Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hjalti · 09-09-2013, 04:50 AM

Quote:

a desperate desire that Acts should be dated late.

What? :huh:

aa5874 · 09-09-2013, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

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

Einhorn thinks John the Baptist most likely existed.

see http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upl...t-12.11.25.pdf

Quote:

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly elements in the gospel texts themselves which strengthen the conclusion that John the Baptist was an authentic, and important, person. He is one of the best examples of the so called “criterion of embarrassment” for authenticity.

The claim that John the Baptist baptized for remission of sins was probably not written by Josephus.

Josephus had already stated earlier in Antiquities of the Jews 3 that Jews carried out sacrifices for remission of sins.

Antiquities of the Jews 3.9

Quote:

3. The sacrifices for sins are offered in the same manner as is the thank-offering.

But those who are unable to purchase complete sacrifices, offer two pigeons, or turtle doves; the one of which is made a burnt-offering to God, the other they give as food to the priests. But we shall treat more accurately about the oblation of these creatures in our discourse concerning sacrifices.

But if a person fall into sin by ignorance, he offers an ewe lamb, or a female kid of the goats, of the same age; and the priests sprinkle the blood at the altar, not after the former manner, but at the corners of it.

They also bring the kidneys and the rest of the fat, together with the lobe of the liver, to the altar, while the priests bear away the hides and the flesh, and spend it in the holy place, on the same day; (23) for the law does not permit them to leave of it until the morning.

But if any one sin, and is conscious of it himself, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a ram, the law enjoining him so to do; the flesh of which the priests eat, as before, in the holy place, on the same day.

And if the rulers offer sacrifices for their sins, they bring the same oblations that private men do; only they so far differ, that they are to bring for sacrifices a bull or a kid of the goats, both males.

outhouse · 09-09-2013, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

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.

Following this back to your original quote, I agree

The consensus in this case is that there is no consensus

andrewcriddle · 09-10-2013, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

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

Einhorn thinks John the Baptist most likely existed.

see http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upl...t-12.11.25.pdf

Quote:

On the other hand, there are undoubtedly elements in the gospel texts themselves which strengthen the conclusion that John the Baptist was an authentic, and important, person. He is one of the best examples of the so called “criterion of embarrassment” for authenticity.

Einhorn thinks that Joh the Baptist in the Gospels equals Theudas in Josephus.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 09-10-2013, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Einhorn thinks that Joh the Baptist in the Gospels equals Theudas in Josephus.

Andrew Criddle

Einhorn thinks John the Baptist most likely existed.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.