Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

[Diogenes the Cynic]

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

"Called Christ" could be a marginal note accidentally incorporated. That's what Carrier believes. I don't think it really matters. Either way, it's not about the Bible character.

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

Richard Carrier published a peer reviewed article to that effect.

[stevencarrwork]

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

You still haven't explained why Paul doesn't mention a single miracle of Jesus.

Or why Luke never states that Jesus had a brother called James.

How can Luke write that the brother of Jesus, called James, was killed, when he never writes that Jesus had a brother called James?

You can't state that somebody was killed, if you have removed all references to him!

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

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,

With one very important difference.

Luke 1:3
It seemed good to me also,
having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first,
to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus,
of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

At the time of Luke, Theophilus was the "most excellent" high priest. And Maimonides shows us this usage in Hebraic understanding for the high priest.

There is a problem with the 37 AD date for Luke

41 AD. would be a high priest year.

in that few would think that anyone earlier had "drawn up accounts of the events",

As you point out, that includes the years Jesus was in ministry (thus, many accounts may not go through the crucifixion, the resurrection appearances and the ascension). This was not a reference to the other gospels. It is actually discussed nicely in some of the ECW.

Origen - Homily on Luke
…You should know that not only four Gospels, but very many, were composed. the Gospels we have were chosen from among these gospels and passed on to the churches. We can know this from Luke’s own prologue, which begins this way: ‘Because many have tried to compose an account.’ The words ‘have tried’ imply an accusation against those who rushed into writing gospels without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke did not “try” to write; they wrote their Gospels when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. Hence, ‘Many have tried to compose an account of the events that are clearly known among us.’

Origen most likely gave his homilies on Luke around 233 AD (xxiv)
Origen in Homily 1 (p. 5) of Homilies on Luke translated by Joseph T. Lienhard in The Fathers of the Church series. 1996.
http://www.brianrenshaw.com/blog/2013/8 ... er-gospels

Luke himself at the beginning of his treatise prefixed an account of the cause for which he had made his compilation, explaining that while many others had somewhat rashly attempted to make a narrative of the things of which had himself full knowledge, he felt obliged to release us from the doubtful propositions of the others and related in his own gospel the accurate account of the things of which he had himself firmly learnt the truth from his profitable intercourse and life with Paul and his conversation with the other apostles.

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III.XXIV.15.

Luke, who was by race an Antiochian and by profession a physician, had long been a companion of Paul, and had more than a casual acquaintance with the rest of the Apostles. He has left us in two inspired books examples of the art of healing for souls which be obtained from them: namely, the Gospel, which he testifies that he planned according to what those who were eye-witnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word had handed down to him, all of whom he says he had followed from the first, and the Acts of the Apostles, which he composed on the evidence not of hearsay but of his own eyes. And they say that Paul was actually accustomed to quote the Gospel according to St. Luke, since when writing about some Gospel as his own he used to say, 'According to my Gospel.'

Ecclesiastical History 3.4.12 FC 10:142-43**; PG 20:219-20
http://books.google.com/books?id=-o0katcldMQC&pg=PA142

Alternate translation by Arthur Charles Harvey (1808-1894) .. I want to remember to look over the book :

The authenticity of the Gospel of St. Luke : its bearing upon the evidences of the truth of Christianity : delivered at Bath in the autumn of 1890 : five lectures (1892)
https://archive.org/stream/authenticity ... 0/mode/2up

Luke, by birth an Antiochian, and by profession a physician, a constant companion of St. Paul, and intimate with the other Apostles, learnt from them the art of healing souls, of which he has left us an example in two inspired books. The one is the Gospel of Luke ; the other is ' the Acts of the Apostles,' which he composed not from hearsay, but having learnt them by his own eyes.

... 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.

Interesting. Is this based on the frequent usage of Caesarea events by Luke?

Thanks!

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

His main (and somewhat strange) point is something about the speeches in Acts, how they are written and what they mention or don't, and how they reflect a stream of tradition behind Acts that fits the non-historicity hypothesis better. ...PS -- Ah, I just noticed that lpetrich was commenting on a Youtube talk.

Your description fits pretty well for the YouTube. Is the chapter available on the net? (Or alternately, in a book that is library available?) Arguments in a book may be a bit more focused.

I sent Richard Carrier a note (an old email addy, but it seemed to go through) as follows:

================================================

In your presentation on Luke writing Acts, could you answer a question about Luke and Paul, as you place the history?

Did Luke know Paul?

If not, do you assume forgery for the pastorals as part of your exposition?

2 Timothy 4:11
Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

1 Timothy 5:18
For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

And your take on:

Colossians 4:14
Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

================================================

Steven

[John T]

@Avery,

Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest response from Carrier.
If he did respond he would say the evidence you cited for proving Luke knew Paul was either an emendation or interpolation.

Sadly, such rank dishonestly is encouraged in his small circle of of so-called scholarly mythicist friends.

John T

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

John, I did not cite evidence claiming such proof.

(e.g. I even allow that Luke the beloved physician may be not the author Luke)

Purpose: I simply want Carrier to state his position. So that when we talk about his position,
it is not like nailing jelly to a tree. It seems amazing to me that an hour presentation, and
various writings, don't seem to address the basics.

And yes, it is very possible that the answers are "forgery, interpolation, redaction" .. yada yada.
Then this should be stated clearly, as it is a presuppositional approach that any NT contradiction
to the theory will be simply denied at the time of presentation. (And the Carrier hope is to
avoid the presentation, since it is embarrassing in its unlikeliness and super special pleading.)

It is a fundamental requirement of a professed historian to try to be honest in presentation,
connecting the dots. And if they don't know on a basic aspect, they should state the perplexity.

As for believers that accept the authenticity of the full NT corpus, we should realize the total
lack of relevance of mythicist theories that are not defensible from the ground up, but are
dependent on an intermediate foundation of sand of NT forgery and redaction. Why would
we care about theories that are built on unsubstantiated accusations ? .. except to show
the inconsistencies and lack of historicity.

Steven

[John T]

@Avery,

No problem.
I also allowed that Luke may not be the author.

My point is the mythisict whenever confronted with contrary evidence, tend to default to emendation or interpolation as the explanation. They offer no real credible evidence other than to say, it must be so because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

John T


Of course they have no evidence

[Steven Avery]

Yep, I agree that the special pleading of forgery, interpolation, redaction, (and cherry-picking inferior texts and translations), should be recognized.

[GakuseiDon]

@Avery,

Don't hold your breath waiting for an honest response from Carrier.
If he did respond he would say the evidence you cited for proving Luke knew Paul was either an emendation or interpolation.

In OHJ, Carrier does state that Luke (or at least the author of Acts) knew Paul. These are the sources the author used, according to Carrier (Chapter 9 of OHJ):

• Josephus, for background information
• a rewrite of the Elijah-Elisha narrative in the OT Kings literature, but now casting Jesus and Paul in the principal roles.
• material from Mark, Matthew, and perhaps other now­ lost Gospels
• Pauline epistles
• reworked tales from Homer (citing Dennis McDonald)
• the Bacchae of Euripides (the prison breaks in Acts share themes with the famously miraculous prison breaks in the Bacchae)
• Ezekial
• the source Acts employs the most is the Septuagint.
• Luke has also taken elements from the book of Tobit.

Carrier cites various scholars to back up his claims.

[stevencarrwork]

John T continues to duck the question of why Paul never mentions any miracles of Jesus, or why Luke never mentions Lazarus being raised from the dead.

Why does Luke never write that Jesus had a brother called James?

Allegedly, the killing of the brother of James should have been written about by Luke.

But John T has simply 'forgotten' to tell people that Luke doesn't even write that Jesus had a brother called James.