Acts as fiction by Richard Carrier

[Bernard Muller]

Findings
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 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/

I disagree with many of these conclusions (exception 6 & partly 9), as explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html and http://historical-jesus.info/76.html

I have to repeat some afterthought about the same Acts Seminar, something I can agree with, from a Westar Acts Seminar release in 2013:
"This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

Cordially, Bernard

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

This "why doesn't it mention the destruction of the Temple?" trope(aside from being incorrect) seems to be extremely selective as well. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple either. Neither does the Gospel of Judas, or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary or any number of other non-canonical writings. Does that mean they were all written before 70 CE?

One major difference of course is that the Acts of the Apostles is a history of the Apostles leading right up to the 60s. It is not a book about the life of Jesus.

Steven Avery

[toejam]

^I don't recall the Acts of Paul refering to the temple's destruction either... so does that mean it was written pre-70CE?

[John T]

Tell us, do you believe that Carrier is inerrant and has proven that Jesus is a myth? If so, what is his best evidence?
I have asked these questions before, perhaps you will be the first atheist/mythicist to honestly address them.
But I won't hold my breath.

Thanks in advance.

John T

I don't think anyone believes that Carrier is inerrant, and neither do I.

So, can you bring yourself to list any of Carrier's self-forced errors? Can you provide his best evidence for why he believes Jesus is a myth?

Can you/anyone explain how a crank exegesis and a lousy Biblical historian can get so much accolades on this forum?
Is it, the enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality? If people started quoting the Pope around here what would the reaction be?

And no I'm not Catholic.

Regards,

John T

[bcedaifu]

Tell us, do you believe that Carrier is inerrant and has proven that Jesus is a myth? If so, what is his best evidence?
I have asked these questions before, perhaps you will be the first atheist/mythicist to honestly address them.

Repeating Diogenes, of course, Carrier is not inerrant. However, that does not make his analysis incorrect vis a vis, the fictional nature of Acts.

What is the "best evidence" that War and Peace is fictional?

Carrier has not "proven" that Jesus was a mythical figure. The gospel of Mark demonstrates that fact: Mark 1:1, "son of God".

Exchange Herakles for Jesus, in gMark, and you have your "proof".

In my opinion, Carrier is both brilliant, and accompished, and I salute him, however, his mathematical expressions are largely non-sequitur, in my opinion. Forget about his fascination with Bayes' theorem. It has no bearing on the mythical nature of Jesus of Nazareth. Read Luke or Mark or Mathew or John. You have the answer. There is no more need to "prove" that Jesus is fictional, than there is need to "prove" that Superman is fictional.

[hjalti]

Tell us, do you believe that Carrier is inerrant and has proven that Jesus is a myth? If so, what is his best evidence?
I have asked these questions before, perhaps you will be the first atheist/mythicist to honestly address them.
But I won't hold my breath.

Thanks in advance.

John T

I don't think anyone believes that Carrier is inerrant, and neither do I.

So, can you bring yourself to list any of Carrier's self-forced errors? Can you provide his best evidence for why he believes Jesus is a myth?

Well, Carrier used to say that Jesus probably existed, now he says that Jesus probably didn't exist. Clearly one of those claims must be false and Carrier himself would say that his earlier view was in error

You can buy his book if you're interested in his case for mythicism.

[John T]

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 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 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.

There is a sucker born every minute...P T Barnum.

John T

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Hi,

This "why doesn't it mention the destruction of the Temple?" trope(aside from being incorrect) seems to be extremely selective as well. The Gospel of Thomas doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple either. Neither does the Gospel of Judas, or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary or any number of other non-canonical writings. Does that mean they were all written before 70 CE?

One major difference of course is that the Acts of the Apostles is a history of the Apostles leading right up to the 60s. It is not a book about the life of Jesus.

It's not about the destruction of Jerusalem either.

[ficino]

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."

[Stephan Huller]

I think that just about sums things up in this thread