Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-20-2012, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://www.shuckandjive.org/2012/03/...t-ehrmans.html

Thanks for the link. Apparently Ehrman writes "the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels". He seems to believe that Acts contains speeches that predate the Gospels, which is interesting.

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://www.shuckandjive.org/2012/03/...t-ehrmans.html

Thanks for the link. Apparently Ehrman writes "the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels". He seems to believe that Acts contains speeches that predate the Gospels, which is interesting.

Don't worry. Bart is bound to have produced references and evidence for this.

After all, this is a work of scholarship.

la70119 · 03-20-2012, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://www.shuckandjive.org/2012/03/...t-ehrmans.html

Thanks for the link. Apparently Ehrman writes "the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels". He seems to believe that Acts contains speeches that predate the Gospels, which is interesting.

Quite obviously, the "hanged upon the tree" line attributed to Peter (or is it Kephas?) and Paul were taken right out of the old testament: Deut. 21;22-23, LXX edition.

GakuseiDon · 03-20-2012, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Apparently Ehrman writes "the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels". He seems to believe that Acts contains speeches that predate the Gospels, which is interesting.

Quite obviously, the "hanged upon the tree" line attributed to Peter (or is it Kephas?) and Paul were taken right out of the old testament: Deut. 21;22-23, LXX edition.

:lol: True enough.

maryhelena · 03-20-2012, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://www.shuckandjive.org/2012/03/...t-ehrmans.html

Thanks for the link. Apparently Ehrman writes "the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels". He seems to believe that Acts contains speeches that predate the Gospels, which is interesting.

If that is the route Ehrman has chosen to go - using Acts to support his historical gospel JC - he really is on slippery ground. Dating Acts prior to the gospels??

Quote:

Page 9

When was Acts written? Scholarly consensus has dated Luke and Acts at c.85, with a dwindling number who place the work in the 60s and a large minority who prefer the last decade of the first century. The consensus date is a convenient compromise that seems to demand little proof. I have argued elsewhere at considerable length that Acts belongs to the second decade of the second century (c.115). the author’s use of Paul’s letters and his probably knowledge of the Antiquities of Josephus rule out a date before 100...................

Acts was written after the Gospel. As much as a decade could have elapsed between the time when the author began to write Luke and the completion of Acts, but this is no more than a guess. The two volumes are related.

Page 5

One cannot write the story of Christian origins by giving Acts a makeover. If the story cannot be recovered, it is better to acknowledge ignorance than to build a house upon sand. Besides, Acts is not directly interested in the story of Christian origins. its purpose is to show the legitimacy of the gentile mission associated with Paul.............Luke's nearly perfect "crime" is not just what he neglected to mention, but his artistry in convincing readers that he had given them "the big picture" when what he has painted is merely a distorted portrait of one (admittedly major) segment of the whole.

The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Ehrman verse Pervo - no contest.

Quote:

Ehrman: "...the evidence of the historical Jesus does not in the least depend exclusively on whether this, that, or the other Gospel story is historically accurate. It is based on other considerations, which I set out in the earlier chapters, including the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels." p. 190

http://www.shuckandjive.org/2012/03/...t-ehrmans.html

What is fascination to me is that, from what little we have available from Ehrman's book re his position on a historical gospel JC - is that, like some mythicists - he wants to side-step the gospel JC story and look to Paul for support?????

And heaven help us all - it's the gospel JC story that is the BIG DEAL for Christianity - and yet it's that story that some of those who argue for an ahistorical JC and now Ehrman - want to run from :huh:

Paul the 'trump' card for the mythicists and for Ehrman - looks like check-mate to me...

Vorkosigan · 03-20-2012, 05:13 AM

Quote:

If this review is an accurate summary of the contents, all we can do is estimate how small the pieces will be after Doherty is through with it.

LOL. What was he thinking? Cash in and then bail?

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 05:18 AM

Bart is defending his book http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html

maryhelena · 03-20-2012, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Bart is defending his book http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html

Great comment on the HuffPost Ehrman article:

Quote:

I assume this article was supposed to encourage people to read your book. But why would I read something by someone who dismisses people who disagree with him by deriding them, and then making declarative claims, with only the evidence that other people agree with you.

Christopher Daemon

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-20-2012, 07:46 AM

Starting off the HuffPo article by comparing mythicists to Holocaust deniers and Birthers is not a good sign. Talk about poisoning the well.

By the way, what is Ehrman referring to when he says that we have Aramaic sources dating to "a year or two" after Jesus' death? That's news to me.

Steven Carr · 03-20-2012, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Starting off the HuffPo article by comparing mythicists to Holocaust deniers and Birthers is not a good sign. Talk about poisoning the well.

By the way, what is Ehrman referring to when he says that we have Aramaic sources dating to "a year or two" after Jesus' death? That's news to me.

What is Ehrman referring to? That's an easy question.

He is referring to his references , isn't he? That's what scholars do.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-20-2012, 05:18 AM	#57
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Bart is defending his book http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...b_1349544.html

03-20-2012, 07:46 AM	#59
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Starting off the HuffPo article by comparing mythicists to Holocaust deniers and Birthers is not a good sign. Talk about poisoning the well. By the way, what is Ehrman referring to when he says that we have Aramaic sources dating to "a year or two" after Jesus' death? That's news to me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.