Bede

Thanks Peter. I'll try to look up Robbins and report back.

B

Sauron

Not necessarily. It may merely indicate a desire to harmonize one account with another - regardless of the truth content involved. I.e., striving for consistency.

Sauron

Not vague at all, nor are they mere assertions.

He's talking about your exchange with SingleDad, an individual whom no one around here would accuse of being inflammatory or especially ill-tempered. SingleDad was not so much interested in the argument at hand, but in the meta-argument: the way you engage the debate, and the steps you take to arrive at conclusions.

Indeed, he spent several posts outlining the fallacies of your thinking processes:

I apologize to Toto for hijacking this thread to a certain extent to confront Layman for poisoning the well. However, it seems impossible to have an evidentiary discussion with someone as paranoid as Layman appears to be, so perhaps my comments will have some value.

Also note that this post is not an ad hominem fallacy: I do not imply that Layman's technical flaws are directly relevant to Toto's substantive case. I just wish to make a note of those flaws for the education of our readership.
[...]
I am not a historian. You will notice on this forum that I rarely offer an opinion on the matters at hand. Rather, I object to the intellectual laziness and fallacious argumentation of some of the participants, yourself included.


Koy was not vague, and SingleDad was not being vindictive. You may not like their characterizations, but your dismissal of them is not convincing anyone.


Until others show maturity. Sounds like projection on your part, Layman.

In light of your complaints about other people, the way you rationalize your own behavior is somewhat amusing. Here's a priceless quote from you about your own behavior:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000600&p=</a>

Yes, I am an aggressive debater. But I could care less what you think of my style,...

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Artemus

Well, I obviously naively restarted topic that has been beaten to death here and opened some old wounds. Sorry about that...maybe I should lurk a bit before starting another topic. (Naw! ) In any event, I think I've pretty much learned what I wanted to know, both from the Helm's book as well as from the links to other threads that gave still more links. Thanks to all who participated.

Tercel

Sauron,

Consider him accused of being inflammatory. (by style and argument though rather than direct insult) You're right he's not ill-tempered: but I think numerous other non-complementary things could be said about him. In fact I think he is the poster I used to least like discussing anything with.

Typical. Just curious, but has anyone (ever) managed to have a normal argument with SingleDad in which he did not obfuscate the topic beyond belief and/or go off on meta-discussion tangents to avoid the issue?

And ironically, Koy gets my vote as the second most annoying poster on the boards. Unlike SingleDad, Koy never refrained from insults etc and gets my vote on the basis that he probably spent more time on insults and attempting to be annoying than actually writing anything relevant to the subject.


Layman's behaviour comparable to Koy's...? As if...

And?
If you've ever read any debates involving Layman then you'd know he consistently makes posts with substantial informed clear content relevant to the issue (unlike SingleDad) and keeps any insults/ad hominems to a minimum and well below average on these boards (unlike Koy).

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Tercel

Hi Artemus,

A few small points,

Firstly, the answer to your orginal question:
"it appears that Acts of the Apostles is often treated as a historically accurate document... why would any of the details in Acts be treated as reliable?"
The author of Luke/Acts includes a very large number of checkable historical references and details. Such things as the names and titles of rulers mentioned (the correct titles being as impressive as the names since they often changed as the Roman governing powers altered the status of the provinces) eg "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar--when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene-- during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" -Luke 3:1-2,
the accuracy in recordeding of various customs of towns referred to in passing, the accuracy in describing towns supposedly journeyed through etc.
Luke/Acts makes a claim to reasonable historical accuracy in the introduction (Luke 1:3) and provides far more in the way of checkable details than the other gospels, almost all of which agree with current knowledge. (several of them were previously held to have been instances of "Luke" being wrong, but more recent discoveries have consistenly supported the accuracy of Luke) The one main exception being the question of the Census which seems still unsettled.
This all suggests that "Luke" was either a very competent researcher and/or wrote comparatively early having first/second hand knowledge. Anyway, that's why Acts is often treated as a historically accurate document.

As a general rule I'd say it's a good idea to treat with a good dose of critical thinking anything recommended to you by Toto ( ) who seems to enjoy reading and proclaiming the views of the most radical and anti-Christian scholars out there. Just be careful, since by careful ommission/dulling down/ignoring of evidence that is opposed to their theories, a good writer (I note you say that you love his style - well that rings plenty of alarm bells in the critical thinking department) can have you come away from their book thinking their theory is are undoubtedly right no matter how ludicrous. Generally there are good reasons why not everyone in the world agrees with the author's presentation and it's always worthwhile checking out why. Especially with the more... creative... authors that Toto has a habit of recommending.

You seem to be fairly vague/misguided about the idea of sources. eg
My current understanding, solidily reinforced by the Helms reference, is that "Luke" had no hesitation at all to change the narrative of Mark to better fit his own particular desires, and completely adding new scenes when needed (e.g. the nativity). I believe that is accepted by almost all scholars except for the most conservative inerranists.
Now it is general theory that Luke used Mark as a source document, yes. But that's about as far as it goes and in no way implys fiction. One theory is that Luke copied straight from Mark thought "I don't like some of this", changed what he felt needed changing to make it better, added some ficticious stuff of his own which he made up on the spot and presto. An alternative theory is that Luke did his absolute best to compile an accurate historical account and used absolutely everything he could find to do this including Mark, Q, and other sources of information he considered valid (perhaps the teachings of the apostles or their heirs), extracts from the diary of a companion of Paul or perhaps Luke was an eyewitness to some of it etc. Or you could hypothesis any sort of mix of the two theories.
Most scholars accept that Luke used Mark as source. Only Helms and a few other extremists would assert that the first explanation of the two is the true one.

"I knew that some still claim Luke was Paul's companion (IMHO a classic case of denial),"
Denial? Of what? All ancient authorities, heretics included, seem happy to agree that the writer was a companion of Paul, it it provides a reasonable explanation for the "we" passages, a good explanation for observed historical accuracy and as good an explanation as any as to why the author ignores Paul's letters. The theory that Luke was Paul's companion seems a fairly parsimonious explanation to me, it explains all the evidence and has little to no points against it.

"What I don't understand is that if a great deal of the material in a work is known to be a fiction (I love Helms's style!)..."
Because it's not "known to be a fiction". I'd say Helms' is getting carried away if you have somehow gotten that impression from the book. The idea that it's fiction is the theory that Helms is advancing, not something already known or accepted.

Hope that was helpful.

Ted Hoffman

Just to add onto the characterization "aside", I found Malaclypse the Younger to have been one of the most sharp, consummate and authoritative debaters here. I miss him sorely.
Layman can and has, though not always, provided very informed, objective and scholarly posts here. He can make very trenchant arguments over numerous B C & A issues. His main weakness is a bitter, angry and closed-minded approach to controversial issues - like the recent James Ossuary issue where he literally stuck his foot to his mouth and left it there, the shoes still worn. He also has considerable difficulty admitting error, even when its glaring.

Koy? well, let me not comment on Koy. I am not accustomed to finding him in this forum anyway.

Toto is gifted with a great ability to consistently knock down pillars that support Laymans and other theistic beliefs as far as historical accuracy of christian writings are concerned. This so frustrated Layman that he contents himself by simply insulting Toto, as has been indicated earlier. To me, Toto is like a guardian angel here, he rescues any "young" poster about to be seduced with spurious arguments (normaly bedecked with "scholarly" citations and historical references) from our more informed and widely read apologists.

Tercel, well, Tercel doesn't like people who disagree with him. He called Amos, a fellow theist, mad / insane. You get to get a glance at how charitable some christians can get.
But lets examine his most recent post:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Did he indicate that he was using Mark, Q or any other sources?
What is the basis of this flowerly characterisation of "Luke"?

This is a fallacy of missing arguments. Treated by who?
If it is treated as an historically accurate document, does that have any bearing on whether it is indeed historically accurate?
Of what probative value is this vague claim?

Vorkosigan

The author of Luke/Acts includes a very large number of checkable historical references and details.

So does the author of the spurious "Acts of Pilate" and the forged Pauline epistles both in and out of the NT. So do many authors of many fictional constructions. The presence of historicizing details is common in both history, fiction and fogery.

Now it is general theory that Luke used Mark as a source document, yes. But that's about as far as it goes and in no way implys fiction.

It in no way implies fact either. That has to be established from outside vectors. Which in this case do not exist.

Most scholars accept that Luke used Mark as source. Only Helms and a few other extremists would assert that the first explanation of the two is the true one.

It is not "extremist" to believe Acts is largely fiction in the main story it tells. Lots of scholars believe that the gospels are largely if not completely fictions. The real argument, Tercel, is how much of the gospels are fiction, not over this ridiculous all or nothing dichotomy you are sneaking in here.

author ignores Paul's letters. The theory that
Luke was Paul's companion seems a fairly parsimonious explanation to me, it explains all the evidence and has little to no points against it.

Alas, as I recall (book not in hand, so may have to eat words), my copy of Thiessen and Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide says that the consensus is that the writer of Luke was not a companion of Paul. That would put you, Tercel, in the camp of the "extremists," which seems to be your word for people who disagree with the concensus view. There is no evidence that would lead one to conclude that "Luke" as a companion of Paul, just the assertions of the patristic fathers. The writer of Luke simply created a pastiche of a number of sources, the other three canonical gospels, plus a source that had Herod executing Jesus, plus either Tacitus or Suetonius, Q, and a liberal imagination and some knowledge of the Mediterranean and its social and political environment. Not too difficult, you know. Theissen and Merz also note that there is no known method for disentangling sources in Acts, so all the exciting assertions about diaries and sources and companionship have to be regarded as interesting but essentially sterile speculation.

book. The idea that it's fiction is the theory that Helms is advancing, not something already known or accepted.

Until we get outside vectors on the main elements of the story, Acts will remain an interesting novelistic treatment of Christian origins.

Certainly large parts of it are obvious fictions -- everything involving the supernatural, for example. Others, such as the martyrdom of Stephen, appear to fiction as well. Peter's experience of being told what dietary rules are is also a probable fiction. Fictional also is Paul's confrontation with the followers of JBap in Acts 19. The presence of fictions such as these may provide evidence that countervails the historicizing details in Acts. NT scholars have done a fine job of doublethink here, arguing that the presence of historicizing details means its history, while simultaneously arguing that the presence of fictions does not mean it is all fiction.

Furthermore, Eisenman has done an excellent job of showing the problems with Acts, regardless of what you think of his assertions about the dating of the DSS or the authors of those pieces. As a piece of history, Acts is highly questionable. It is obviously piece of religious propaganda, the only question is how much history the author has allowed to leak through. Until we get good outside vectors, that will be a difficult question to answer.

Vorkosigan

Sauron

SD isn't inflammatory. In fact, he goes out of his way to avoid that kind of behavior. That's probably why he just exited the argument when it became apparent that Layman was going to argue every nit and quibble.


I've never seen SD obfuscate. He's extremely clear and cogent. He writes well, and makes his points carefully and with strong support. Sometimes I have to read them twice, because the material he discusses can be complex. But that's not a fault in his presentation of the topic. I have the same issue with Kirby - very good writer, but some of the subject topics take a while to read through.

Your inability to follow SD's argument isn't the same as SD being obfuscatory, Tercel.

I've read numerous debates with Layman; been involved in several as well. He is arrogant, loves to quibble, delights at wasting other people's time chasing down irrelevant points, and reacts overwhelmingly to even the slightest criticism. He's also done his fair share of both insults and ad hominems. Layman does make good points once in awhile, but you have to wade through mountains of crap and ego to find the jewel buried inside.

Sounds like you need to detach yourself somewhat from hero worship, and view things with a more dispassionate and objective eye, Tercel.

Jeremy Pallant

Let's try and keep to the topic, rather than discuss the characters of present and past posters, some of whom are no longer around to defend themselves.