Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
lpetrich
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:20 am

Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by lpetrich »

Richard Carrier: Acts as Historical Fiction - YouTube, something that he discusses in OHJ.

Note: the lists are transcribed from RC's slides, but with some editing for coherence.

He proposes this sequence:
  • Mark
  • Matthew
  • Luke / Acts
Matthew tries to "correct" Mark, and Luke tries to "correct" Matthew. RC believes that "Q" does not exist. It is a proposed shared source for Matthew and Luke. Mark: you don't need to be a Jew to believe in Jesus Christ. Matthew: yes you do. Luke: no you don't, and can't we all get along?

Was Luke a good historian? RC compared him to other ancient historians, and he decided that the answer is no. His reasons:
  • Luke never identifies himself or gives his qualifications.
  • He never names or evaluates his sources.
  • He never discusses his methods.
  • His preface does not mention any such details.
  • He has some awful methods, like slavishly following his sources, and changing them here and there without stating that he had done so.
BTW, his preface is where he states "Look at all the work that I did". It is sometimes cited as evidence that Luke had been a Real Historian.

RC argues that Acts falls into another ancient genre: religious-propaganda novels. They all
  • Promote some god or religion.
  • Are travel narratives.
  • Involve miraculous or amazing events.
  • Include encounters with fabulous or exotic peoples.
  • Feature chaste couples separated and reunited.
  • Feature exciting captivities and escapes, and also excited crowds.
  • Have divine revelations that are always integral to the plot.
  • Often include themes of persecution and divine rescue.
The best-known one outside of Acts is Apuleius's The Golden Ass. It fits most of RC's criteria very well. Our hero, Lucius, had been meddling with love potions, and he gets turned into a donkey in a completely literal sense. He then gets bought and sold by a variety of masters, including some eunuch priests of a Syrian version of Cybele who come off as religious charlatans, and a baker whose wife is is a total jerk who follows some blasphemous cult of an Only God that denies the Immortals and all true religion. Toward the end, Lucius begs for deliverance, either him having human form again or else him having a merciful death. Isis then appears before him, describes who she is, and gives him instructions for restoring his human form. Which he follows, and he gets human form again. He then becomes an initiate in the worship of Isis.

Back to RC's talk. He explained how Acts fits those criteria very well.

He also calls Luke a liar, stating things about Paul that are contrary to Paul's genuine letters.

He then gets into Burton Mack's description of how improbable Acts is, like Jews converting after being told that they had killed their Messiah. Also, Peter and Paul both to have the same message, while in Paul's letters, Peter and Paul are at loggerheads on various issues, like how Jewish their new religion should be.

The characters in Acts use the Septuagint, in Jerusalem, of all places. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament / Tanakh done a few centuries earlier, and it has some discrepancies with Hebrew versions. Someone in Jerusalem could easily have caught those errors.

There are not only two miraculous escapes from jail, there is also the oddity that nobody cares about the escaped convicts.

Some defenders of Acts point to all the true background details that it contains. That is entirely correct, but that's typical of a work of fiction. We have some idea of Luke's sources. Many of the details of Judea seem cribbed from Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews.

Paul as Odysseus:
  • Is shipwrecked with the same nautical images.
  • Sees the appearance of a divine being who assures safety.
  • Rides planks when at sea.
  • Lands on an island and meets hospitable strangers.
  • Is mistaken for a god.
  • Is sent onward in a new ship.
Dennis Macdonald has noted several parallels between the New Testament and Homer's works.

Peter's vision (Acts 10) closely parallels Ezekiel's (1, 2, 4, 10). The heavens open, and both of them are commanded to eat something unclean. Both of them then balk at doing that.

Peter and Paul parallels in Acts, parallels going beyond having the same message. Each one:
  • Raises someone from the dead.
  • Heals someone with paralysis.
  • Heals with a magical extension of himself.
  • Defeats a sorcerer.
  • Miraculously escapes prison.
  • Gets called upon in a vision by someone or some people to save them.
Even Paul and Jesus Christ. Each one:
  • Walks the Earth, ending at Jerusalem.
  • Is arrested as a result of a disturbance in the Jerusalem Temple.
  • Is acquitted by a Herod and a Prefect.
  • Is plotted against by the Jews.
  • Is interrogated and beaten by the priests and the Sanhedrin.
  • Knows that his death is foreordained and prophesies troubles to come for the church.
  • Dies and then rises from the dead.
  • Gets hailed as a god.
Some differences:
  • Paul travels around a much bigger sea than JC does.
  • Paul gets in much greater danger when at sea.
  • Paul's trial is longer.
  • Armies plot to assassinate Paul, then to rescue Paul.
  • JC causes one temple ruckus, Paul two.
  • Paul gets more followers after he gets resurrected.
  • Paul gets all the way to Rome.
RC then compares Paul's conversion in Acts to JC's post-resurrection appearance in Emmaus in the Gospel of Luke, and he finds a lot of parallels. Luke reused some of his story motifs, it seems. Also Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8).

Paul even has his own version of John the Baptist: Ananias. Both of them have names that mean in Hebrew "YHWH is gracious" but in different orders.


So the Book of Acts is as historical as Apuleius's Golden Ass.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

RC is definitely is poisoning the well here.

To me he is as guilty as when he talked about zeitgeist in his early days, he might as well be talking about himself now.

There really is need to go over the top here. The rhetoric mythology and fiction are all taken into context as a Greek Novel in all credible studies.

There are despite his rant, areas that are not devoid of historical content, and this is just another of RC's failed attempts to promote his pseudo methodology.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by Blood »

Acts has to be historical in some way because Christians didn't make things up, it would've created too many problems for them.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

Blood wrote:Acts has to be historical in some way because Christians didn't make things up, .
Some things in Acts are historical because we said so. Not because of some apologetic nonsense as you so poorly claim.


It would be great if you had a clue in context here. Snide remarks from the cheap seats is a sign of desperation in ones argument.


it would've created too many problems for them
And we see these problems.

When you understand how these books were collected, compiled and written, you will gain a greater respect for the material. We wont be holding our breath.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by outhouse »

Phrase for the day.

Learn the difference between healthy criticism and conspiracy nutter methodology preying of the ignorance of those who fell into the trap, far enough to read it.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by toejam »

I see Acts as more Pauline propaganda than pure fiction.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
stevencarrwork
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 5:57 am

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by stevencarrwork »

'Peter's vision (Acts 10) closely parallels Ezekiel's (1, 2, 4, 10). '

It even has some of the exact same wording.

Still, the fact that there is word-for-word copying won't convince Bible scholars, unless somebody has the audacity to plagiarise any of their stuff, when they will spot word-for-word copying immediately.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

Post by Ulan »

Acts is seen as historical because it's the only text NT scholars can use to spin history from. Even people like Peter Pilhofer, who dates the text around 115 and sees it as the mixture of political text in the beginning and some more genuine legends in the last parts, uses this somewhat helpless defense. "If we don't work with Acts, what are we left with?" That's a dilemma if you want to work on early Christian history. To be fair, Pilhofer doesn't think the details in Acts are genuine, because of the gap in time and space (he thinks it was written in Macedon) and its incompatibility with the Pauline letters.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the fiction of Richard Carrier

Post by Steven Avery »

GENERAL THOUGHTS
There are many questions and problems with the Richard Carrier presentation, although he definitely gets a "smooth talker" award. His techniques for hand-waving the precision historicity of Luke-Acts were interesting, with a quick aside about Colin J. Hemer. And it definitely gave the impression that that he had not studied the gentlemen who had pioneered those Luke-Acts historical studies, so that he does not tackle the key issues. These include the need to be very close to the 40 AD time (when Luke wrote to Theophilus the high priest, per an important historical understanding) for some of those identifications and names. (I even saw a theory fly by that Luke used an expert text, no longer extant, on the Meditteranean geography and history, in order to get such docu-drama details right :). Perhaps that would be the Carrier approach, if he studied the questions.)

And many parts were circular to theories and conjectures of little weight. Carrier will play with the Academy to use dubious ideas like Markan priority and the post-70 dating (which itself is a de facto denial of the historicity of the text) as a supposed fact, and then jettison the Academy any time he wants to spin his theories. It is a popular and clever usage, however it is one that is inconsistent and that does not get to the heart of the matter. The Academy, and any pseudo-consensus, consists of NT late dating, forgery and errancy. Convenient for Carrier as a base to accuse the NT. Also it has no real eyewitness testimony (real eyewitness, not the milquetoast Richard Bauckham position). And is irrelevant to the true evangelical-skeptic discussion. (If any skeptic is capable of that dialog, without relying on theories of NT error as a presupposition.)

=====

There was one section in the early part where Carrier really skittled around playing games.

First, Carrier is saying that Luke did not self-trumpet his own qualifications. Does he want a "Hebrews of Hebrews" section? Theophilus the high priest knew exactly who he was, and Luke was relating specific events with people in his own family and social strata. If Luke trumpeted his own qualifications, "Yeshiva Gamaliel", he would surely be criticized for that as well, under lose-lose argumentation.

Carrier claims, without any evidence, that Luke did not do evaluation of his sources, yet the Prologue indicates exactly the opposite. So Carrier calls the Prologue "fake". This is the silliest type of circular argumentation, charlatan posturing. Then, from the same phoney position, Carrier lies and says that Luke is saying that he slavishly followed former gospels. When Luke actually said he was involved as an eyewitness and friends of eyewitnesses. (The simplest literal reading, as in the AV text.) It is very tacky, and scholastically incompetent, to call Luke's words fake. And then substitute your own in order to accuse Luke, when the "fake" words fully refute the Carrier accusation.

========

First, I would just like to get a general outline of Carrier's timeline. He accepts, apparently, that Paul wrote letters in the 50-60 AD range? If not, I would like first to know his dating of the epistles of Paul. (And I believe that every one is genuine, but from Carrier I simply want to know his date. In fact, I would say that the attacks on the authenticity of the Pastorals are absurdly weak.)

ONE QUESTION

If his dating of Paul is c. 55 AD, then he has Luke writing post Josephus, and thus past Paul by at least 40 years later, probably 50-60.

(In the Carrier economy, Luke in docu-drama would have no personal connection with anybody about whom he is writing, and items like the archaeological confirmation of Joanna are simply coincidental. It would be interesting to research the many such happy coincidences.)

So how does he handle the Pauline references to Luke? Including Paul's reference to the scripture in Luke's gospel (1 Timothy 5:18).

Thanks!

Steven Avery
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: the fiction of Richard Carrier

Post by toejam »

Steven Avery wrote:First, I would just like to get a general outline of Carrier's timeline. He accepts, apparently, that Paul wrote letters in the 50-60 AD range? If not, I would like first to know his dating of the epistles of Paul. (And I believe that every one is genuine, but from Carrier I simply want to know his date. In fact, I would say that the attacks on the authenticity of the Pastorals are absurdly weak.)
Carrier is pretty stock standard on most of his datings, though tends to lean on the later side of things. He accepts the consensus that 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Romans are best seen as authentic. The others he does not accept. He dates Hebrews fairly early (pre-70CE), though does not think it was written by Paul.

I think the arguments against the authenticity of the Pastorals on the grounds of literary, theological and 'implied settings' factors are rather weighty. Add to those the facts that early canon-compilers such as Marcion either did not know of or disregarded them, plus that Pauline forgeries were an early controversy (see 2 Thessalonians), and I think it's a pretty solid case that Paul did not author them. I think the attempts to re-argue them back into the equation of authenticity are pretty weak.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Post Reply