Layman

Ahh, here we are again. You take a position held by -- at best -- a handful of people, and reject the broad consensus that Luke wrote before Josephus, and stake it out as if its just plain true. You offer no support, no argument, no authorities. Typical Toto.

Have you ever thought about reading up on these issues before making these claims?

As for the use of Q, we learn a lot about how Luke used it by comparing it to Matthew.

As for Mark, there seems to be a consensus among scholars that Luke was conservative in his use of Mark -- more conservative than Matthew.

As for L, it is harder to know how he used that source, although not impossible. There are several good commentaries and studies out there that examine the L source. Have you ever opened one of them up?

Layman

Nope, and its not available through any regional library that I have been able to find.

Knox's theories, however, are discussed in almost every Luke/Acts commentary worth its salt. And I've done a fair amount of reading up on the Marcion controversy.

That question is somewhat loaded. I certainly think his theory has fatal flaws, and many commentators I have read agree with that assesment. His views have certainly not gained many adherents.

When you do maybe we can have a discussion about it. Luke/Acts/Pauline studies are one of my favorite areas.

As for authors that address Know, I have recently been reading Earle E. Ellis' Gospel of Luke. He notes that Knox's dating to 140 CE has a "low level of probability" and references these two works:

E.C. Blackman, Marcion and His Influence (London 1948), and

J.C. O'Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting, rev. edn. (London 1970).

Here is the reference in full:

Elles, Gospel of Luke, at 55.

I've also found the following books helpful:

Ben Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Acts

Colin Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.

You probably are aware of this one, but Streeter gives a brief but good review of the arguments for dating Luke, "Not later than A.D. 85, more likely about A.D. 80." Four Gospels, at 529-562.

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

I was writing late at night, and we have gone through all this before, so I didn't list any authorities. The idea that Luke depended on Josephus is thoroughly supported in Steve Mason's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0943575990/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Josephus and the New Testament</a>, which I bought and read at the recommendation of Peter Kirby (thanks, Peter) when your pal Nomad was trying to argue against Carrier's <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html" target="_blank">essay</a> based on it (although Nomad declined to read the book of course.)

I'm not interested in your "consensus" of scholars, since it turns out to be based on Christians with no real methodology or aim other than figuing out a way that Christianity might possibly be true.

But I would be interested in seeing how your scholars can decide that Luke was more conservative that Matthew in using a source that we only know about because both of them used it, or in using a source that is entirely speculative and not used by anyone else. Why don't you list some references?

Layman

That's just a lie.

We don't know anything about Mark? We have no manuscripts for Mark? All we know is how they used Mark? What planet are you coming from this time? Do you even read my posts before trying to respond to them? This is as good as the time you complained about the census in Matthew.

Greg2003

You mean, of course, disciples like "Doubting" Thomas?

Toto

It should have be obvious that I was talking about Q, not Mark. What are those sources?

And what is the historical methodology you can point to for your "consensus" of scholars?

Layman

It should have been more obvious that I was talking about Mark, not Q.

I didn't claim any particulat "historical methodlogy." I noted that there existed a consensus among scholars. They may use different methodology or the same methodology. I have not read all of them.

Of course, your "historical methodology" is whatever theory is most damaging to the historicity of any element of Christianity -- no matter how unaccepted the theory is among scholarly circles.

Yeah, it's all a conspiracy.

Toto

Quoting you:

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think there are a lot of scholars who are hobbled by their belief systems. Even then I don't see much of a consensus on many issues.

But what's the point of just trading insults. It gets boring after a while, and lunch break is almost over.

Please just give me a source so I can read about how Luke uses his 'L' material in a conservative manner.

Layman

The most recent exposition of the L source that I am aware of is Kim Paffenroth's, The Gospel According to L.

A more available discussion is Robert Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament. He has a chapter on the L-Source.

One reason scholars think that Luke's use of his materials is "conservative" is that he breaks them up much less than does Matthew. He generally uses blocks of Q, blocks of Mark, and blocks of L, rather than hatcheting them up and interpsersing them throughout the narrative.

Vorkosigan

Of course, your "historical methodology" is whatever theory is most damaging to the historicity of any element of Christianity -- no matter how unaccepted the theory is among scholarly circles.

See Crossan, Birth of Christianity, p. 149, where he says, decisively, that no such methodology exists, and you can only decide on one after you have decided who Jesus was. In other words, Toto is right and you are wrong Layman.

By all means, bring on this non-existent methodology. Meier's criteria are a joke, ripped to shreds by Crossan in Chapter 4 of the book above, and elsewhere by other scholars. NT scholars are very good at textual analysis, but they simply have no historical methodology at all, except to announce their opinions ex cathedra. And since most of them are faith-committed.....

Vorkosigan