Steven Avery

Yet nobody on IIDB has addressed (much less refuted) the interesting (imho compelling) position of Richard H. Anderson that the Gospel of Luke was addressed to the high priest Theophilus less than a decade after the crucifixion. And that Acts, written about two decades later,was addressed to the same Theophilus. Unlike many skeptic assertions here the view of Richard Anderson was written up in a scholarly paper. This was published by the Evangelical Quarterly and it was noted and discussed by Stephen Carlson on his blog.

So, Toto, when you make a comment like the above, are you assuming all your own assumptions without even the proper explanatory comment or warrant ?

Please remember :

"This is a discussion board, not an opportunity for you to waste our time with cryptic comments."

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Toto

Hi praxeus: it is also not a good idea to waste the moderator's time by failing to list your sources.

Anderson's thesis is ideosyncratic and has not gathered any support in the scholarly community, so it is not so surprizing that no one here has taken the time to mention it or refute it.

For the record:

Stephen Carlson's blog scroll down to "Kratistos Theophilos" and not his skeptical comments: Theophilus: A Proposal from Evangelical Quarterly, 69:3, (1997), 195-215. I. Howard Marshall, Editor

Anderson's blog - Kratistos Theophilos

Steven Avery

So Toto, if mythicism has a "handful of maverick scholars" in support do you therefore reject it as a theory ?

Or are you moving transparent goalposts around ?

Do you have a substantive actual objection to the Anderson view ?

There is absolutely no consensus whatsoever about the "synoptic problem" so an appeal to the scholarly view on that is a red herring.

Incidentally, even later dates than Anderson's would refute your original blithe assertion about no Gospels in the "era" of Jesus. (You seemed to be a bit deliberately vague, actually.) I simply offered Anderson's because I feel the issue is important and the evidence compelling.

Many people don't even know that the high priest was named Theophilus around 40 AD and that his family remained involved in the priesthood until the time of Acts. All sorts of alternate theories are thrown around about this Greek name, apparently without awareness that it was the name of a Jewish high priest in the era of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The issue of the Prologue of Luke is fascinating, since skeptics use that all the time *against* the truthfulness of the Gospels, if the predecessors were Mark or Matthew or John. Of course there is no statement, or even implication, that those were the predecessors to whom Luke referred. From memory, Richard Anderson and John Lupia and others have addressed this question. This has been discussed on scholarly forums, I would have to check Richard's paper to see if he discusses it there.

I have previously given links and references to these topics on IIDB ..

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...70#post4252470
Luke --> Theophilus the high priest 40 AD

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...=1#post4328622
Dating the Gospels Pre-70 CE - IIDB

They were not really addressed before here in any substantive manner.

However above I was more pointing out the blithe, unsupported nature of your assertion than starting a Luke-Theophilus thread.

One would think that a 'moderator' would be especially careful not to make unsupported claims, especially if the mods tend to jump into other threads asking for support of this and that from one side of a discussion.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

Just keep taking words out of context.

There are two issues: are we remiss on this Board if we do not acknowledge Anderson's theory? Answer: No, his theory has attracted only some fringe support, and many have not heard of it. The other issue: Is the theory nevertheless true? Answer: No It does go against a mountain of evidence, including the very language of Luke.

Yes. Follow the link in Stephen's blog to Fatigue in the Synoptics. I could come up with more reasons, but that seems like overkill.

Are you saying that we are not justified in accepting that Luke copied material from an earlier gospel (call it Mark for convenience) as well as other sources? Is there no scholarly consensus for that, not to mention that the evidence for it is right before your face if you chose to actually read the gospels?

Theophilus was not an uncommon name. There's no particular reason to identify the Theophilus mentioned in Luke with this Theophilus. The idea that Acts was written to a high priest in the Jewish religion has no support - why would Acts then portray the Romans so favorably and the Jews as mostly mobs of thugs bent on violence?

No, skeptics do not use the Prologue against the truthfulness of the Gospels. It is only used by scholars in support of the notion that aLuke was not an eyewitness, but composed his work based on earlier sources.

Steven Avery

Why not simply answer the question ?

"if mythicism has a "handful of maverick scholars" in support do you therefore reject it as a theory ?"

Or is it a question of whose ox is gored ?

Why is the "context" any different ? At least in the 40 AD Luke question we have a solid scholarly paper published with cogent arguments. Shouldn't a skeptic especially be the first to say that its the clarity and quality of the actual argument rather than a counting of scholars or a belittling of those with whom you do not agree as "maverick". Doesn't a skeptic shoot himself in the foot if he takes the Toto position ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto There are two issues: are we remiss on this Board if we do not acknowledge Anderson's theory? Answer: No, his theory has attracted only some fringe support, and many have not heard of it.

On this board you had full orientation with URL's, twice, so you are without excuse. And is it your view that folks reject mythicism because "many have not heard of it" ? Many have not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto The other issue: Is the theory nevertheless true? Answer: No It does go against a mountain of evidence, including the very language of Luke.

Balderdash.
You are simply reading into Luke what he does not say.
And what is the "mountain of evidence".
Let's see what Toto gives ! ---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Yes. Follow the link in Stephen's blog to Fatigue in the Synoptics. I could come up with more reasons, but that seems like overkill.

Amazing.

You must be in strange place to give for your definitive proof of Markan priority an article that starts with ..

"Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark's rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible."

And then Mark Goodacre doesn't even discuss a 40AD Luke, Theophilus as high priest or the Richard Anderson paper !

Toto.. please .. did you even read the Mark Goodacre paper before offering it as your mountain of conclusive, definitive evidence against Anderson and a 40AD Luke ????

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto .. The idea that Acts was written to a high priest in the Jewish religion has no support...

One question, Toto. How much time have you spent reading the Anderson paper and considering the issues he raises before making this fiat declaration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto No, skeptics do not use the Prologue against the truthfulness of the Gospels..

You can find skeptics who argue like this:

"if Mark was earlier, and Luke was using Mark as one of the sources, why would he give an implied critique .. he must have considered Mark as deficient/errant"

Granted such issues are a bit technical and are often passed over, coming to play most when the Prologue and "priority" issues are being discussed.

Here is a comment about your wondering about the tone of Luke's writing in Acts and the high priest.

http://ltdahn-stluke.blogspot.com/index.html
The Gospel of St. Luke - Lee Dahn
Identifying Theophilus

Luke makes much of Paul's persecution-mission as having been sactioned by the priesthood (Acts 9.1-2,14; 22.5; 26.12). Yet, Paul was converted to the cause which he persecuted. Again, here Luke demonstrates the corruption of the priesthood in contrast to God's victorious campaign through the apostles. What better way to make an example of this than by telling of Paul's conversion from the priesthood's cause to this new Jesus-movement, and in great detail, taking up more than half of Luke's story in Acts.

Thus, the negative portrayal of the priesthood in Acts, and the persecutions against believers joined in by Jewish rabble, was quite deliberate and fits well with trying to help Theophilus really understand the events regarding Jesus; even more excellently than he had received from his granddaughter, Johanna. Luke was speaking a hard word, truthfully.

Incidentally, there are interesting historical-gospel-timing issues brought up by other writers in addition to Richard Anderson. An example is John Lupia at the schlolarly forum synoptic-l :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/synoptic-l/message/8138
[Synoptic-L] Lukan Priority - 05/2002

where he discusses the 'eclipse' mentioned by Thallus and the name Caesarea-Philippi.

Incidentally I do see weaknesses in the approaches of some of these writers, especially if they try to support Luke at the expense of the accuracy of the other Gospels. However I have seen nothing in the theory of a 40-AD Luke that diminishes the other Gospels, and often those concerns (e.g. about Mark) are simply because the writers are "stuck" with the deficient, errant minority alexandrian text because they work in the scholarship milieu where that confusion is common and they are accepting the blunder texts.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

It's really no fun to argue with you when you so obviously misread what I write.

I am quite familiar with Mark Goodacre's paper on fatigue. It is offered as proof against Lukan priority. Or did you miss the part about Anderson's theory requiring Lukan priority?

I skimmed through the paper. It appears to be well written and well argued; the author is a lawyer by profession. But this paper is clearly proposing a theory that its author knows is outside the mainstream, and the theory has few facts in support of its thesis - just that some things that are puzzles might be explained under this theory. The theoriy here has not swept through the academy, even among conservative evangelicals who would want to date Luke as early as possible, since Anderson's theory will only work with Lukan priority, and Anderson does not provide any good explanation for his rejection of Markan priority.

Are you arguing for Lukan priority here?

I don't read it that way. Luke was speaking in cartoon characters - murderous Jews persecute virtuous Paul. Paul turns to gentiles to receive his gospel, including many rich or prominent Romans.

These are offhand comments, no well developed arguments. {emphasis supplied} Not a lot to work with there.

dog-on

Maybe Marcion's sponge never actually touched ur-Lukas...

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

For the third time Toto refuses to answer the question of a level playing field.

"if mythicism has a "handful of maverick scholars" in support do you therefore reject it as a theory ? ... Why is the "context" any different ? "

To make it much worse, this 'moderator' calls the very significant question "crap" because it shows that he applies an unequal measure when talking about theories he likes (mythicism) and theories he doesn't like (an early NT). What childishness.

Similar with his silly assertion that the view should be rejected because "many have not heard of it" !

He also "snips" the fact that his original assertion about no Gospels in the "era" of Jesus fails to ANY early dating (e.g. 50 AD Mark), not just Luke in 40 AD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto I am quite familiar with Mark Goodacre's paper on fatigue. It is offered as proof against Lukan priority. Or did you miss the part about Anderson's theory requiring Lukan priority?

Toto, why don't you acknowledge and admit that Goodacre doesn't discuss Anderson's paper nor is Lukan priority his concern in the paper ? That is why you offer no quotes. Why write in a sleight-of-hand manner so that a reader might think that Goodacre is discussing those issues ? Clearly your bar of "proof" is abysmally low. Barely do you offer evidence, and you call it proof !.

(It would be like two evangelical Christians having a discussion about the exact nature of the resurrection, and it being offered as proof against mythicism.)

And the irony is that Goodacre is honest about the truth, that Markan priority is very difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto I skimmed through the paper. It appears to be well written and well argued; the author is a lawyer by profession. But this paper is clearly proposing a theory that its author knows is outside the mainstream, and the theory has few facts in support of its thesis - just that some things that are puzzles might be explained under this theory.

Be honest with your readers. There are few "facts" which support alternate theories like "Q" or Markan priority, as Mark Goodacre says very clearly in the beginning of the paper you reference !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto The theory here has not swept through the academy

Is that your standard ? Has mythicism "swept through the academy" ?. Does the academy even know about it ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto even among conservative evangelicals who would want to date Luke as early as possible, since Anderson's theory will only work with Lukan priority, and Anderson does not provide any good explanation for his rejection of Markan priority.

Your own referenced paper from Mark Goodacre starts by stating essentially that Markan priority is on a bed of straw anyway. The various folks arguing for an early Luke discuss many problems with the Markan theory in various places, and why Luke in 40AD is a superior view, you are totally mistaken if you think the paper of Anderson was supposed to be a proof of Lukan priority. He wasn't writing a 300-page paper on Q and synoptic theories, he was offering support for Theophilus being the high priest addressed by Luke. On that he did an excellent job.

And Mark Goodacre states how many evidences can be viewed in opposing manners (based on your glasses). btw .. the rough Greek of Mark can easily be seen as no problem at all if he wrote in Latin or Graeco-Latin, per Hoskier, as we have discussed here. Another point often missed by the "Academy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto I don't read it that way. Luke was speaking in cartoon characters ..

And this demonstrates your actual objection to the Richard Anderson paper. Simply put, it is not compatible with skeptic and mythicist views of Jesus and the early Christians.

So why not simply state the obvious rather than straining with stupid and inconsistent objections like "handful of maverick scholars" ?

Your problem is that if you admit the obvious here you will have a hard time continuing to make your unsupported flippant fiat declarations like the one that initiated this thread, your 'era error'.

So rather than acknowledge that there is no level playing field here when it comes to flippant assertions by moderators and pet skeptic posters you would prefer to work with diversionary sidewinders like above.

Shalom,
Steven

Toto

,

Hi praxeus!

The next line should be "my name is praxeus and I'm an internet addict. I can't let go of a discussion." Or maybe that's my line.

OK, praxeus, listen up. Here's your guide to Skepticism 101:

No one has ever said that a theory should be rejected just because only a handful of maverick scholars believe in it. We all know of theories that are now fully proven, which were once just the dreams of a few maverick scholars.

But this is how the scholarly world works: scholars bounce ideas off each other, and in some cases, a consensus develops. If the scholars are doing their job, this process will weed out the obvious errors, and may get us closer to the truth. This is what peer review is all about. We know that we don't have THE TRUTH, but we hope to get closer.

So the consensus is usually right! Nevertheless, sometimes the consensus is wrong. So someone going against the consensus has to be especially persistant and creative in getting his or her message across. At one point, belief in Q was an overwhelming consensus; Mark Goodacre has turned that around, and now there is a good deal of Q-skepticism.

In your case, you have one amateur who has written one article defending an outlandlish date for Luke, which goes against lots of other evidence. It's interesting, but he hasn't made his case.

Your point being? None of the proponents of early dating have made their case.

Goodacre does not discuss Anderson - why should he? But he is discussing the synoptic problem, which directly relates to the issue at hand.

You missed that point completely.

Try reading the article beyond the first few sentences. It's not so difficult!

Have you even read the paper? Do you know what the issues are? I think not.

Mythicism is a minority position, and it is making its case.

The 3 people you have found who argue for a 40 CE date for Luke do not seem to have addressed the problem with Markan priority.



Feel free to support the idea that Luke could have written the language he chose to a high priest. I won't hold my breath.

khalimirov

I find it quite amusing that you would refer to an article by Mark Goodacre, since Goodacre himself holds to Markan priority. You can check out his two excellent books "the synoptic problem: a way through the maze (or via: amazon.co.uk)" and "the case against Q (or via: amazon.co.uk)" to see how strongly he defends Markan priority. It's very convincing to me.

This is your quote from Goodacre:

"Many believe in the priority of Mark but few are able to give a good reason for it. Arguments that were once thought to be decisive, like appeals to Mark's rough Greek or the ordering of triple tradition material, are now seen to be unconvincing and reversible."

So apparently "few are able to give good reason for it". Luckily for us Mark Goodacre happens to be a scholar who CAN give good reasons for Markan priority. Check out his books.