Metacrock is still apologizing...

[steve43]

Steve43.
I take your Post as complete acceptance of my Post, since you refute none of it.

Thank you.

CW

LOL.

Don't take it that way at all.

Give me one simple aspect of your "theory" and I'll look at it "critically."

My time is limited and your theories are confusing.

[ghost]

Is it true both Paul and Flavius Josephus fall on the road to Damascus?

[Roger Pearse]

No indeed. But arguing from that silence that this shows they were not seems rather brave to me!

I didn't say that the lack of self identification is per se disproof that they were witnesses, but it places the burden of proof ... <snip>

At this point I lost interest, I'm sorry to say.

When we look at antiquity, surely we want to know what happened? Any fool can bleat "prove things to me", and I have seen - as you have, I'm sure - far too many internet "debates" which consist of two fools each trying to get the other prove something to them. To determine whether something is the case, we just tabulate all the ancient testimony concerned with the matter and see what it says. Either the claim made arises from that data; or it does not.

The remainder of your post appears to be reiteration of your claims. You will find my response underneath the first time you made them.

Perhaps I wasn't clear about Papias. It is Eusebius who tells us what he said (in the HE). Eusebius had the book in front of him. He quotes chunks of it and criticises the understanding of its author. We don't have the book. So, in the circumstances, it would seem rather brave to insist that we know - know for certain - what Papias was "actually" talking about, and that the man who read it was wrong. Possible; but I wouldn't.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

What we need is data, and that says the contrary. It is impossible to see Acts as post 61; and with that, the composition of the synoptics, all clearly related, must be pulled back to that sort of period.

I respect your position I just disagree with it. Let me assert another alternative. From my research, Acts cannot be any EARLIER than around 75, assuming that almost immediately at the death of Mucianus, Governor of Syria, a conscious rewrite of his "Story" began.

...

Acts is about Mucianus, the 12th Legion, with contributions from Tacitus, Polybius and probably Pliny the Elder, along with records from Roman Shipping Logs. It cannot have been written earlier than 75.

Which is to say, there will be no evidence accepted here on this site for these statements.

The methodology adopted here is:

1. Select various episodes in Acts,
2. Select a minor figure and select a few episodes from Roman history (I haven't checked all your claims; I presume they are correct for sake of argument)
3. Assert that the two are very similar (which they are, since you selected them to be)
4. Infer that any two things which are similar in this way must be the same event (which is a fallacy)
5. Infer that Acts is a copy of these events, rather than the other way around (no reason given for either direction)
6. Therefore date Acts late

I'm afraid that history isn't done like this. Sorry!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Roger Pearse]

Once again we get into theories and hypothesizes derived from a variety of sources and cut-and-pasted into some conclusion presented by someone who may or may not have an agenda.

Well and good. It is a free society and the internet is a great source for people to explore all sorts of interesting subjects and draw their own conclusions.

But that is not to say that the conclusions are valid or even worthwhile.

For the SERIOUS person who wants to understand the early Christian Era- the first part of the first century AD- he or she should NOT start off with the New Testament.

There is a discipline to this and in order not to waste your time you have to be methodical.

Roman history comes first, and there is a lot of it out there. Tacitus, Suetonius, and others. PRIMARY SOURCES here, folks. Learn it cold. Very interesting in itself.

Once a firm grasp is had on that, resist the temptation to then refer to the Gospels and instead focus on Jewish history. This is mainly Josephus and Philo. Of necessity, Herod the Great and his descendants should be understood completely. Well worth the time.

Then you MIGHT want to look at the Archeological evidence that is out there. Not much, but some is significant.

Only THEN should you look closely at the New Testament. There are characters in the New Testament that you should have already learned about in Roman and Jewish history. Know their stories as you try to fit things in to a timeline, and understand what REALLY happened back then.

Using this discipline, some logic, and a little Kentucky windage you can come to some surprising conclusions.

Hagan has done just that in his "Year of the Passover" and "Fires of Rome". I recommend it.

The Christian world was a microcosm of the Jewish and Roman world.

Hmm. An interesting idea. I suspect it is a sound approach to take, or something like it. What do others think?

I think I probably DID follow this path, more or less, since I was an ancientist, scrambling over the ruins of Roman cities, long before I ever learned that there *were* any such things as Christians; and I came to early Christian literature via the Loeb series. For myself, it avoids a world of pitfalls. But in these ignorant days, who gets a classical education?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No indeed. But arguing from that silence that this shows they were not seems rather brave to me!

I didn't say that the lack of self identification is per se disproof that they were witnesses, but it places the burden of proof ... <snip>

At this point I lost interest, I'm sorry to say.

You lose interest at the moment you're asked to support an affirmative claim?

The Gospels are anonymous. Anyone who wants to assign specific authors to them has the burden to support those assignments, do they not? You disagree?

Perhaps I wasn't clear about Papias. It is Eusebius who tells us what he said (in the HE). Eusebius had the book in front of him. He quotes chunks of it and criticises the understanding of its author. We don't have the book. So, in the circumstances, it would seem rather brave to insist that we know - know for certain - what Papias was "actually" talking about, and that the man who read it was wrong. Possible; but I wouldn't.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Eusebius does not give us context for Papias' quotes and does not quote Papias as saying anything at all that would connect either book he describes to the canonical Gospels. You are making an inference that Papias provided some such context which, for some reason, was not quoted by Eusebius. I do not find this persuasive.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe Papias in everything? Do you also believe that Judas got so fat he couldn't fit through a cart path, got hit by a cart and exploded? (and that's the more toned down version, The Appolinaris version is even goofier). Is Papias infallible? Even Eusebius called him "a man of small intellect."

[Charles Wilson]

The methodology adopted here is:

1. Select various episodes in Acts,
2. Select a minor figure and select a few episodes from Roman history (I haven't checked all your claims; I presume they are correct for sake of argument)
3. Assert that the two are very similar (which they are, since you selected them to be)
4. Infer that any two things which are similar in this way must be the same event (which is a fallacy)
5. Infer that Acts is a copy of these events, rather than the other way around (no reason given for either direction)
6. Therefore date Acts late

Sorry, RP.
That is not the methodology I have used, it is the methodology you use to dismiss people who have views contrary to yours. It is like a Carrier who crows about NOT reading Atwill and that therefore he has refuted Atwill.
MADNESS!

I have deconstructed Acts. Not just this piece that I Posted. Acts. AS I stated in an earlier Post, your complaint is Whitehead's critique of Empiricism, with Kantian encapsulation: "I perceive why bees visit flowers. All you are allowed to see are "Bees on Flowers"." Sad. Very sad.

Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, p. 59:

"I entitle transcendental all knowledge which is occupied not so much with objects as with the mode of our knowledge of objects insofar as this mode is to be possible a priori."

Tell me, Immanuel, what is this "OUR knowledge" you talk about? This is precisely the point to what you claim, RP. You assert certain "Categories of the Understanding" which you may transcend but others cannot. There is a problem, however. You may not ascribe your belief in Categories to others without ascribing them to yourself. If you are therefore also inscribed by these Categories, you may not transcend them not matter how hard you try.

At least Kant puts in a disclaimer:"...insofar as this mode is to be possible." You don't. Without knowing, you condemn. It doesn't work that way.

Sorry RP. Done.

CW

[theterminator]

Just out of curiosity, do you believe Papias in everything? Do you also believe that Judas got so fat he couldn't fit through a cart path, got hit by a cart and exploded? (and that's the more toned down version, The Appolinaris version is even goofier). Is Papias infallible? Even Eusebius called him "a man of small intellect."

i quote:

Drop the fathers when they don’t agree with you

Christians cherry-pick what they want out of the early Church fathers, cite is as historically correct within the cloak of “tradition,” and then ignore those writings counter to their position.

They embrace Papias when it comes to authorship of Mark and Matthew; ignore and abandon him when it comes to Judas’ death, Jesus statements, or the Gospel of Hebrews because he becomes inconvenient. Embrace Acts of Peter regarding how Peter died; ignore Acts of Peter why Peter died. Same with Acts of Paul. Discard Gospel of Peter as “too fanciful;” embrace Gospel of Matthew as historical fact. Point out Ignatius’ use of the star phenomenon at Jesus’ birth; ignore it is nothing like the account of Matthew.

Write off the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, hold as historical the petulant Jesus child of Luke 2. Point out 1 Clement’s use of Jesus’ saying; ignore that pesky phoenix. The list goes on and on and on.

Perhaps more relevant to our present topic, utilize Clement of Alexandria for the gospel order; disregard Clement’s claim Cephas and Peter were two separate people.

As these discussions go, the Christians’ method becomes apparent—if it was written within the 1st or 2nd Century AND it helps the Christian’s immediate argument—then consider it “historical.” If it does not, either ignore it, or discard it for being “too late” or “legendary.”

Why the first 100 years? (“100 years” from what?) Why such an arbitrary number? Why not 80? Or 120? Frankly, your article relies heavily on Eusebius, who is outside the 100 years, so clearly 100 is not a bright-line cut-off.

[Mental flatliner]

Why did the Acts Seminar conclude that Acts was written in the second century, if it's "impossible" for it to date after 61?

I can't speak for the Acts Seminar, but it's likely wrong.

Acts is a good example of diary-form writing. Luke likely wrote the book as events happened (over a period of several decades) and then published around 58-60 AD.

(Keep in mind that by "published" I mean he finished 1 copy and sent it to Theophilus. They didn't have mass production at that time. The never-ending merry-go-round of literary analysis and copies of copies of Q sources are ridiculous in this light.)

[steve43]

Who said he finished it?

Acts ends in Rome pretty much in limbo in A.D. 63.

A very reasonable case can be made that Luke, Paul, Peter and the boys got rounded up by the Roman mob and executed.

Lucky that Luke's manuscript survived at all.