Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

[Stephan Huller]

But then again I could be ignorance.

[John T]

Carrier has been exposed as a crank exegesis

John T

John T, you keep saying this. You may want to learn the difference between "exegesis" and "exegete."

Carrier is a crank exegetist.

Did I get the spelling right that time or is "eisegetist" a better word for Carrier?
You tell me.

Thanks in advance.

John T

[MrMacSon]

.
Carrier claims there is no argument for "Q" [Quelle,] being a source for Luke/Acts. "Q" should have never been a thesis accepted in the community. Carrier is absolutely convinced "Q" is a non-viable and impossible thesis.

Really?!? No argument anymore for "Q"?!?!

Your first sentence here is "Carrier claims there is no argument for "Q" [Quelle,] being a source for Luke/Acts."

Your fourth sentence is different: - No argument anymore for "Q"?!?!

Which is it?

• 1/ Q per se? ... or ...
  2/ Q as a source for Luke/acts?

Well then, I guess I should go out in my back yard and burn all my Bibles since they have been proven by Carrier to be based on nothing more than mythical fiction.

That is childish, as is your opening gambits ...

I see no need to buy his book. He has already been proven that he can't be trusted to write the truth.
Carrier has been exposed as a crank exegesis in a debate with William Lane Craig and Carrier has not changed much over the years.
I would rather spend my money on a book titled: "Space Aliens or Bigfoot, who is the real father of Jesus Christ"

I watched about 15 minutes of Carrier's lecture which was linked in the original post.
So many errors, so many lies, so little time, why should I bother to watch the whole thing?

Carrier went on to say, that the author of Acts is not even trying to be an historian.
Yes, Carrier actually had the gall to say that.
The irony of a hack Biblical historian calling a real Biblical historian a hack.

So; who was 'THE Author' of Acts?? Perhaps you might like to address this -

The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011.
Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top ten accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

• ..1 The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
  ..2 Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
  ..3 The author[s] of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
  ..4 Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
  ..5 Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
  ..6 Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
  ..7 Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
  ..8 The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
  ..9 Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
  10 Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects ... -apostles/
.

[steve43]

Westar is the liberal/feminist answer to the Christian fundamentalists.

I went to a seminar and was astounded at what I heard lectured about as fact- broad sweeping statements like the ancient world transitioned from worshiping Augustus to worshiping Jesus, early Christian women rescued the babies of prostitutes to save them from being killed, etc.

Go to one near you.

Rest assured, there are PLENTY'O'BOOKS there to buy.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Carrier has been exposed as a crank exegesis

John T

John T, you keep saying this. You may want to learn the difference between "exegesis" and "exegete."

Carrier is a crank exegetist.

Did I get the spelling right that time or is "eisegetist" a better word for Carrier?
You tell me.

Thanks in advance.

John T

None of them would be applicable to Carrier if if they were actually words.

Exegete.
Eisegete.

[andrewcriddle]

I didn't say James was a legend, I said his martyrdom is a legend and the passage in Josephus is almost certainly about James and Jesus ben Damneus, not the James of the New Testament. Jesus ben Damneus, who Josephus mentions in the next breath, was literally a "Jesus called Christ" as were all High Priests. "Anointed" was an ordinary title of high Jewish office. High Priests and kings, not a unique designation for the Davidic Messiah. The Josephus passage makes no sense any other way.

Can you give any sort of parallel for the use of ho legomenos Christos to mean the High Priest ?
IMO it is unlikely that Josephus would use legomenos here if that is what he meant.

Andrew Criddle

[ficino]

In my overly long summary of views of Etienne Nodet -- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=984&p=21359#p21272 -- I mention that Nodet adduces Hegesippus for the story that some people thought that James of AJ 20.200 was the true high priest. Nodet offers this in explanation of Ananus' motives for having James stoned, i.e. to get rid of a rival. It seems a stretch to me, too, though, to think that by ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός Josephus means "the one said by some to be high priest".

[Bertie]

Carrier claims there is no argument for "Q" [Quelle,] being a source for Luke/Acts. "Q" should have never been a thesis accepted in the community. Carrier is absolutely convinced "Q" is a non-viable and impossible thesis.

Really?!? No argument anymore for "Q"?!?!
Well then, I guess I should go out in my back yard and burn all my Bibles since they have been proven by Carrier to be based on nothing more than mythical fiction.

Carrier accepts the Farrer/Goulder/Goodacre Hypothesis; that is, Markan Priority without Q. I don't know how this came through in the video, but he clearly says so in OHJ.

Everyone should accept Markan Priority without Q, because it is true. OK, that last bit might be an exaggeration (though I think the case is overwhelming and consider the fact that Q was ever widely accepted yet another strike against the intellectual quality of the NT scholarly guild), but what isn't an exaggeration is that Markan Priority without Q has become a legitimate mainstream opinion; from what I've read a couple of places, Q has started to become a risky presupposition (in SBL conferences and such), at least if your paper/theory/whatever can do without it.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I didn't say James was a legend, I said his martyrdom is a legend and the passage in Josephus is almost certainly about James and Jesus ben Damneus, not the James of the New Testament. Jesus ben Damneus, who Josephus mentions in the next breath, was literally a "Jesus called Christ" as were all High Priests. "Anointed" was an ordinary title of high Jewish office. High Priests and kings, not a unique designation for the Davidic Messiah. The Josephus passage makes no sense any other way.

Can you give any sort of parallel for the use of ho legomenos Christos to mean the High Priest ?
IMO it is unlikely that Josephus would use legomenos here if that is what he meant.

Andrew Criddle

Well, that word can have a sarcastic meaning - "the so-called." It might be that Jospehus saw the appointment as illegitimate. Carrier wrote a peer-reviewed article arguing that the "called Christ" part is just an accidental interpolation, though.

Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.

Behind a pay wall, but he also put it in Hitler Homer Bible Christ.

[John T]

MrMacSon posted: "Your [John T] fourth sentence is different: - No argument anymore for "Q"?!?!

Which is it?

1/ Q per se? ... or ...
2/ Q as a source for Luke/acts?...MrMacSon

*************************

Answer: Actually both. Carrier is claiming that the author of Luke/Acts did not use, "Q" because there was no "Q". Please go to the 4 minute mark and check it out for yourself. If I misunderstood him, by all means point that out so I can correct it. However, if I did get it right and you still can't figure out how Carrier is justified in making such a crack-pot claim, then your problem is with Carrier and perhaps you should e-mail him for an explanation.

http://youtu.be/B5MUUP4l6l4

Sincerely,
John T