Layman

Like I have said, I'm willing to let Doherty speak for Doherty.

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.").

Please refrain from even implied profanity.


You have only claimed it is blatantly false. You have not demonstrated it in any sense. Doherty concedes that the we passages point to "some source document used by Luke." He then naively refers to Robbins' work to dismiss this idea. This is all in the context of his discussion of the dating of Acts and whether Acts provides us an accurate picture of the early Church.

Perhaps we can modify the our disagreement to reach common ground and say that Doherty relies on Robbins to deny that Luke conveys accurate source material regarding the early Church? Afterall, other than cite a few discredited scholars, Doherty gives us few actual reaons to date Acts so radically late.

I was confident that many scholars with differing opinions about the "we passages" nailed Robbins well before Kirby posted his article. But he definitely added another nail to the coffin.

Fear not, I'll get to your spurious reasons for such a radically late dating. For now I was just showing you that your hyperbolic reaction to the state of the scholarly community as to dating Acts. I pointed out that most scholars dated it to the first century. You responded that my claim was "reckless" and "hysterical" because four scholars over a 50 year period had claimed Luke wrote in the second century.

I have shown that assertion to be baseless. I will once again discredit the arguments for dating Acts so late as I have time.

Please be advised, again, that attempts to claim the dating of Luke-Acts is irrelevant to this issue are unconvincing. Doherty's argument is that there was not even the "barest concept" of an Apostolic Tradition in early Christianity. That Luke-Acts quite clearly attests to one in the first century shatters this argument.

Layman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
I raised this issue, and was quite obvious about my intentions, to refute your accusation that my claim that most scholars dated Acts to the first century was "reckless." Showing that I had spent a lot of time reviewing the available scholarly communities is part of the evidence that my conclusion was not reckless. Providing additional source material backing me up was the other part.

So, please admit I was not being reckless or let the matter die. Do not try and pretend that you did not make such a baseless assertion by insisting I used this response for something that I did not.

Layman

Since I did not claim that he was, I'm curious why you think this argument is relevant? Especially after arguing for so long that it is irrelevant how many scholars profess a certain opinion.

Layman

Well, I suppose it might be possible that Luke and Acts "disagree in other areas," but you have not pointed out how or what significance that would be. The argument is not just that they agree a lot. Mark, Luke and Matthew all do that. The argument is that the author of Luke writes and sounds like the author of Acts. And, in fact, the authors of Luke and Acts tells us quite explicitly in the prologues that the two works are by the same hand. That this conclusion is almost universally backed up by those with expertise in such linguistic similarities further erodes the argument put forward by those such as Knox.

Have you read John Knox's book, Marcion and the New Testament? For an overview of the controversy, please review this article: http://www.didjesusexist.com/marcion.html, which includes Knox's concessions about Marcionite's buthcery of existing scripture. In short, there is zero evidence from any quarter about Luke and Acts being separate at one time and indisputable evidence that Marcion hacked away at the scriptures he appropriated. Knox himself admits that Marcion slashed huge portions of even his "proto-Luke":

John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95.

Once Knox has given away so much, it's hard to take seriously his argument that Marcion did not also slash away the birth narrative in Luke. It's undisputed that Marcion's theological paradigm could not have permitted any such birth narrative--he thought Jesus appeared on earth as an adult. Moreover, Marcion actually found the entire idea disgusting. He oppose child birth and his teachings on the subject eventually lead to the end of his otherwise successful following. He had every reason in the world to eliminate Luke's birth narrative. Furthermore, if Luke was not written until the middle or later half of the second century, it is inconceivable that Luke would have reproduced a birth narrative so independent of Matthews'. The Gospel of Matthew had reached preiminence in the Christian church, and there is no logical explanation why the revisor of Luke/Acts would have simply ignored it to manufacture his own. If the "orthodox Church" needed a birth narrative, they already had one ready to go.

Indeed, this reveals another great weakeness in Knox's theory. What motive would the church have to appropriate Knox's proto-Luke gospel if it truly was so inconsistent with their purposes? They had their own. Luke was never as popular as Matthew. Moreover, the Church fathers were quite willing to reject many other reputed writings, such as of the Gospel of the Hebrews or of Peter, or the Acts of Peter. None of these were accommodated by the church, revised, and placed in the canon.

And, the birth narrative in Luke is uniquely semitic. It actually bears less literary unity with Acts than the rest of Luke does. This adds even further weight against Knox's theory.

Finally, where is the evidence? This theory is grossly speculative.

In sum, almost all scholars have rejected the Knox reconstruction and dating of Acts because it lacks supporting evidence and fails to rebut the evidence that does exist.

Since letter writing was rather common place and a necessity of Paul's work, Paul was not known primarily as a "letter writer" during his life. It was after he died and the church began to establish a canon of his letters that this aspect of his ministry reached preimenence. To a companion of Paul, Paul would have been seen as a successful missionary to the Gentiles. This actually counts very strongly against Luke having written in the second century. By then, as revealed by 1 Clement and Ignatius and others, Paul's letters had become source material for most of the church. The most logical explanation for Luke's silence on this issue is that Paul's letters were not that important when he wrote.

Paul admits he had to subordinate himself to the apostles in Jerusalem as well. He does so grudgingly, but he does so. If you had read my sections on the Pauline evidence this would have been explained to you quite clearly.

This is a weak argument for silence. Early Church fathers tended to cite and allude without explicit reference. Ignatius is an especially good example of this as he does it equally with the Old Testament and the New Testament. 1 Clement also leaves little doubt that he's quoting the Epistle to the Hebrews, but does not explicitly identify it's provence. Nor does anyone else for another 100 years. Besides, there are very likely allusions to Luke and Acts as early as Ignatius' letters and 2 Clement.

Doherty's dating relies on discredited ideas propounded by John Knox over 50 years ago. It has been rejected by almost the totality of the scholarly community. Mack is the most recent exception, but he naively relies on Robbins' theory to wipe away those pesky we passages. Doherty makes the same mistake.

By far, as almost all scholars have recognized, a date in the latter half of the first century is the most reasonable conclusion.

Specific citations and references would be appreciated. Doherty's web articles can meander. If you have support to provide, please pull it in and use it.

Actually, the rehabilitation of witnesses is a common part of trial practice. Almost any witness will be shown to be unreliable on some things. Of course, whether Papias is reliable or not is completely irrelevant. It is his state of mind and present sense impressions that are at issue. And his state of mind and present sense impression are evidence of the existence of an apostolic tradition. One that was already established in writings and through the teaching of those who identified themselves as having learned of Jesus from his own disciples.

I have not used Papias to prove that Mark wrote Mark and Matthew wrote Matthew. I have used him to show that early in the second century -- and almost certainly stretching back into the first -- Christians thought enough of the apostolic tradition to attribute books about Jesus to witnesses to his earthly ministry.
I discussed this in a previous post. But how do you think Doherty uses Robbins? I provided his explicit citation to Robbins as a way of explaining away the we passages.

The presence of a credible personal account in the narrative is the best evidence. The failure to use Paul's letters is also pretty darn good. The claim that Marcion had the original proto-Luke is not credible evidence at all.

Yes Meier is a Catholic Priest. And a brave one at that since he concludes that the historical evidence does not support a birth of Jesus in Bethlehem. But no, his methodlogies have not been demolished. Though some scholars may disagree with their use and emphasis, they are overwhelmingly accepted by historians and New Testament scholars.

And you have not proven that nobody asked them about Jesus. That is simply question begging.

When did you read Meier's Third Volume?

It's just not that long a gap in ancient history.

I agree with Carrier on this one. Expert testimony, especially such overwhelming testimony, should not just be brushed aside:

It actually proves to be more consistent with my theory than Doherty's.

There is nothing to respond to here.

There is nothing to respond to here either.

I don't care what number of people this applied to. Chapter 2 does refer to those who heard the teachings of Jesus and witnessed his miracles. Are you claiming that because the author of Hebrews did mention the Twelve specifically that this is consistent with the Jesus Myth? What you appear to be doing is defining "Apostolic Tradition" so narrowly that it's irrelevant. If I show that "those who heard" Jesus were the source of authoritative tradition in the churches, then I do not care if it was only of the Twelve, of his family, of a broader group. What I care about is showing that tradition, not prophecy, was authoritative in these churches. And where there are references to "those who heard", such as in Papias, Hebrews, and Luke, the ball is advanced even further against the Jesus Myth.

Trying to get clarification. Which you refuse to provide. Since God is working through the "Lord" how can you claim that this is simply a reference to God? Especially since the author of Hebrews uses the "Lord" to refer to Jesus in other parts of his letter.

I think Paul was speaking about Jesus in 1 Cor. 11:23. Of course.

I've studied the issue quite closely and these passages specifically. I do not have to assume, I am concluding.

As I said, the message from angels are prior revelations that are not at issue. He is focusing on Jesus' own ministry. And I'm not sure that Hebrews was written, like Galatians was, in response to specific false teachers.

I don't date Hebrews based on any statements about apostolic traditions, but mostly because of the references to the Temple and to Timothy.

I dealt with this above.

Actually, Doherty has declined to response to my discussion of these issues.

There really is nothing to add here, but to point out that you simply ignored Doherty's own comments on this matter. That 1 John proves established tradition is more consistent with apostolic tradition than with Doherty's image of a rioutous diversity of churches ruled by prophecy and new teachings.

Appeals to simply english terms is not very persuasive.

Actually, I appreciate this clarification from Doherty. Indeed, I consider it a concession. In his book he argues that there is not the "barest concept" of an Apostolic Tradition and that examples such as 1 John show only churches ruled by new prophecy. It seems now that he simply means there can be no apostolic tradition because there was no historical Jesus. This is question begging. He could have clarified this in his book by simply stating "There can be no Apostolic Tradition because there was no Historical Jesus." That 1 John is testing all prophecy and teaching based on an established tradition that stresses that Jesus was a human being is particularly troubling for his theory, whether he wants to admit it or not.

The equivocation is coming from Doherty. Like I said, he should have simply fessed up to assuming the question at issue.

Papias did not reject any books, he emphasized learning from the disciples of eyewitnesses. And neither one is a liar. They get some things right and some things wrong. And some things we do not know if they were right or wrong. Nevertheless, because Eusebius actually detested Papias, that he gives him the space he does shows that he was dealing with an unavoidable source.

Yes it is, because Papias is speaking of his established practice of searching out information about the ministry of Jesus. Like I said, he was 30 years old at the turn of the century. Assuming he did not do any of this until he wrote is unreasonable. He speaks of an established pattern of seeking those out how new Jesus' disciples. He speaks of books already in existence. Once again, it is unreasonable to assume that these books cropped up in the year Papias wrote.

The picture we get from Papias is not consistent with something that was a recent occurrence. This is more wishful thinking than fair assessment.

I'm skeptical that no one else Papias ran into had heard of the books of Mark and Matthew. Papias speaks as someone who is not relying on books as others do, but prefers to search out those who claim to be disciples of the eyewitnesses. Nor does this explain who all these people were claiming to be such disciples. Again, assuming they came into existence the year Papias wrote is unreasonable.

Nor is there any reason to believe, as Doherty stresses, that Eusebius would have quoted all of Papias' references to Jesus' teachings. Eusebius was quite clear that Papias had written five books on the subject of Jesus' ministry. Assuming that not one of them mentioned anything said by Jesus that found its way into the canonicals is simply silly. Even Paul shows familiarity with traditions attributed to Jesus (whether heavenly or not) which can find corrallaries in the Gospels--not the least of which is the Lord's Supper. Moreover, since Eusebius detested Papias, it's unlikely he would have spent much time going through his Five Books. And since no one was arguing at the time that the Gospels were second century inventions, Eusebius would have been far more comfortable quoting the Gospels to learn what Jesus said.

Of course, I think it very possible that Papias reported teachings of Jesus that are not in our canonicals. After all, he searched for oral tradition in addition to what he knew of written tradition.

I agree with Doherty regarding Matthew, and think he is likely referring to what is mostly a sayings source. I disagree with Mark. Papias doesn't seem to think much of it as a literary work is unsurprising, since the church heavily favored the Gospel of Matthew for many years. So I have not ignored this, I agree with part of it. Perhaps Doherty can be forgiven for assuming I accept the traditional authorship of the Gospel of Matthew.

Since Papias' five volumes on Jesus have not survived, we do not know what materials he may have had access to. But Papias himself explains that he prefers oral tradition to written tradition. Looking back 2000 years later we may disagree with is assesment of values, but we are stuck with the reality of his own preferences. Nor am I one that insists that Papias knew the Gospel of John.

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.

Because the recipient(s) already knew who Luke was and his relationship to Paul. Of course, Luke's relationship with Paul was not really relevant to the Gospel of Luke. In any event, Luke does tell his readers that he is writing down what was handed down to him (and others) through eyewitnesses. He also claims to have carefully investigated these matters.

As for Kirby, you'll have to ask him what he "really" thinks, but what he wrote seems clear.
Since Luke stresses that he received information from eyewitnesses, the claim that he is only referring to previous writings by his careful investigation is unpersuasive. But again, Luke had little connection with the players in the Gospel of Luke. He had more in Acts, where he specifically tells us where he went and what he did. If he was just trying to spruce up his credibility by the use of the first person plural, why not do so in the Gospel, where it would really matter? Obviously because Luke did not participate in those events.

My point was that you had only brought up a few difficulties and that such were not really relevant because that is the nature of ancient writings.

More later. But tell Doherty if he wants to cut out the middle man and drop by, that would be excellent. I'm especially curious about his opinions on the dating of Luke-Acts.

Layman

Ah, backtracking. Good. It is a start.

Since Paul claimed his own direct revelation, and submitted that direct revelation to three of the leading eyewitnesses to Jesus (traditionally), it is unpersuasive to argue that there was no apostolic origin. These guys were apostles.

Why? When what we actually have are the three pillars of the Jerusalem Church: John, Paul, and James. They are not itenierant preachers or wandering apostles.

I have addressed this above. There was a core teaching propogated by the Jerusalem Church that all revelation had to submit itself too. Paul is not simply here claiming that HIS prior teaching was superior to anyone else's. After all, he had to submit that one to the pillars in Jerusalem as well. And he is explicit that what was taught was not just from him, but from "we." This is much more consistent with the Apostolic Tradition than it is with Doherty's riotous diversity.

You are avoiding the issue. I have shown that Doherty's fundamental approach to where Paul get's his teaching is wrong.

It is core because it is central to Paul's gospel. It is apostolic tradition because it was handed on by those who knew Jesus in the Jerusalem Church. Who else would have provided traditions about what Peter saw? Or James? Or the Twelve?

If you do not care about the content of the tradition, why are you quibbling here?

I have done so.
I have proven that he submitted his gospel to that Church. And that he makes a point of mentioning the two weeks he spends with Peter in Jerusalem. And that he talks about "we" apostles and includes Peter, James, and the Twelve in that group because they saw Jesus' in his resurrected body. I also showed that Paul's message was the same as that which was being taught by the Jerusalem Church, and that Paul is passing along plenty of already formed traditions--1 Cor. 15 being the most obvious and obviously derived from a Jerusalem source.

Because he had to submit his teaching to the other apostles's already existing traditions.

One wonders why Doherty spends so much time arguing about the "Pauline" evidence if it's so irrelevant to the issue.

Yes, Paul's subordination of his Gospel to the Apostles in Jerusalem is much more consistent with an Apostolic Tradition than a riotous diversity.

I have shown that he does. And he makes it clear how important it was because he notes that if he did not do so he would be preaching "in vain."

In Paul's case, the most reasonable source of the established tradition is the Apostles in Jerusalem. Especially if it is to them that he submits his gospel for approval.

You can say it as much as you want. But the idea that Peter, James, and John were not apostles seems far fetched.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the only reason you and Doherty do not believe there was an Apostolic Tradition is because you're convinced that there could have been no historical Jesus. Doherty's argument that there was not the "barest concept" of multi-generational traditions being passed down seemed to argue something much more. But since that is now disproven, you and he seem to revert back to the premise you started with. The Didache and 1 John also are examples of churches that relied on established traditions that were considered superior to prophecy or teachings from scripture. Paul also adds much evidence for this proposition.

But you did ignore the arguments. It's evident that you have nothing to say about Paul's admission that he had to go to the Jerusalem Apostles and lay his gospel before them for their approval.

Yes, both views come from spirits. But there are a few reasons why this does not mean what Doherty seems to think. First, they "come from spirits" through human flesh and blood prophets and teachers. Humanity is the medium for these Spirit just as it was with the human Jesus. Second, although both views come from spirits, the means by which the Church knows which one is correct is by established tradition--not by yet another appeal to a spirit.

Your tiny minority that supports your arguments, as well as the arguments themselves, have been refuted.

I have shown that there was established tradition in the first century. And I agree with you that this established tradition is inconsistent with Doherty's theory.

Amaleq13

Paul doesn’t indicate that he “had” to visit the apostles in Jerusalem. He says that the reason he went was because of a revelation. He’d been preaching his gospel for 14 years but, due to an apparently recent revelation, he decides it would be a good idea to make sure the Jerusalem crowd has no objection to what he has been preaching to the gentiles. He describes these men as being “esteemed to be something”(YLT) but immediately makes it clear that their reputation meant nothing to him. He also tells us that they “did add nothing”(YLT, emphasis mine) to him.

Not only does this story lack any suggestion that Paul considered these men to have been the followers of the living Jesus (is it credible to suggest he would consider such men’s reputation meaningless?), it appears to directly contradict your claim that he obtained any “apostolic tradition” from them while there. Paul has already made it very clear that his gospel did not come from any man but directly from the Risen Christ.

I agree that Papias has a concept of “apostolic tradition” but upon what basis do you assume he relying on one already in existence rather than creating one? He describes himself as attempting to gather information from those who were followers of apostles or followers of followers of apostles. That sounds like he is trying to establish an apostolic tradition rather than working with one already in existence.

He makes clear that at least two texts existed. One he believed represented the recollections of Peter and one he believed to be a collection of “oracles” written in Hebrew by Matthew. We are not told the basis for these claims.

Why should we assume that other Christians already believed these claims about these texts?

Why should we assume this is anything more than his own opinion?

Why shouldn’t we question whether this information is as unreliable as his information about the death of Judas?

What is the basis for your “almost certainly” here?

On what basis do you assume that the attributions Papias asserts were part of the texts and not his own opinions or information obtained from a similarly unreliable source as that for his story about the death of Judas?

Layman

Did you read my article? Seriously. I address all this in detail. You have responded to none of those arguments.

To repeat the most pertinent part:

On to Papias.

How could he start an apostolic tradition by talking to people who were claiming to be disciples of eyewitnesses? That makes no sense. He says that there were already books on the subject but he preferred to go after the oral tradition from those claiming to be disciples of eyewitnesses. Papias is unlikely to have invented the existence of these books only to diminish them in favor of oral tradition. Moreover, he writes as if most people were preferring the books by that time, though he does not.

None of this sounds like he's trying to start an apostolic tradition. Rather, he preferred the "good old days" of oral tradition to these more common approach in his day of relying on books.

Furthermore, from Kirby's website is further indication that a date as early as 115 CE may be most appropriate:

Schoedel, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5, page 140.

Because otherwise you have to assume that Papias invented them only to diminish them. It is more reasonable to conclude that he was recounting what others had told him and/or what he had read himself.

Why should we assume he invented this out of nowhere? Obviously he learned it from someone. He would not be likely to invent it so he could downplay their importance.

Whatever the value of his information about Judas, I do not assume that he invented the account. It is by far more reasonable to conclude that he learned it from someone else and passed it along. Especially given his own testimony about searching out oral traditions.

But you are falling into the same mistake JA is. Even if the traditions are of questionable value, the point is they are there. These are much more than the "barest concept" of Apostolic Tradition and there is good reason to place them as early as the first century. Like I said, Papias does not write as someone inventing the AT, he writes as someone trying to get back to the older ways of learning it. More on the issue of dating below.

The preceding explanation. He was a grown Christian man before the first century closed out. He wrote somewhere between 110 and 130 CE. It's not reasonable to conclude that he had only learned of all these oral traditions and the two books and had questioned all those disciples only just prior to his writing his five books. Indeed, it probably took him quite a while to write five books.


I see no reason to assume that Papias invented the source material for five books on the sayings of the Lord. Nor is there any basis to conclude that is five books were radially different than what the Gospels had to say about Jesus--though, like I said, I'm sure there was nonCanonical material in them.

Had Eusebius seen how divergant Papias' writings were from the Gospels, he would have had no mercy on him. Eusebius detests Papias as a borderline heretic because of his Chiliasm and considers him to be of limited intelligence. Had he more ammunition to discredit him with he would hardly have passed it up.

Honestly Amaleq, you seem intent on assuming that everying Papis wrote was wrong. It does not seem that you are trying to understand what they wrote or why, what his motives were or Eusebius'. You only seem interested in trying to find whatever reason you can to ignore his writings all together or spin them in ways that fails to account for the text or the motives at issue.

Ted Hoffman

When Doherty writes "the puzzle was solved", what is your reason for believing that he means "the dating puzzle was solved"?

Secondly, since you have not read Robbins work, read the following passage from it:
By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages
What does the emboldened phrase mean to you in terms of the dating of Acts that Robbins embraces?

There is no disagreement we are modifying. You have argued that Doherty statement that "the puzzle was solved" means "the dating puzzle was solved". DEMONSTRATE that it was the "dating puzzle" he was referring to or withdraw your comments.

This is an expression of hope. It adds no weight to your arguments. In fact its misplaced.

You dont have to promise us anything Layman. We are only interested in what you argue, not what you promise to argue one day. Save us the long list of promises and hopes Layman.

"Radically late" was reckless given there are many scholars whose dating is consistent with Dohertys. Doherty's dating was not bringing "changes in current practices, conditions, or institutions" since his dating was already alive in the minds of many scholars. Next time you get hyperbolic, be ready to answer because you, consellor, shall be called to it.

Even veterans do reckless things. Having studied something does not mean you are incapable of being reckless. The two are not related.

Jacob (earlier): What's clear is that its not only Doherty who dates Acts to the second century.

Layman : Since I did not claim that he was, I'm curious why you think this argument is relevant? Especially after arguing for so long that it is irrelevant how many scholars profess a certain opinion.

Jacob Check up the definition of the word radical. Pay attention to the words you use.

Layman

Obviously Doherty thinks that the notion that Luke/Acts was written by a companion of Paul is refuted by Robbins' work.

I have read Robbins' work. And I never claimed that Robbins dated Acts to the second century. In fact, I never said anything about when Robbins' dates Acts. But the fact remains that some other commentators, like Mack, Price, and Doherty, have used his argument to support their radically late dating of Acts.

Toto

Doherty clearly does not use Robbins to date Acts. The dating of Acts is based on the assumption that Acts was written (or perhaps compiled) in response to Marcion, and was not in existence when Marcion appropriated gLuke as his sole gospel.

Doherty cites Robbins in this context (discussing contractions between Paul's letters and Acts):

p 272-3 Note 123 cites Robbins:

Without getting into the issue of whether Robbins showed that it was a common stylistic device, it is clear that the puzzle is not the dating of Luke, but the "we" passages themselves. Whether or not they indicate personal participation, the passages do not blend into the rest of the narrative. The 'I' that corresponds to the 'we' never identifies himself (or herself), as would be expected when a writer uses the first person for emphasis or as an indication of authenticity. The passages are written in a different rhythm. That is the puzzle that Robbins attempted to solve in his article.