Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James The Least · 09-08-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is generally agreed among secular scholars that Luke used Josephus as a source for Acts of the Apostles. See Luke and Josephus.

It's not an idea that enjoys scholarly consensus, however.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you are being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."

Michael Crichton 1/17/03 speech California Institute of Technology

outhouse · 09-08-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It's not an idea that enjoys scholarly consensus, however.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you are being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."

Michael Crichton 1/17/03 speech California Institute of Technology

Correct BUT.

When all science departments agree, what do you call it? '

Your just talking about how people label the scientific findings after the fact.

Consensus does not mean it cannot be overturned, it just means for now everyone who is credible and has done the work agrees to the findings.

Really? are you going down the road to appeal to ignorance and those who have not done the work have a equal say so?

Iskander · 09-08-2013, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

It's not an idea that enjoys scholarly consensus, however.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you are being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."

Michael Crichton 1/17/03 speech California Institute of Technology

Your quote may say what you want it to say or it may not.

A mishap in most –if not all- professional work is judged by whether or not the problem under examination could be explained by a departure from the existing best practice as determined by consensus .

Experimental work comes under even more strict rules.

When someone claims to have discovered a novelty that novelty should be jugged against the existing best practice as established by consensus.
The work of science is about doing whatever it is necessary to persuade the community that the novelty is sound.

Charlatans often claim victory, but society and fellow professionals are right in demanding that sufficient reasons be given for modifying a well tested existing practice.

Toto · 09-08-2013, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The words that you quote are not Pervo's, but those of the reviewer, Dr Don Garlington, an active Christian minister.

Do scholars date Gluke and GActs at the same date? or do they date GActs later?

There was one final editor of Luke-Acts, and the two books seem to be related, with Acts possibly later, but there are parts of Acts that appear to reflect earlier sources.

I have seen scholars try to date Luke to an earlier date than Acts, but I don't think this is more than guesswork. Marcion is supposed to have published an earlier (or stripped down) version of Luke in his Apostolikon around 140(?) and Joseph Tyson believes that canonical Luke was a revision of Marcion's gospel, and that Acts was written in response to Marcion.

Peter Kirby has the same date range for both - 80-130 CE.

aa5874 · 09-08-2013, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Do you think a few mythicist and Pervo and Mason make a secular consensus?

You do not understand the difference between 'speculation' and 'consensus'.

There is virtually NO evidence to support a consensus about anything related to the actual date of composition of Acts and Luke because ALL the authors are unknown and without corroboration by non-apologetics.

No manuscript of the ENTIRE NT Canon has ever been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

outhouse · 09-08-2013, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Do scholars date Gluke and GActs at the same date? or do they date GActs later?

There was one final editor of Luke-Acts, and the two books seem to be related, with Acts possibly later, but there are parts of Acts that appear to reflect earlier sources.

I have seen scholars try to date Luke to an earlier date than Acts, but I don't think this is more than guesswork. Marcion is supposed to have published an earlier (or stripped down) version of Luke in his Apostolikon around 140(?) and Joseph Tyson believes that canonical Luke was a revision of Marcion's gospel, and that Acts was written in response to Marcion.

Peter Kirby has the same date range for both - 80-130 CE.

Related? absolutely.

I know Gluke was a compilation, that easy. I see no reason to doubt the same for Acts.

Its why both are so hard to date accurately. Redactions of redactions.

I still follow that Marcion did his own redacting of Gluke, and I have been through that debate as far as its ever going to go. Just because everything doesn't fit neat into one box I see no reason to vie for a urLuke

aa5874 · 09-08-2013, 11:48 PM

Writings know as "according to Luke" and Acts of the Apostles were unknown up to the time of Celsus when he composed "True Discourse" as found in the "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

Celsus did not mention the contradictions of the genealogies in gLuke and gMatthew although he wrote "True Discourse" to discredit Christianity.

andrewcriddle · 09-09-2013, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Lena Einhorn's SBL paper from last year, "Jesus and the 'Egyptian Prophet'," shows extensive reliance by Acts on the works of Josephus. The key is to recognize a "time shift" by Luke: events he dated in the 30s and 40s are described by Josephus as happening in the 50s. It appears Luke was trying to shoe-horn the origins of the church (which he had no info about) into the earlier period since the supposed death date of Jesus had already been established as the 30s.

PDF here

"If we were to move the accounts from the Gospels (and some from Acts) fifteen to twenty years forward in time, and change the names of people in authority accordingly, (the) number of matches would increase significantly (fifteen are presented in this study, including some internal NT inconsistencies which would be resolved), and although the matches are separate, not inter-dependent, they form a pattern with regard to the subject matter. In addition, a person with significant similarities to Jesus would appear in both De bello Judaico and in Antiquitates Judaicae. This person, however, was not, as far as is known, tried or crucified."

As well as other problems Einhorn's argument requires the reference to John the Baptist in our current texts of Josephus to be non-authentic.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 09-09-2013, 04:27 AM

The Einhorn paper does make curious reading, to anyone slightly critically minded. An argument that relies on the events being "the same" and that then points out differences is indeed rather curious.

Roger Pearse · 09-09-2013, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you are being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics."

Michael Crichton 1/17/03 speech California Institute of Technology

Correct BUT.

When all science departments agree, what do you call it? '

Your just talking about how people label the scientific findings after the fact.

Consensus does not mean it cannot be overturned, it just means for now everyone who is credible and has done the work agrees to the findings.

Really? are you going down the road to appeal to ignorance and those who have not done the work have a equal say so?

Before discussing whether we accept the consensus, it is probably best to find out first what it is. I detect no knowledge on the subject in this thread and (inevitably) a desperate desire that Acts should be dated late.

I should add that, once politics and religion come into it, the consensus of academics tends, no doubt entirely coincidentally, to reflect the views of those who appoint them. Which is why a wise man will prefer, on a non-technical issue, evidence to authority.

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

09-08-2013, 11:48 PM	#57
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Writings know as "according to Luke" and Acts of the Apostles were unknown up to the time of Celsus when he composed "True Discourse" as found in the "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen. Celsus did not mention the contradictions of the genealogies in gLuke and gMatthew although he wrote "True Discourse" to discredit Christianity.

09-09-2013, 04:27 AM	#59
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	The Einhorn paper does make curious reading, to anyone slightly critically minded. An argument that relies on the events being "the same" and that then points out differences is indeed rather curious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.