FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-02-2013, 06:23 PM   #11
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
It is generally agreed among secular scholars that Luke used Josephus as a source for Acts of the Apostles.
Unsubstatiated.

Posting one mythicist does not constitute any secular consensus.

Have anything else that will substatiate your claim?
Your objection is unsubstantiated. Have you read the article at the link?

Carrier wrote this before he became a mythicist. The article contains the reasons, based on the work of Steve Mason, a noted specialist in Josephus, who is not a mythicist.

This conclusion is only controversial among scholars who want to date Acts to 60 CE, before Josephus wrote. (See, e.g. the somewhat biased Bible apologetics blog.) But these scholars use the fall back position that there were some common sources used by both Josephus and Luke.

The issue of the dating of Acts is a particularly contentious issue with evangelicals and apologists.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 08:49 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The article contains the reasons, based on the work of Steve Mason, a noted specialist in Josephus, who is not a mythicist.

This conclusion is only controversial among scholars who want to date Acts to 60 CE, before Josephus wrote..
Which if you read Steve Mason's work he places authorship later then 94 AD if it relied on Josephus.


Your view is a controversial one, and I don't have as much a problem with the unknown author using Josephus, as much as I do with your certainty of a biased consensus.


It still is quite divided and I'm not sure we will ever know.
outhouse is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 09:22 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

This was pretty in depth read on the topic.

http://www.libraryindex.com/encyclop...paul-luke.html
outhouse is offline  
Old 09-02-2013, 10:54 PM   #14
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
The article contains the reasons, based on the work of Steve Mason, a noted specialist in Josephus, who is not a mythicist.

This conclusion is only controversial among scholars who want to date Acts to 60 CE, before Josephus wrote..
Which if you read Steve Mason's work he places authorship later then 94 AD if it relied on Josephus.
That's the point.

Quote:
Your view is a controversial one,
Really? As I said, it is controversial among apologists who think their world might collapse if Acts is dated to the second century. Otherwise?

Quote:
and I don't have as much a problem with the unknown author using Josephus, as much as I do with your certainty of a biased consensus.
What is your problem with this? Do you know of a non-Christian scholar who disagrees with Mason, and can you give the reasons?

Your link in the post after this is to the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "published from January 1875 to 1889." Would you care to quote any part of that article that you think supports your case?
Toto is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 02:07 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
and I don't have as much a problem with the unknown author using Josephus, as much as I do with your certainty of a biased consensus.
What is your problem with this? Do you know of a non-Christian scholar who disagrees with Mason, and can you give the reasons?
I think we have established that nobody here has any idea what the scholarly consensus is; and that some people have heard of Mason's statement, and (for some unstated reason) presume that all scholars think likewise.

In the circumstances, it would probably be best to assume that Mason did not change the world. I have had a look in JSTOR and can only find two reviews of Mason's book. The first doesn't mention the theory; the second mentions that Mason thinks that "probably" Luke-Acts uses Josephus, but disagrees.

For reference, what Mason states in the 1994 edition (there is a later one which I have not seen, but which should be examined) is the following (p.224-5):

Quote:
In short, we cannot prove beyond doubt that Luke knew
the writings of Josephus. If he did not, however, we have a
nearly incredible series of coincidences, which require that
Luke knew something that closely approximated Josephus'
narrative in several distinct ways. This source (or these sources)
spoke of: Agrippa's death after his robes shone; the extramarital
affairs of both Felix and Agrippa; the harshness of the
Sadducees toward Christianity; the census under Quirinius as
a watershed event in Palestine; Judas the Galilean as an archrebel
at the time of the census; Judas, Theudas, and the Egyptian
as three rebels in the Jerusalem area worthy of special
mention among a host of others; Theudas and Judas in the
same piece of narrative; the Egyptian, the desert, and the
sicarii in close proximity; Judaism as a philosophical system;
the Pharisees and Sadducees as philosophical schools; and
the Pharisees as the most precise of the schools. We know of
no other work that even remotely approximated Josephus'
presentation on such a wide range of issues. I find it easier to
believe that Luke knew something of Josephus' work than that
he independently arrived at these points of agreement. Nevertheless,
we await a thorough study of the matter.
I for one do not find lists of this kind at all persuasive; selected similarities show connection, and derivation, and in one particular direction? Much more precision is needed for that kind of argument. But Mason, at least, thinks someone else will have to study it.

Does anyone have any evidence that Mason has been accepted by anyone? I'm having difficulty finding any scholarly discussion of his proposal (it seems to be no more).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

UPDATE: I have found this, Helyer, "Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period", p.362, n.36: 'In "Josephus: Value for New Testament study" however he is content to note that, "most scholars think that he [Luke] did not [know Josephus]".
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 03:27 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Iceland
Posts: 761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Does anyone have any evidence that Mason has been accepted by anyone? I'm having difficulty finding any scholarly discussion of his proposal (it seems to be no more).
Richard Pervo has a chapter on it in "Dating Acts", this is his conclusion:

Quote:
My conclusion is that the hypothesis that Luke made some use of Josephus - in particular, the closing rolls (books) of the Antiquities - is deeply compelling and inherently attractive, for it is both the most economical hypothesis and one that helps to resolve a number of otstanding issues and particular questions.

[yada-yada]

More sharply, I propose that it is now incumbent upon those who reject the idea that Luke made some use of Josephus to make arguments of a merit at least equal to those above. (p 197-198)
hjalti is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 03:32 PM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

If you read Mason's book, you will find that he is unwilling to take a firm stand on much of anything. There is always room for more study. He spends pages and pages on the issue of whether the TF is a complete or a partial interpolation, and ends up saying it doesn't matter because once you admit some interpolation, you can never be sure of how the original read.

I think the key term is

Quote:
If he did not, however, we have a nearly incredible series of coincidences, which require that Luke knew something that closely approximated Josephus' narrative in several distinct ways.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 03:35 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I think we have established that nobody here has any idea what the scholarly consensus is; .

There is no consensus.

Most of the quality reports ive read show the 3 main hypothesis as described in the last link I posted.
outhouse is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 03:54 PM   #19
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I think we have established that nobody here has any idea what the scholarly consensus is; .

There is no consensus.

Most of the quality reports ive read show the 3 main hypothesis as described in the last link I posted.
You mean your link to the 9th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, "published from January 1875 to 1889" ? You don't think any progress has been made since then?
Toto is offline  
Old 09-06-2013, 02:51 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hjalti View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Does anyone have any evidence that Mason has been accepted by anyone? I'm having difficulty finding any scholarly discussion of his proposal (it seems to be no more).
Richard Pervo has a chapter on it in "Dating Acts", this is his conclusion:

Quote:
My conclusion is that the hypothesis that Luke made some use of Josephus - in particular, the closing rolls (books) of the Antiquities - is deeply compelling and inherently attractive, for it is both the most economical hypothesis and one that helps to resolve a number of otstanding issues and particular questions.

[yada-yada]

More sharply, I propose that it is now incumbent upon those who reject the idea that Luke made some use of Josephus to make arguments of a merit at least equal to those above. (p 197-198)
Thanks - that's something.
Roger Pearse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.