Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Acts has to be historical in some way because Christians didn't make things up, it would've created too many problems for them.

So the Infancy Gospel of Thomas has to be historical in some way too then? How about the Gospel of Judas or the Acts of Pilate?

The heretics invented and authored their own fictitious "Gnostic Gospels and Acts" and other stories probably as a parody of the NT Gospels and Acts.
They even preserved their own heretical esoteric wisdom sayings in the Gospel of Thomas. In the Acts of Thomas Jesus sells Thomas in the slave market.

"Gnostic texts use parody and satire quite frequently ... making fun of traditional biblical beliefs"[April Deconick]

How about the Greater Questions of Mary, where Jesus eats his own cum?

How about the Toledeth Yeshu as another scathing satire?

The list is endless.

Nothing is historical.

The Gnostic Gospels were not all parodies, and the point is that they they were Christians who made stuff up. They all made stuff up. It did not cause them trouble (as Blood claimed) to make stuff up. Heresy is a relative term and Christianity had no controlling authority or orthodoxy for the first 300 years.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"Luke copies Mark. Mark is post-70. Luke also uses Josephus' *Antiquities* which puts him in the 90's. The author did not know Paul and does not even know his letters. Luke did not know any witnesses or interview any witnesses. This is pretty much all settled scholarship."...Diogenes the Cynic

Sorry, but I must have missed that "settled scholarship" memo. So, if it is not too much trouble, please explain why Luke does not give details about epic events like, the murder of James the Just, the destruction of the temple, or the death of Paul and Peter, you know, major historical events for Christians that took place between 62-70 A.D.?

Thanks in advance.

John T

What evidence do you have that those figures were actually martyred? Those are late and legendary traditions. None of their deaths are described anywhere in the New Testament canon. Why would Luke be expected to know about legends that hadn't been invented yet? Moreover, why would he mention stuff that doesn't happen until after the events he's describing are over?

The Gospel of John gives away in its second ending that it was written after the deaths of all the apostles, but does not say how they died.





Luke does mention the destruction of the Temple in his Gospel (he's copying Mark, after all), but there was no reason to mention it in Acts since (presumably) it didn't happen until after the death of Paul. That's like expecting a mention of 9/11 in a biography of Kurt Cobain.

Luke was also writing to a Roman audience and did not want to provoke them. He and Mark both bend over backwards to avoid insulting Rome or blaming them for the crucifixion. If you've ever read Josephus' Jewish Wars, you see the same kind of apologetic spin.

[Steven Avery]

Luke also uses Josephus' *Antiquities* which puts him in the 90's. ... None of their deaths are described anywhere in the New Testament canon. Why would Luke be expected to know about legends that hadn't been invented yet?

I'll skip a bunch of stuff and circularity and point out that the history book in the New Testament canon is the Book of Acts. And how do you relate to James the Just as a legend? Even from your perspective.

4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62,
which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
http://www.bethinking.org/bible/the-dat ... -testament

Steven

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Luke also uses Josephus' *Antiquities* which puts him in the 90's. ... None of their deaths are described anywhere in the New Testament canon. Why would Luke be expected to know about legends that hadn't been invented yet?

I'll skip a bunch of stuff and circularity and point out that the history book in the New Testament canon is the Book of Acts. And how do you relate to James the Just as a legend? Even from your perspective.

4. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62,
which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).
http://www.bethinking.org/bible/the-dat ... -testament

Steven

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.

There is no history book in the New Testament. Acts is fiction from beginning to end.

[John T]

"What evidence do you [John T] have that those figures [James the Just, Paul and Peter] were actually martyred? Those are late and legendary traditions. None of their deaths are described anywhere in the New Testament canon. Why would Luke be expected to know about legends that hadn't been invented yet? Moreover, why would he mention stuff that doesn't happen until after the events he's describing are over?"...Diogenes the Cynic

Answer: Perhaps for the simple reason Luke/Acts was written before their deaths took place.

Ananus assembled the sanhedrin of judges and had James the brother of Jesus stoned in 62 A.D....Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20/Chapter 9.
Of course you will just simply say that stoning someone doesn't mean they died.

Now if Luke had copied and pasted everything from Josephus then why didn't he include the dates and manner of death for James the Just, the leader of the Christian church and nemesis of Paul?

The simple answer is because Luke and Paul didn't know about it for it hadn't happen yet.

Now tell us why in all of your postings you haven't written about who won the election of 2016? Could it be because it hasn't happen yet?
Got it now?

Regards,

John T

[MrMacSon]

.
... the death of James ...
is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews (20.9.1.200).

.
"Ananus assembled the sanhedrin of judges and had James the brother of Jesus stoned in 62 A.D....Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20/Chapter 9."

You mean an alleged James, an alleged-brother of an alleged-Jesus.

Nobody knows who these only first-named people were or are supposed to be.

Claiming they are the alleged Jesus-the-Christ-of-Nazareth and his alleged brother is special-pleading & wishful-thinking.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ananus assembled the sanhedrin of judges and had James the brother of Jesus stoned in 62 A.D....Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20/Chapter 9

Josephus doesn't say this.

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

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

So you disagree with the skeptics, and many scholars, who say this "Jesus called Christ" was an interpolation, or modified. Interesting.

Any scholarly writers taken this position, that the James executed was the brother of the high priest, called Christ?

Steven

[MrMacSon]

Antiquities 20.9.1 is more about Ananus and his removal from the priesthood b/c of his unjustified stoning of James and others

... this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him ...

Who this James was is not clear; especially if the references to Jesus or Christ or both are scribal emendations or interpolations.

add2- he may well be James the Just

add1 - That Jesus could well have been a contemporary of 'James the Just'; Jesus ben Ananias, particularly as, in those times, brother often meant more than sibling.
.

[Adam]

Very simple solution. Luke wrote Acts around 63 AD, to the same Theophilus who was the high priest at 41 AD and whose son(s) had served similarly. Not complicated at all.

Yes, a very Evangelical position. I find it hard myself to believe that the same Theophilus addressed in the prologue to Luke in 37 AD would be the same person named in the same style 22 years later, but I can argue for the tenability of the position in terms of my own writings here in ECW. (Nor do I think the prologue to Acts could have been left over and attached to our current Acts, because only a few chapters of our Acts could have been written at 37 AD.)

There is a problem with the 37 AD date for Luke in that few would think that anyone earlier had "drawn up accounts of the events", as no one I know proposes Matthew or Mark were available that early. However, my own Gospel Eyewitnesses thesis has the Passion Narrative written right away (as even Peter Kirby's dating allows) and Q (by Matthew?) written during Jesus's lifetime. I would also allow that the distinctly Markan elements (presumably from Peter) in Luke could have been early as well, even though my analysis would have this collaboration occurring in 44 AD when Peter reaches John Mark's house in Acts 12:12. By my more recent Evolving Proto-Gospel hypothesis, Mark would have put all these three elements together in a Proto-Gospel that was first available towards Luke. Luke could have been written in 41 AD using these three sources plus L material (not necessarily including the Infancy Narrative). Later the Proto-Gospel was expanded to a Proto-Matthew that was abridged as Mark and rearranged as Matthew. Luke was first (though not necessarily as early as 37 AD), with Matthew and Mark probably in the '60's including material not from the seven eyewitnesses I identified who wrote about Jesus. (For the seven Gospel Eyewitnesses see http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... p?f=3&t=14 at Oct. 10, 2013 THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT MY IDEAS as edited by Peter Kirby).

As for Acts dating to 63 AD, no one seems to contest that it includes no events after this date. No one seems to have mentioned that both the writer and Josephus resided in Caesarea during the latter part of this time period, so we can understand how parallel information could appear in both Acts and Josephus.