Tharmas

Layman let me point out to you (again!) that Acharya is in fact highly credentialed: she’s head of historical research for the American Anthropological Research Foundation (AARF!).

GOD IS BORG! YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!

Toto

Acharya S. has her defenders, who would contest some of the UFO-type charges Layman has made against her. But her appeal is not based on her skepticism, it's based on her positive statements (I haven't read enough of her to tell you what.)

Robert Price described her as the Josh McDowell of Jesus Myth. She took offense at that.

Toto

Doherty follows liberal scholarship and dates Timothy to the second century. He interprets the term "brothers" as refering to believers, not siblings. He has answered all of your objections, I won't repeat it here.

You are speculating that there was some oral tradition. That's just speculation with nothing much to support it.

There are a lot of reasons to question the portrait of Mohammed from the Qu'ran, which is another topic.

Doherty does not simply assert that Acts was written later. He cites a work by John Knox, which I have not read yet, and other scholarship. Your idea that Acts was written before 70 is not accepted by any scholars outside the circle of believers. It's true there is no mention of Paul's death, but there may have been a reason for that (his death may have been so far in the past that there were no details the author of Act knew about or cared to include.) There are other indications that Acts must have been written (or finalized) later. Briefly, the same author appears to have written Luke and Acts. Luke can be dated to well past 70 CE: Luke relies on Mark, which is dated after 70 because of its description of the destruction of the Temple.
In part 3 Doherty asserts:

You are mocking the theory that most non-evangelical scholars think is the most likely explanation. It has a lot of scholarship and reason behind it, not just faith. Doherty does not date Mark to 90.

There is clear linguistic evidence of Matthew and Luke copying Mark. There is also clear evidence that both authors changed critical details when it seemed convenient for their own theologies.

Doherty is not making up the rules. He does nothing very radical in dating the gospels. It only appears strange if you have been confined to Biblical literalism with blinders on.

When you find clear evidency of copying (they didn't have laws on plagiarism in those days), and then find a few details altered or improved, you have literary evidence that is hard to explain away.

I recommend <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=620" target="_blank">Who Wrote the New Testament</a> by Burton Mack or other books from the Infidels <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/booklist.asp" target="_blank">bookstore</a>.

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

lpetrich

Selfish act? LOL.

And Paul could always have spent more time in Jerusalem.

(a lot of stuff about Paul being busy, on the run etc...)

So what?

Radorth

A perfect example of what I'm saying.

No he doesn't, at least not on some places. That was one of Carriers complaints! he also says:

"A special remark is needed for the most unfortunate example of hyperbole: Doherty's ad hominem, "no serious scholar dates either [Matthew or Luke] before the year 80" (p. 194). Such a sentence has no business in anything a serious scholar writes. Several scholars whom I would indeed regard as serious, and competent, do in fact date these texts earlier (even if not greatly so), and Doherty seems to be maligning them here without the dignity of a trial. The fact is, there is no evidence these texts weren't written earlier, by at least a decade, maybe two--yes, it is unlikely, but not impossible, and arguing this certainly does not deprive me of the right to be called a serious scholar."

So they could have been written 2 decades earlier? In which case Doherty's case is severely weakened?

Huh? So why couldn't he have written Acts before Luke?

Radorth

Radorth

Of course he is, when he starts saying the similarities of the Gospel's means they were "slavishly copied" from one source (Yeah Jesus' mouth and the apostles are the "Q" source). And by saying so he is refuting the skeptics rule (used when expedient) that too many similarities indicate collusion to create a false story. He tells us even Luke "slavishly copied" the mysterious source, while you tell us they changed it quite a bit. Then other skeptics rule that there are just too many differences, so that proves they are false. It's hilarious really.

Here's my rule: If a position only gets more and more complicated with age, is grasped by few people, and raises more questions than it answers, you shouldn't base any important decisions on it. Which is why I don't believe all kinds of stuff other "fundies" believe. (Another thread for another day perhaps)

In a nutshell, the problem with Doherty is that he can prove almost none of the assertions on which his theory rests. He quotes his favorite scholars and basically claims they alone are scholars. Scholars-scmolars. I can find a scholar who'll say almost anything.

I don't suppose many here noticed Layman and I quoting our unfavorite scholars, but that is because we can refute skeptics with their own logic and reason, but Doherty cannot do that because his case depends mostly on his own novel interpretations, or those of carefully selected scholars.

Too bad. The puzzle is not solved, and even Carrier admits that a rebuttal done right could tip the scales.

Radorth

[ September 08, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Skeptical

I don't completely buy Doherty's complete argument, although I think he does raise some interesting questions. However, I think you are not giving this particular argument the proper weight.

Doherty's argument regarding Paul is that IF Paul believed that Jesus had recently lived on earth and been crucified recently, he would naturally have wanted to go and visit Jeruselem and see the areas where his recently departed savior had met his untimely end. He would have wanted to spend more time in Jeruselem with the apostles who personally knew Jesus and find out more about the details of his life. He would have spent much more than just the few days reported in the NT. Whether or not you buy this argument, that is what the argument is.

One can always say that Paul's view was that Jesus' earthly experience was not all that important, and this may be true. However, it seems you are acting as if Doherty's line of reasoning is ludicrous, which in my view it clearly is not. It may not be correct, but it is certainly plausible and cannot just be dismissed out of hand as you appear to be trying to do.

Steven Carr

Is there any chance of getting any evidence that Michael Grant is an atheist?

Steven Carr

Explain how France trashed Wells.

JP Holding, hardly the most atheist of commentators writes about France

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html</a>

'Respected Christian scholar R. T. France, for example, does not believe that the Tacitus passage provides sufficient independent testimony for the existence of Jesus [Franc.EvJ, 23] and agrees with G. A. Wells that the citation is of little value. It is unfortunate that France so readily agreed with Wells' assessment.'

So agreeing with Wells is thoroughly trashing him?

Steven Carr

I'm not sure I understand this at all.

First of all, it is a Biblical principle (expounded in Mark 14:46) that witnesses are discredited if their testimony does not agree, even if they agree on the main points.

I don't know of any sceptics rule that too many similarities mean 'collusion'. Could you give examples of sceptic sites where they point out similarities in Biblical stories and conclude that the two authors 'colluded' (as opposed to forgery or just plain lying)?

(I am right in thinking that by 'collusion' , you mean two or more people getting together to fabricate stories?'

Certainly, many sceptics make the point that copying means copying. They can show that Luke copied from Mark, just as they can show that Joseph Smith copied from the King James Bible.

And people can slavishly copy one part of a source while also changing another part (assuming that the source has more than one sentence on it, it is quite easy to do).


Many liberal Christians (eg Sanders and Mark Goodacre) do not believe in Q, and also many conservative Christians also deny that the early Christians wrote down what Jesus said. The assertion that Q existed or not cuts across sceptic/non-sceptic lines.