Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 03-03-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I indicated that a consensus was not worth anything unless we know the basis for the consensus and the reasons underlying it. All you have is the assertion that everybody believes that Acts was not based on Paul's letters. I would like to know what is behind that consensus, or is it just moke and mirrors?

Toto, do you have amnesia?

You just asked me whether I could demonstrate that there even existed a consensus.

in the meantime, Layman, can you prove your assertion that there is a scholarly consensus that Luke did not have access to the Epistles?

Do you remember asking me this question or not?

And we've already exchange many blows on this exact issue on the other thread, why should I start from scratch?

Toto · 03-03-2003, 02:25 PM

And now I'm asking you what that consensus is based on - actual data? or smoke and mirrors? We have not discussed this exact issue before.

My opening post, para 2:

Quote:

Is there a scholarly consensus that the author of Acts did not have access to Paul�s Epistles, and if so what does that mean?

On the other thread, you just asserted that everyone knew that Luke did not use the Epistles. Perhaps you could point out where you went beyond that.

Your opening post there said:

Quote:

It is commonly accepted by scholars from across the spectrum that Acts was written independent of the Pauline Epistles.

What did you have in mind when you wrote that sentence?

Later you said:

Quote:

In fact, if Acts was written without the benefit of Paul's epistles -- as is widely agreed -- then some other theory must account for the impressive amount of accurate information relayed to the author.

Later:

Quote:

You are right that if Luke used Paul's letters that the similarities are not very surprising. I accept the consensus that Luke did not do so. If you decide that Luke did use Paul's letters, then I think you are reasonable to disregard the significance of this post.

but I'm not going to spend all day going through that thread. I do not remember you addressing the issue of whether this alleged consensus has any basis in fact.

And I have just shown that the consensus does not extend "across the spectrum."

Layman · 03-03-2003, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
And now I'm asking you what that consensus is based on - actual data? or smoke and mirrors? We have not discussed this exact issue before.

Perhaps you could have let me know you were changing the topic? Accusing me of not answering questions not yet asked is rather disenguous.

Quote:

On the other thread, you just asserted that everyone knew that Luke did not use the Epistles. Perhaps you could point out where you went beyond that.

No, actually I responded to several of your arguments intended to show that Acts relied on Paul's letters.

For now I take it we can agree that there is a widespread majority opinion among scholars that Acts does not rely on Paul's letters? Or was your shift in topics earlier an attempt to distract attention from this point?

Toto · 03-03-2003, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Perhaps you could have let me know you were changing the topic? Accusing me of not answering questions not yet asked is rather disenguous.

No, actually I responded to several of your arguments intended to show that Acts relied on Paul's letters.

For now I take it we can agree that there is a widespread majority opinion among scholars that Acts does not rely on Paul's letters? Or was your shift in topics earlier an attempt to distract attention from this point?

I can tell I'm dealing with a professional at dodging questions here.

I don't have time right now to go through that thread and look for the responses that you allege you made. I started this thread because I thought that the topic had not been dealt with. But I could be wrong. Perhaps you could link to your responses or repeat them?

No, we cannot agree that there is a widespread majority opinion among scholars that Acts does not rely on Paul's letters. There may be a majority, depending on who's counting, but it is not widepsread enough to include all schools of thought. I quoted one scholar on the other thread and several on this who challenged the idea. So I consider the issue open.

Layman · 03-03-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I can tell I'm dealing with a professional at dodging questions here.

I don't have time right now to go through that thread and look for the responses that you allege you made. I started this thread because I thought that the topic had not been dealt with. But I could be wrong. Perhaps you could link to your responses or repeat them?

Sorry Toto, I'm not going to rehash other arguments in a new thread because you got tired of the old one. If you want to make the case that Acts relies on Paul's letters go ahead.

Quote:

No, we cannot agree that there is a widespread majority opinion among scholars that Acts does not rely on Paul's letters. There may be a majority, depending on who's counting, but it is not widepsread enough to include all schools of thought. I quoted one scholar on the other thread and several on this who challenged the idea. So I consider the issue open.

I never said the issue was closed. I never said that no scholar disagreed with the vast majority of other scholars. Just that most scholars from varying background disagree with you. I never said unanimity.

I believe, as R. Brown attests, that it is "widely held" among scholars that Acts did not rely on Paul's letters as sources. I did note several reasons I've seen mentioned as a basis for this, including the differences in language, events, and theology. Indeed, the very lack of any reference to Paul doing what he was most famous for after the first century--writing letters--indicates a stage of Christian history where Paul was remembered most for his actions, not his letters.

You refer to one scholar in another thread who apparently, true. But which "several" scholars have you cited to here? I was under the impression that Frank McGuire rejected the very idea that Galatians was written by Paul at all. And what is his academic background, BTW?

Toto · 03-03-2003, 05:19 PM

A few pertinent remarks on the scholarly consensus, as long as I'm looking at it (and Layman is avoiding the issue):

From this book review of Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament

Quote:

Reading Raymond Brown's Introduction might lead readers to conclude that despite all the bibliographical entries and footnotes, there really is a significant consensus among a great majority of NT scholars, with respect to both method and results in NT study. To some extent, this conclusion is correct.

But behind the consensus that Brown represents lie much more variety and disagreement than one might suspect, particularly regarding the history of Jesus and of early Christianity. The distinctive and controversial views of the "cutting edge" interpreters minimized by Brown probably exercise more influence in NT studies than he cares to admit. (Glancing at the program of the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature should prove my point.)

In reality, NT studies is currently a highly diverse field, with various methods and agendas vying for prominence. Some NT scholars, such as Stephen Fowl of Loyola College in Maryland, would say it is not merely diverse, but "fragmented." Candler School of Theology's Luke Timothy Johnson has gone even further, arguing that the discipline is in crisis. Whether merely diverse, fragmented, or in crisis, NT studies is experiencing the same kind of predicament that all fields of study are undergoing in this postmodern era. Old certainties have collapsed, the possibility of "objective" interpretations is denied, and venerable scholarly methods are supplanted or supplemented. No method or perspective is judged inherently preferable to another.

Layman · 03-03-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
A few pertinent remarks on the scholarly consensus, as long as I'm looking at it (and Layman is avoiding the issue):

From this book review of Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament

Nice to see you relying on Christianity Today as an authoritative source Toto. Your article says nothing about Paul's letters and Acts, nor does it speak to incidents were Brown specifically relates to his readers the state of scholarship on a specific point.

And which issue am I avoiding? You ask me a specific question and then start whining when answer it. I can't be "dodging" an issue when I'm answering the exact question you asked.

Toto · 03-03-2003, 06:02 PM

The issue you have been dodging throughout all this is, what does it mean if there is a consensus on any issue? Why should I care if there is a consensus?

The comments in Christianity Today are not specific to Luke-Acts and Paul's Epistles, but they would seem to apply.

You are the one who claimed that there is a scholarly consensus that the author of Luke-Acts did not make use of Paul's Epistles. You seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof onto me to show that Paul did make some use of the Epistles. I claimed that your 54 points of correlation between Paul's letters and Acts are an indication that the author had access to Paul's epistles, but you just brushed that off without an argument, because there was some sort of consensus that Paul didn't do that.

I guess you have no answer.

Layman · 03-03-2003, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The issue you have been dodging throughout all this is, what does it mean if there is a consensus on any issue? Why should I care if there is a consensus?

How can I be dodging an issue that was not raised? You asked me whether I could offer any evidence that there existed such a consensus. I realize that the term "consensus" is problematic. But I did show that the position I ascribe to is "widely held."

Quote:

The comments in Christianity Today are not specific to Luke-Acts and Paul's Epistles, but they would seem to apply.

No they do not. They do not speak to specific claims by Brown as to particular positions in NT scholarship.

Quote:

You are the one who claimed that there is a scholarly consensus that the author of Luke-Acts did not make use of Paul's Epistles.

Again, I understand the term "consensus" to be problematic. Strong majority position will suffice. And I backed up my claim.

Quote:

You seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof onto me to show that Paul did make some use of the Epistles. I claimed that your 54 points of correlation between Paul's letters and Acts are an indication that the author had access to Paul's epistles, but you just brushed that off without an argument, because there was some sort of consensus that Paul didn't do that.

I guess you have no answer.

No answer? I responded to every single one of your examples of how my correlations supposedly showed Acts dependence on Paul's letters. You bailed out and started another thread and pretended we had not discussed this issue. Perhaps you realized that your case was extremely weak and you are now trying to shift the burden of proof. LOL. Half the time you couldn't even decide whether I had really established a correlation or not!

And I gave you a nutshell of why most scholars reject your conclusion here.

And I'm still waiting for you to point out where you posted "several" scholars who rejected the majority position?

Toto · 03-03-2003, 06:26 PM

Are you being deliberately dense?

This thread is not about the correlation between Acts and the Epistles. We all know that there is some correlation.

You have never responded to the claim that Paul relied on the Epistles other than to brush it off because of some "widely held" alleged consensus that he didn't. I'm trying to get you to articulate what is behind that consensus, if it really is a consensus that deserves the name. Pointing at Raymond Brown doesn't answer the question.

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

03-03-2003, 06:02 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The issue you have been dodging throughout all this is, what does it mean if there is a consensus on any issue? Why should I care if there is a consensus? The comments in Christianity Today are not specific to Luke-Acts and Paul's Epistles, but they would seem to apply. You are the one who claimed that there is a scholarly consensus that the author of Luke-Acts did not make use of Paul's Epistles. You seem to be trying to shift the burden of proof onto me to show that Paul did make some use of the Epistles. I claimed that your 54 points of correlation between Paul's letters and Acts are an indication that the author had access to Paul's epistles, but you just brushed that off without an argument, because there was some sort of consensus that Paul didn't do that. I guess you have no answer.

03-03-2003, 06:26 PM	#20
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Are you being deliberately dense? This thread is not about the correlation between Acts and the Epistles. We all know that there is some correlation. You have never responded to the claim that Paul relied on the Epistles other than to brush it off because of some "widely held" alleged consensus that he didn't. I'm trying to get you to articulate what is behind that consensus, if it really is a consensus that deserves the name. Pointing at Raymond Brown doesn't answer the question.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.