Doherty's book in each section I responded to. In fact, I quote Doherty liberally throughout. As I did explain to Doherty in my email to him was that his website did not lend itself to easy searching, such that it is not easy to check his website to see how he has added to his book's argument. Often, he seems to have mostly cut and paste his book to the articles--as with the Hebrews article (which I mainly used for my response to his arguments regarding). To the extent I missed something on the website, I apologize and would appreciate it being brought to my attention (something you have not done). But since Doherty himself admitted that it was not well organized, there is not much blame to be thrown on this one.

Since the argument is about what Papias believed rather than whether he was right, the arguments that he is unreliable are basically irrelevant. Papias, having lived through the latter half of the first century and writing early in the next one, clearly possesses a concept of the Apostolic Tradition. What's more, he makes clear that other Christians also had such a concept and had books thought to be a part of it. All this is troubling for Doherty's argument that " "There is not even the barest concept of a teaching passed on between generations, arising out of an apostolic past. Instead, as in Paul, true doctrine comes directly through revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, though some 'spirits' are false and come from the devil." Page 43. Papias shows that Doherty is wrong and that there was much more than the "barest concept" of multi-generational traditions believed to have derived from the apostles.

We'll see.

And I suggest you read my complete article on Hebrews before casting aspersions about simply assuming certain things. But if you have specific arguments to bring in from those articles, please do so. I'm not here to pursue your reading list.

Are you Doherty's hand puppet?

Please provide cites and quotes from Doherty to show what Doherty is arguing. I was kind enough to quote him. Surely his followers can manage that as well?

As mentioned above, Acts was likely written in the latter half of the first century by a companion of Paul. In support of his argument for a late dating of Acts, Doherty relies on the work of Vernon Robbins and his theory about the "we passages" as literary devices for sea voyages. The Jesus Puzzle, page 360, fn. 123 ("The puzzle was solved when Vernon Robbins . . . made a splendidly simple observation. All such passages in Acts begin with and mostly encompass sea voyages . . . . Luke is employing a stylistic device of Hellenistic literature."). Robbins has been thoroughly discredited by many scholars. Two online sources showing this are here:

http://didjesusexist.com/wesea.html

and here:

http://www.geocities.com/christianca...epassages.html

As Kirby concludes, the best evidence places Acts in the first century.

And more contemporary scholars such as John P. Meier in Volume 3 of his Marginal Jew series shows that Jesus did have an inner circle of 12 throughout his ministry, though it may have been a fluid group.

And big deal. A few decades is hardly remarkable. Josephus writes accurately about many things that happened decades before. So does Acts for that matter.

Adopting Knox's theory is one way to make sure that your theory never goes anywhere. Even Knox himself admitted that Marcion engaged in large scale slashing of the Gospel of Luke and Paul's letters. "That Marcion, for example, did not have the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are they inconsistent with Marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synoptic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already dependent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible." John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95. There is plenty of evidence of this, such as Tertullian, but absolutely none that the Church responded with it's own wholesale rewriting.

Since Luke-Acts was written in the first century and clearly provides a prologue that is a perfect example of the apostolic tradition, the theory has been disproven.

Doherty is quite clear that instead of multi-generational traditions he envisions eruptions of prophecy and revelations from scripture: There is not even the barest concept of a teaching passed on between generations, arising out of an apostolic past. Instead, as in Paul, true doctrine comes directly through revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, though 'some spirits are false and come from the devil.'

What the Didache tells us is that prophecy and even interpretation of scripture is to be subordinated to established tradition. This is more consistent with the idea of the apostolic tradition than with each community having its doctrine coming "directly through revelation from God." True, the Didache does not use the term "apostolic tradition," but it gives us more than the "barest concept" of its existence.

Standing alone we would not know who those leaders were. But in conjunction with Heb. 2:2, we know that they were eyewitnesses to Jesus and his ministry.

Are you saying that these passages are identical? Far from it. Chapter 13 just mentions leaders, whereas Chapter 2 mentions those who heard the Lord.

The "Lord" is Jesus. And Christ. And Jesus Christ. And Christ Jesus.

No, the word spoken through angels refers to prior revelation. Not the new revelation upon which Christianity was founded. God has used the Lord to announce the latest revelation. That the Lord, Jesus, was human and had an earthly ministry in Hebrews is clear:

http://www.bede.org.uk/price3.htm

And, by definition, when we are discussing the "Apostolic Tradition" we are talking about tracing it back to eyewitnesses. So "those who heard" would be by definition such Apostles.

How does the author of Hebrews referring to abiding by established tradition that was handed down by those who "heard" the Lord prove that he was ignorant of the Gospel traditions?

Hebrews 1?

What dating problems? Doherty and I agree on the date of Hebrews?

Hebrews clearly refers to the second coming: http://www.bede.org.uk/price2.htm#Hebrews

Hebrews clearly refers to an earthly resurrection: http://www.bede.org.uk/price2.htm#Hebrews

The lack of a Eucharist is no indication that he was ignorant of it. He probably was aware of the tradition given his association with the Pauline circle. Remember, we only have one of this guy's letters. We have many of Paul's, yet he only mentions the Last Supper in one.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. Please clarify. Are you saying the "Lord" mentioned in Hebrews 2:3 is not Jesus but God? And this is so because he doesn't mention these things you think he would have? Not only is this wrong (as I have shown Hebrews does refer to 2 of 3), but it appears to be a nonsequiter. Why would God not mention these things either?

He mentions plenty about Jesus having an earthly life, culminating in his death, resurrection, and ascension.

Note the use of "Moreover." Indicating that this was yet another point. It was this:

The message of 1 John 4 is the opposite of what Doherty's theory would expect. Revelation must bow to tradition, not vice versa. Nothing is said about testing the spirit by another revelation from God. Here, we see that prophets are to be tested not by another revelation by a church member or leader, but by whether they ascribe to a specific teaching already established in the community--"that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."

How do you know this? It is much closer to that than to Doherty's representation that 1 John stands for the proposition that true doctrine comes "directly through revelation from God." That is not what is going on in 1 John. Rather, true doctrine is what was passed on to them by other human beings, not by prophets and new teachings from the scriptures. This is far more consistent with apostolic tradition than the "riotous diversity."

These are meaningless appeals to authority. I did not quote Dunn because I thought you would respect him, but because he explained the point well. Simply alluding to works I doubt you have even read is in no sense a rebuttal. For convenience, here was Dunn's comments on this passage:


You are missing the point.

Papias makes clear that such books already existed. Ergo, books recording Jesus' life and teachings were already in existence when Papias wrote at the beginning of the first century. And neither I nor Papias said that he "rejected" them. What is your evidence that Papias rejected these books?

All Papias said was that he preferred what eyewitnesses had to say over what the books had to say. There is nothing remarkable about such a preference:

What's more is that Papias clearly ascribed these books to Apostolic sources. He may have been wrong. But the issue is what he and other Christians believed. And by Papias' time the Christians already had established traditions about Petrine and Matthean sources behind these books. Clearly this is an established apostolic tradition.

Since I'm not arguing for the accuracy of those stories here this is an irrelevant tangent. This is "state of mind" evidence. Papias proves there was an established apostolic tradition when he wrote at the beginning of the first century. Before the Marcionite controversy. Indeed, he proves that there were already books which recorded these traditions and that traditions about their apostolic sources had already arisen by then.

As I said, Papias assigns two of the books to apostolic sources. Whether he is correct or not is irrelevant.

I use the standard dating of sometime before 130 CE and was already 30 years old at the turn of the century. That he wrote before the Marcionite controversy is certain. He also knew several people who at least claimed to have known Jesus' own disciples. This places his much too close to Jesus for Doherty's comfort.

This is well poisoning. All ancient writings have difficulties. And none of the ones you have cited have anything to do how I have used Papias.

But perhaps you should explain the relevance of these remarks to our discussion.

Since I advocate the generally accepted and well-argued dating of Luke-Acts within the first century, how did I argue Doherty's case for him?

Are you going to address my arguments or ignore them? My statement is the most reasonable conclusion based on the passage: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed."

Obviously, Paul is saying that what the Galatians have already been taught is superior to any new revelation they may here about--even if it comes from Paul himself!

Since Doherty uses this passage to argue just such an understanding for 1 Cor. 11 and 15, I think that will suffice. There is no strawman here because those are the only two relevant passages and are the two I rebut directly.

What are you talking about? How do I "redifine" it? I state that I think this is a core aspect of the apostolic tradition.

You don't think that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection would have been part of the apostolic tradition? I think that's rather incredible.

Apparently you are the one who is trying to avoid the argument here. I say that this is "Apostolic Tradition" because Paul is making it clear that he is passing along traditions he received from others. This is not direct revelation, but established tradition. Are you saying that if I am right that Paul received this from the Jerusalem Church and not from Jesus through direct revelation that this would not be Apostolic Tradition? Are you saying that even if it is true that Paul thought he had to submit his own direct revelation before the leaders of the Jerusalem Church for their approval that there is no hint of an Apostolic Tradition here?

I spend quite some time laying out these arguments. You apparently found it easier to ignore them than to respond to them.

Until you respond to these arguments, you are simply chickening out of responding to some of the most persuasive points against your theory.

Paul admits he had to submit his own revelation to the other Apostles for their approval. He also admits that what he was preaching was the same thing the Christian Church was preaching before he converted and got his direct revelation from God. This shows that Paul was passing along already established traditions to his churches, not just what he got in his encounter with Jesus.

What this section shows is that the assumption that Paul was not passing along traditions learned from earlier Christians are false.

Wrong. I showed both of these. With much more evidence than Doherty showed his alternative.

I provided several examples showing that church after church relied on established traditions that were considered superior to prophecy or teachings from scripture. Where the source of this tradition is identified, as by Luke, Papias, and Paul himself, it is from the Apostles. That Paul also received direct revelation is obviously true. But that he placed it before the other Apostles for their approval and admitted that his teaching was the same as was taught before his conversion shows that even Paul's direct revelation was subordinated to the Apostle's Tradition.

Since you ignored the bulk of the discussion of Paul's reliance on established tradition and submitting to the Apostles in Jerusalem, you have no basis to make this claim.

Wrong. The Didache and 1 John 1 both prove that even new prophecy and teachings must be subordinated to what was already established in the community. That Paul himself had to go to Jerusalem to present his revelation before the leaders there "lest he run in vain" is further evidence that your assessment is baseless.

You are correct that once we show "established tradition" the question arises as to its source. But Paul, Luke, and Papias are explicit that the source is those who saw Jesus personally. So you are wrong that there is no evidence that this is traceable to an apostolic source.

Being the "same" does not mean equal authority. It means that they were preaching a message about Jesus that Paul himself preached.

This is question begging. If I have shown that all the other churches were established along the lines of teaching passed on from the original Apostles, I have gone far because Doherty imagines a riotous diversity where new prophecies and teachings reigned and were the source for church doctrine. This is not an accurate assessment. As I have shown, all along these churches measured true doctrine by an apostolic source. Now, you seem to be arguing that perhaps this is true, but that this established tradition from the apostles was simply based on their own revelations. This is a novelty, as it was not what Doherty argued and seems less credible. Moreover, it is inconsistent with Hebrews', Papias', and Luke' explicit statement that the reason they were apostles was because they had heard the Lord during his time on earth. Paul too, though I know that his references are much disputed. But since Paul believes that Jesus was born of a descendent of David according to the flesh, http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm, believed that Jewish leaders were involved in Jesus' execution, http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/thessinterpolation.html, and reiterated that human leaders were responsible for Jesus being put to death, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=43215, it is more reasonable to conclude that Jesus believed that the other Apostles knew Jesus too.

No it does not. That Paul's Gospel was accepted and confirmed by the Apostles is actual verification that it was the same. The only difference seems to have been Paul's focus on the Gentiles, which is not a substantive difference at all.

I was much more fair in framing Doherty's arguments than you were in framing my own. And since you thought Doherty argued that Tertullian, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria never referred to a historical Jesus, you are throwing stones in a glass house.

I stand by my original conclusion:

Thank you for most of your comments. Please be patient. I am starting trial in two weeks and am having another child in three. I expect to be otherwise busy. I'll get back to this thread as I can. So no childish taunting based on delays, please.

But, I am most disapointed by your complete failure to respond to Section B and C of the Pauline evidence. You seem to be saying it is irrelevant that Paul received these traditions from other Christians instead of from direct revelation from God. Doherty disagrees, as he argues strongly that the term "received" carries with it the same meaning as in Galatians. So if you are conceding that I am right about the sources of these traditions, please make that clear. It will help future discussion.

[edited to Toto to fix URLs]

Amaleq13

Layman,


Welcome back!


Jacob,


I'm not going to interfere in your discussion with Layman but I would like to obtain some clarification on something he wrote:
Could you provide the specific quote(s)? Here is what I find Kirby to say:

"Finally, it is suggested by many that the theological differences between Paul and Luke make it difficult to accept that the author of Luke-Acts was a pupil of Paul. For example, the author of Luke-Acts presents the death of Jesus not as an atoning sacrifice but rather as the unjust execution of an innocent."

"The work termed Luke-Acts expected the church to exist for the long haul, and this tends to support a dating of Luke-Acts around the early second century."

Layman

Kirby runs through a lot of different arguments about dating Acts. But this conclusion is as follows:

A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

And earlier in his article:

The most probable conclusion is that Luke had travelled with Paul at times, a fact of which Luke's patron Theophilus was already aware.

And in the middle:

The ignorance of the letters of Paul on the part of the author of Luke-Acts actually speaks for a date before ca. 100, after which these letters were collected, published, and canonized.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

I cannot find any of the quotes you attribute to Kirby in the article using the "Find" function. Not sure what's up with that. Which of Kirby's articles are you referring to? Perhaps we are referring to different pieces. I know Kirby's article on Acts was updated just a few months ago.

Amaleq13

Ah, an update to the website explains the discrepancy. I was relying on my copy of the CD.

Thanks.

Layman

A worthy investment. But not too long after he reviewed Robbin's theory in depth he changed his entire article on Acts.

Ted Hoffman

I will ignore the ad hominems and address the substantive issues I can glean from Layman's response.

I took the liberty of sharing some of Doherty's response to this thread via email. I hope Doherty does not mind.

Layman stated:
Scholars that favour Doherty's "radically late dating of Luke-Acts":

1. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, p.124 - mid second century dating

2. J. T. Townsend, "The Date of Luke Acts", in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, p.47f. - mid second century dating.

3. J. C. O'Neill, in The Theology of Acts, p.21 - dates them c.115-130

4. Burton Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament, p.167 - dates them circa 120.

Thus Laymans reckless and hysterical claim above is falsified.

A full assesment of Kirby's arguments is beyond the scope of this thread but some of the two salient ones are:
This argument, as framed under "implies the implausibility of the hypothesis...", does not follow. Its similar to arguing that since the writings agree in some areas, its implausible that they disagree in other areas.
The fact that they have "extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between them" does not entail that there are no disagreements between them. Thus Kirby's argument leaves John Knox's argument untouched. In that sense, it can be considered a red herring.
For those unfamiliar with John Knox's argument, John Knox (op. cit.,p.119-123) argues that Acts was written post-Marcion (post 140 CE) because Marcion used a proto-Luke as his canonical Gospel which didn't have the infancy narrative and didnt have Paul as dependent on the disciples of Jesus. Marcion would not have done so if Luke portrayed Paul in the way Paul is depicted in Acts: as dependent or closely associated with Jesus' original disciples.

Marcion believed Paul to have been independent of Jesus' disciples and thus free of 'Jewish corruption'. Marcion's belief regarding Paul would have been unsustainable and incongruous with a Luke integrated with Act. Thus Acts was composed after Luke (and proto-Luke reworked to Canonical Luke).

A reworking of Luke by the same author of Acts would explain the linguistic and theological agreements between the two books as noted by Udo Schnelle.

More from Kirby's site:
It would be incredible of the author of Acts to write a 'biography' of Paul and not know Paul was a letter writer. Further, Kirby argues that he was a companion of Paul certain times. How could he not have known Paul had written some letters? How come he shows utter ignorance of the existence of any such letters?

Layman posting from Kirby's site:
So, Luke travelled with Paul and never knew Paul was a letter writer?

One striking incongruity is Luke's portrayal of Paul as immediately subordinating himself himself to the apostles in Jerusalem after his conversion while in the epistles Paul operates independently and is occasionally locked in strife with the apostles.

Kirby/Layman will also need to explain satisfactorily why Acts is not referenced or mentioned before 170 - if it was already what - 7 decades old by then?

Doherty's dating accounts for all the apparent incongruencies, has greater explanatory power and enjoys scholarly support.

Layman: .,..To the extent I missed something on the website, I apologize and would appreciate it being brought to my attention (something you have not done).


I had earlier stated: Jacob: After saying he would appreciate it if some material is brought to his attention, and after me being so nice as to assist a brother in need, Layman responds to the above as follows:

Layman: I'm not here to pursue your reading list.

Jacob: Talk about decency!

Layman: Since the argument is about what Papias believed rather than whether he was right, the arguments that he is unreliable are basically irrelevant.

Jacob: You are allowed to bring unreliable witnesses to court? Once a witness is proved unreliable, their testimony has zero probative value. Pure and simple.
Deal with it.

Layman: In support of his argument for a late dating of Acts, Doherty relies on the work of Vernon Robbins and his theory about the "we passages" as literary devices for sea voyages. The Jesus Puzzle, page 360, fn. 123 ("The puzzle was solved when Vernon Robbins . . . made a splendidly simple observation. All such passages in Acts begin with and mostly encompass sea voyages . . . . Luke is employing a stylistic device of Hellenistic literature."). Robbins has been thoroughly discredited by many scholars. Two online sources showing this are here:

Jacob: This is both a strawman and a falsehood. Doherty, does not rely on Vernon Robbin's work to date Acts.

Layman: As Kirby concludes, the best evidence places Acts in the first century.

Jacob: The best evidence? And what evidence is that? And why is it the "best" evidence?

Layman: And more contemporary scholars such as John P. Meier in Volume 3 of his Marginal Jew series shows that Jesus did have an inner circle of 12 throughout his ministry, though it may have been a fluid group.

Jacob: Oh, the Catholic priest? the one whose "methodologies" got demolished? Great. If Jesus did have the apostles, how come NOBODY asked them (outside the gospels) about what Jesus taught them in the first century ?
How come they were not referenced as those that actually spoke to Jesus?
Meier's methodology was a total failure. He based the historicity of the twelve on the bogus methodology thus the claim that the 12 were historical individuals is as bogus as the methodology that undergirds that claim.

Layman: And big deal. A few decades is hardly remarkable.

Jacob: How do you know this? Is it a matter of personal taste?

Layman: Adopting Knox's theory is one way to make sure that your theory never goes anywhere. Even Knox himself admitted that Marcion engaged in large scale slashing of the Gospel of Luke and Paul's letters.

Jacob: So what? It doesnt change the dating.

Layman: Since Luke-Acts was written in the first century and clearly provides a prologue that is a perfect example of the apostolic tradition, the theory has been disproven.

Jacob: Petitio principii.

Layman: What the Didache tells us is that prophecy and even interpretation of scripture is to be subordinated to established tradition.

Jacob: This is a red herring. Withdraw the strawman first.

Layman: True, the Didache does not use the term "apostolic tradition," but it gives us more than the "barest concept" of its existence.

Jacob: Grasping at straws.


Layman: Standing alone we would not know who those leaders were. But in conjunction with Heb. 2:2, we know that they were eyewitnesses to Jesus and his ministry.

Jacob: No we dont.

Layman: Are you saying that these passages are identical? Far from it. Chapter 13 just mentions leaders, whereas Chapter 2 mentions those who heard the Lord.

Jacob: None of them qualify as the twelve. There is no reason to believe that the people being referred to actually walked with Jesus and saw his miracles. Thats the point. In that respect, the passages are the same rebutted argument dressed in different clothes. Comprendre?

Layman: The "Lord" is Jesus. And Christ. And Jesus Christ. And Christ Jesus.

Jacob: I already proved that thats an assumption you are making. And its your folly. Why repeat it again? Are you waxing poetic and creating an alliteration?

Layman: No, the word spoken through angels refers to prior revelation. Not the new revelation upon which Christianity was founded. God has used the Lord to announce the latest revelation. That the Lord, Jesus, was human and had an earthly ministry in Hebrews is clear:

Jacob: Oh, so the Lord means Jesus - thats why Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 11:23 that he has received this information directly "from the Lord"?
Makes a lot of sense.

You really need to read Doherty on the apostolic fathers. You wont be so fast to assume the "Lord" means Jesus.

Layman: How does the author of Hebrews referring to abiding by established tradition that was handed down by those who "heard" the Lord prove that he was ignorant of the Gospel traditions?

Jacob: Because if he knew of the apostolic traditions, he would have told his audience that (1) it held the true teachings and could help them identify false teachers and (2) would have referenced it and not a message from angels.

Common sense Layman: if someone died of hunger, it means there was no food to eat.

Layman: What dating problems? Doherty and I agree on the date of Hebrews?

Jacob: Only because you are equivocating traditions with apostolic traditions and assuming oral traditions spoke of the 12 apostles before Mark/ Hebrews was written.
Tell me Layman, when did these "gospel traditions" start going round? Before the death of Jesus? after his death? after the Jewish war?

Layman: Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is. Please clarify. Are you saying the "Lord" mentioned in Hebrews 2:3 is not Jesus but God?

Jacob: Yes.

Layman: He mentions plenty about Jesus having an earthly life, culminating in his death, resurrection, and ascension.

Jacob: Doherty has argued over this very convincingly so I wont reinvent the wheel. The issue also tangential to the subject at hand.

Layman: Note the use of "Moreover." Indicating that this was yet another point. It was this:

"The message of 1 John 4 is the opposite of what Doherty's theory would expect. Revelation must bow to tradition, not vice versa. Nothing is said about testing the spirit by another revelation from God. Here, we see that prophets are to be tested not by another revelation by a church member or leader, but by whether they ascribe to a specific teaching already established in the community--"that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God."

Jacob: My point stands. Red herring. You are just squirming.

I had earlier argued:
The established tradition is not the apostolic tradition.

Jacob: The established tradition is not the apostolic tradition.

Layman: How do you know this?

Jacob: Simple english tells us that the word "apostolic" is not synonymous with "established". An established tradition does not entail an apostolic one. My tribe has an established tradition. But its not apostolic.

Doherty : It goes without saying that any community is going to have certain beliefs that have been held for a certain amount of time, some even going back to the beginning of the sect (as in 1 John or Hebrews, where those "beginnings" are stated as arising from revelation, not from the teaching of any historical Jesus or brought out into the world by his immediate followers). My definition of "apostolic tradition" is teaching passed on through a chain beginning with an HJ, and Layman's attempt to throw a smokescreen over that and broaden it to something he can attack is blatant misrepresentation.

Layman: That is not what is going on in 1 John. Rather, true doctrine is what was passed on to them by other human beings, not by prophets and new teachings from the scriptures. This is far more consistent with apostolic tradition than the "riotous diversity."

Jacob: "Other human beings" is not synonymous with the term "apostles"

Layman: I did not quote Dunn because I thought you would respect him, but because he explained the point well.

Jacob: Yes he did. But he explained on "established tradition" NOT "apostolic tradition" and thus his explanation was irrelevant. Did you think we would not notice your equivocation?

Layman: Papias makes clear that such books already existed. Ergo, books recording Jesus' life and teachings were already in existence when Papias wrote at the beginning of the first century.

Jacob: Why should we believe what a liar (Eusebius) said about another liar (Papias) is reliable?
How do you know that the books Papias rejected contained a recording of Jesus' life and teachings?

Layman: I use the standard dating of sometime before 130 CE and was already 30 years old at the turn of the century. That he wrote before the Marcionite controversy is certain. He also knew several people who at least claimed to have known Jesus' own disciples. This places his much too close to Jesus for Doherty's comfort.

Jacob: If you are dating Papias at 130CE, is Papias relevant to Doherty's argument regarding the apostolic tradition being absent in the first century?
Have you lost track of the argument you are attacking?

Doherty: I'll comment on one other point, this one regarding Papias. No one can really date Papias that confidently, but it is rare to place him before 110, and most place him around 130. So if the rudiments of my "apostolic tradition" can be found in him, this is fully in accord with my position. It is in the early 2nd century that such things start to develop. Layman scores no points here. And my argument that Papias himself is relying on "the elder" for all his info on "Mark and Matthew", and doesn't even possess or hasn't seen copies of these documents, shows that they can hardly be that well established, or that he can witness to something reliable about them. (He apparently doesn't quote a single saying from the canonicals in his lost work, else people like Eusebius would have mentioned them.) In any case, what he is reputed to have said (or reported on what the elder said) about "Mark and Matthew" make it very difficult to regard them as narrative Gospels later known under those names. All this, of course, Layman ignores and will probably continue to ignore.

Also on that point, if Papias knew apostles of Jesus, or people who knew apostles of Jesus, and if the Gospels were written by either those apostles or their companions, why isn't Papias a direct inheritor of such writings? Why isn't his library full of manuscripts of the canonicals? If he knew the apostle John (as some claim), why doesn't he have John's Gospel? If "the elder" is that apostle John himself, why didn't the latter happen to mention that, oh yes, he too had written down a story of Jesus and give a copy to Papias? Papias was a bishop in Asia Minor, one of the main centers of Christianity in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. If he didn't have a written Gospel or possess more than 2nd or 3rd hand information about some dubious collections of sayings and anecdotes attributed to an HJ, who did?

Layman Since Luke-Acts was written in the first century and clearly provides a prologue that is a perfect example of the apostolic tradition, the theory has been disproven.

Doherty So the Preface to Luke is completely reliable as a first century product, and evidence of my apostolic tradition? Kirby really thinks that Acts (to which this Preface is tied when the latter was written) is dependably placed in the first century and was written by a companion of Paul? Then why isn't some hint given in the preface of Luke as to who the author is, or that he had a personal connection to Paul and other apostolic followers of Jesus? Since the preface is concerned with making a statement of reliability and the use of prior sources, why is no mention made of such connections? When the writer says "I...as one who has investigated these things accurately," he is obviously talking about his own survey of previous writings and traditions. There is clearly a total void on any suggestion of personal involvement with the original players.

Layman: All ancient writings have difficulties.

Jacob: Nobody said Papias has difficulties. I stated that Papias is unreliable as an eyewitness to anything.
And nobody is talking about "all ancient writings". Thats a red herring.

Layman: Are you going to address my arguments or ignore them?

Jacob: I have addressed them. If there is a specific argument that you feel needs to be adressed with more verbosity and ceremony, just state so. My approach is to respond to arguments that merit a response. Not everything that you can count counts.

Layman: My statement is the most reasonable conclusion based on the passage: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed."

Obviously, Paul is saying that what the Galatians have already been taught is superior to any new revelation they may here about--even if it comes from Paul himself!

Jacob: Whatever it was, there is no reason to believe it was apostolic in origin.

Assume we have two itinerant preachers or wandering apostles ; Mathias and Luthero.

Mathias: God has spoken and we have heard him through his deeds and signs. Therefore brethren, lay your faith in Christ and do not worry. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares...

Luthero: If anyone should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

<they later go round, Paul-like, and collect 'offerings'>

Does Layman expect what Mathias has stated above, which is not citing any apostolic source, to be "established tradition"?
How different is my hypothetical scenario above different from Galatians 1:8-12 or even Galatians 1:8-12? Layman is clearly reading what he wants into the passages.

Laymans statement* is NOT the most reasonable conclusion based on the passage: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed."

*"Paul is saying that what the Galatians have already been taught is superior to any new revelation they may here about--even if it comes from Paul himself!"

(1) The phrase already been taught is ambiguous and baseless (2) even if we admit that they had "already been taught", there is no reason to believe what they had been taught was apostolic in origin.

Layman: Since Doherty uses this passage to argue just such an understanding for 1 Cor. 11 and 15, I think that will suffice. There is no strawman here because those are the only two relevant passages and are the two I rebut directly.

Jacob: The insertion of "every time" into your statement renders the statement a strawman. And its a reckless statement given you can't demonstrate it.

Layman: What are you talking about? How do I "redifine" it? I state that I think this is a core aspect of the apostolic tradition.

Jacob: How can it be "core" if its not even part of the definition you have provided in the first page of your article?

Layman: You don't think that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection would have been part of the apostolic tradition? I think that's rather incredible.

Jacob: The tradition is a 'conduit' - what passes through the conduit is not the issue, and is not part of the meaning of apostolic tradition. Read your definition Layman.

Layman: I say that this is "Apostolic Tradition" because Paul is making it clear that he is passing along traditions he received from others. This is not direct revelation, but established tradition.

Jacob: Nobody cares about "established tradition", "gospel tradition" etc. If you want us to care about them, show us how they are "apostolic tradition".

Layman: Are you saying that if I am right that Paul received this from the Jerusalem Church and not from Jesus through direct revelation that this would not be Apostolic Tradition?

Jacob: Red herring and begging the question. You have NOT DEMOSNTRATED THAT PAUL RECEIVED HIS GOSPEL FROM THE JERUSALEM CHURCH!!!!!!!

Layman: Are you saying that even if it is true that Paul thought he had to submit his own direct revelation before the leaders of the Jerusalem Church for their approval that there is no hint of an Apostolic Tradition here?

Jacob: That would be what I am saying. What 'hint' of apostolic tradition have you found 'there'?

Layman: I spend quite some time laying out these arguments. You apparently found it easier to ignore them than to respond to them.

Jacob: Its not my fault that you were missing the point. Pay close attention to the arguments you are attacking next time. The fact that you have spent time laying them out does not mean equal time and attention needs to be spent on them. You laid out the wrong arguments. Pure and simple. No offense intended.

Layman: Until you respond to these arguments, you are simply chickening out of responding to some of the most persuasive points against your theory.

Jacob: <chuckle, chuckle> Let me get this straight: Doherty's case about the absence of an apostolic tradition outside the Gospels in the 1st century is threatened MOST by passages in Galatians?
For a moment there, I was pitying you for having to mount a criticism unsing only one unreliable, unavailable source (Exposition of the Lords Reports handed down by a liar (Eusebius)).

Layman: Paul admits he had to submit his own revelation to the other Apostles for their approval.

Jacob: He does no such thing.

Layman: This shows that Paul was passing along already established traditions to his churches, not just what he got in his encounter with Jesus.

Jacob: This is not important: established tradition, if you will manage to demonstrate its existence one day, does NOT equal apostolic tradition. Until then, please be decent and leave it out of this discussion.

Layman: What this section shows is that the assumption that Paul was not passing along traditions learned from earlier Christians are false.

Jacob: "Other christians" does not equal apostles. How many times do I have to tell you you are missing the point when you use "other christians" synonymously with "apostolic traditions"?

I had earlier stated : Layman states: "Doherty’s argument that the early Church had no concept of passing along established tradition is refuted". This is an invalid conclusion given that Layman (1) does not demonstrate that there is, among the early Christians "a teaching passed on between generations, arising out of an apostolic past",(2) that any early Christian uses this chain/conduit to draw authority for his message/teachings.

Layman: Wrong. I showed both of these. With much more evidence than Doherty showed his alternative.

Jacob: Your "more evidence" was tangential, inconclusive or irrelevant. You have showed none of the above 2 points as I argue.

Layman: I provided several examples showing that church after church relied on established traditions that were considered superior to prophecy or teachings from scripture. Where the source of this tradition is identified, as by Luke, Papias, and Paul himself, it is from the Apostles. That Paul also received direct revelation is obviously true. But that he placed it before the other Apostles for their approval and admitted that his teaching was the same as was taught before his conversion shows that even Paul's direct revelation was subordinated to the Apostle's Tradition.

Jacob: You did not "provide several examples showing that church after church relied on established traditions that were considered superior to prophecy or teachings from scripture"
Luke is dated well into the second century, so is Papias (who is unreliable to boot). So what they contain is irrelevant. Paul obtained his 'gospel' via direct revelation and midrash of the OT, NOT from the apostles.

Are we clear now why your efforts yield zero results?

I notice you have excluded John and Didache - care to explain why they are not in your arsenal?

Layman: Since you ignored the bulk of the discussion of Paul's reliance on established tradition and submitting to the Apostles in Jerusalem, you have no basis to make this claim.

Jacob: What makes you think I ignored it? I read it and found it to be mightily missing the point. How did I know you equivocated by equating the phrase "submitted to" with "subordinated" if I ignored your arguments?
Are you equivocating or NOT? Are the words "subordinate" or "inferior" used in the passages cited? No. If no, what phrase(s) demonstrate(s) that Paul treated his gospel as subordinate to that of the Jerusalem apostles?
Dont try to go round this by claiming I ignored your arguments. Whats important is not what I ignored (remember "I ignored it" does not mean "I am ignorant of it"). The important thing, what you have to deal with, is what I am stating here. And deal with it you shall counselor.

Layman: Wrong. The Didache and 1 John 1 both prove that even new prophecy and teachings must be subordinated to what was already established in the community. That Paul himself had to go to Jerusalem to present his revelation before the leaders there "lest he run in vain" is further evidence that your assessment is baseless.

Doherty: "Every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit which does not thus acknowledge Jesus is not from God." (NEB). Both views come from spirits, spirits that conflict. The author happens to subscribe to the former spirit, his opponents subscribe to the latter. There isn't the breath of a hint in this passage that either one of them is compared to, or subordinated to, an established teaching in the community. All are "prophets" who have gone out, some of them "falsely inspired" (4:1).

Layman: You are correct that once we show "established tradition" the question arises as to its source. But Paul, Luke, and Papias are explicit that the source is those who saw Jesus personally. So you are wrong that there is no evidence that this is traceable to an apostolic source.

Jacob: See my post above regarding Paul Luke and Papias. I hope you wont maintain this ad infinitum approach of argumentation.

Layman: If I have shown that all the other churches were established along the lines of teaching passed on from the original Apostles, I have gone far because Doherty imagines a riotous diversity where new prophecies and teachings reigned and were the source for church doctrine.

Jacob: The diversity of the views concerning Jesus is in terms of differences in theology (docetism, gnosticism etc), ritual, expectation, wisdom teachings, aretalogies, apocalypses, social reforms, saviour figures like the Gnostic saviour), messiah etc as seen in Odes of Solomon, Shepherd of Hermas, Dead sea scrolls, the Johannine community and as widely known the twin traditions: Jerusalem and Galilean traditions.

These riotously diverse writings, theologies, expectations and cults could not have arisen from one source Layman. These are the different strands from which Christianity developed. There was no established tradition until one was made in the mid-second century.

Layman: This is not an accurate assessment. As I have shown, all along these churches measured true doctrine by an apostolic source. Now, you seem to be arguing that perhaps this is true, but that this established tradition from the apostles was simply based on their own revelations.

Jacob: In Paul's case yes. I think the author of John too. I am in disagreement over the idea that there existed an apostolic source.

Layman: Paul too, though I know that his references are much disputed. But since Paul believes that Jesus was born of a descendent of David according to the flesh, http://www.bede.org.uk/price7.htm, believed that Jewish leaders were involved in Jesus' execution, http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/thessinterpolation.html, and reiterated that human leaders were responsible for Jesus being put to death, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...hreadid=43215, it is more reasonable to conclude that Jesus believed that the other Apostles knew Jesus too.

Jacob: Paul's beliefs are irrelevant. Whats important is the source - does he write anywhere that he learnt anything about Jesus from the apostles? No.

Layman: No it does not. That Paul's Gospel was accepted and confirmed by the Apostles is actual verification that it was the same. The only difference seems to have been Paul's focus on the Gentiles, which is not a substantive difference at all.

Jacob: When I argue that you have contradicted yourself, you either admit it or show that my assertion is incorrect, not launch into some tangential argument.
So, what would qualify as a substantive difference?

Layman: I am starting trial in two weeks and am having another child in three.

Jacob: Best wishes.

Layman

Since my claim was that most scholars reject Doherty's radically late dating of Acts, that you can cite four commentators who also adopt the radically late dating of Acts is irrelevant. My claim was neither reckless or hysterical. It is the truth.

Four scholars spread over 60 years hardly constitutes a majority, or even a vigorous minority position. Against this is assessed most scholars who date Acts to the first century. As the rather liberal scholar F.B. Kummel notes in his Introduction:

Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament, pages 132-33.

Also,

F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, page 18, fn. 21.

There was nothing reckless about my comments. I have studied the issue of Acts quite a bit. I've actually read Knox's 1940s Macion and the New Testament. Have you? As for being "hysterical", my comment stands supported. Yours is wishful thinking. I understand that you do not want to go into this issue in depth, but I'm afraid that if Doherty intends to convince others that Acts cannot be used as first century evidence of an apostolic tradition he's going to have to do better than cite to a few scholars strechting over a 50 year period who have already failed to convince the scholarly community that they have a case to make. And he'll have to certianly do better than rely on the oft-refuted work of Vernon Robbins on the "we passages."

I will get back to the rest of your arguments as time permits.

Ted Hoffman

Kummel's argument is:

1. The Author of Acts did not know of the Pauline epistles.
2. If the Pauline epistles had been assembled, The Author of Acts would have known of them.
3. The Pauline epistles were assembled later (in the 2nd century?).
4. Therefore Acts was written before the end of the first century.

But this argument runs into the problems I have raised above. Problems Layman has not addressed. Even without my arguments above, one can see problems with the second and third premise.
What Layman does, by citing Kummel, is present, in different clothes, an argument that has already been addressed.

My earlier arguments regarding this have not been addressed, I will not repeat them here.

Doherty argues that the ignorance of the author about Pauline epistles cannot be used as a basis for dating Acts. Since Layman has the Jesus Puzzle, I suggest he debunks Doherty's argument here.

Layman, you need to be vigilant about bringing back arguments that have been debunked. Even when the source is different, if the argument is the same, there is no need to repeat it. Unless you just want to repeat the argument ad infinitum.

Maybe you could explain Bruce's argument more comprehensively. Its unclear how "affinities between Acts and the apologists (especially Justin), have failed to carry general conviction"

Layman stated:
This is irrelevant. Even idiots study "the issue of Acts" and read books.

You think claiming that you have studied many books lends any probative value or weight to your arguments?
Let your arguments speak for you.
Flashing badges and parading man hours doesn't work in rigorous discussions.

1). The dating of Acts is marginal to Doherty's thesis.
2). Its clear that Doherty's dating of Acts:
a) Makes more sense than the first century dating
b) Accounts for almost all discrepancies that emerge with first century dating and integrates them comfortably into a larger framework.
c) Has greater explanatory scope and power
d) Enjoys immense Scholarly support.
3). Layman has only attempted to rehash tired, old arguments that Doherty has addressed in his book and exposed them for their inadequacy and weaknesses.
4). Because Layman is repeating arguments that have been debunked, his repetitions amount to nothing but noise.

This is a strawman argument as I have shown above.

When you are through with your appeal to numbers and are ready to start fleshing out real arguments, wake me up.
Even if 2 million scholars date it to the 1st century, and one scholar dates it to the tenth century, the numbers of people in the different camps do not have any bearing on the truth or falsity of their position.

What's clear is that its not only Doherty who dates Acts to the second century.

So lets get down to the real arguments. Sorry we cant use your statistics on scholarly opinions on issues here.

Ted Hoffman

Layman,

In the interest of decency, please stop claiming that Doherty relies on Vernon Robbin's work to date Acts.

If you agree to be decent about it, and since Robbins is really itching you like an ant up your a**, and you simply cant stop bringing him up (perhaps because you are overly confident that Kirby nailed Robbin's work), I can help ease your itching by undertaking to review Kirby's take on the we passages, literary precedent and the like. That will be later though - if time allows.

In the meantime, leave Robbins out of this discussion. Your insistence to drag his work in here is unwarranted and your claim that Doherty bases the dating of Acts on Robbin's work is blatantly false.