Metacrock is still apologizing...

[Roger Pearse]

All this starts to go into an area in which I have only marginal interest, because I don't spend a lot of time on the subject. The historical record says what it says; over the last 2 centuries endless attempts have been made (and are still being made) to evade its testimony; the veriest nonsense has been established, with great pomp, as "fact", only to be overthrown by the discovery of a shred of papyrus; and, added to that, there are any number of people who seem to think that if they can heap up enough of what used to be quaintly called "bible difficulties", then they can "prove that the bible is untrue" and get on with living a life based on convenience. Sifting through all this crap is not my interest.

A few comments, then, out of courtesy, which mostly consist of expressing disagreement without detailed discussion:

The internal evidence alone excludes any possibility of eyewitness testimony.

I'm afraid that I am wary of such claims in such language. By "internal evidence" here we do not mean things like direct statements; but rather inferences of various sorts, which may be little better than speculation. In general I wouldn't spend very much time on the value of such inferences made by people 2,000 years later in a different culture. I am aware that by saying this I am volunteering for a list of "bible difficulties" to be posted; but anyone can do that. Such things long predate modern scholarship and reflect, not scholarly investigation, but a desire to evade the content of the text. It was this kind of "evidence" that led people to date John to 170 AD, despite the clear testimony of the ancients - people who knew the author, for crissakes! - and it wasn't true.

They don't claim to come from witnesses.

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

they are riddled with historical anachronisms and errors,

We are back to the list of "bible difficulties". Any text can be objected to in this fashion. Real anachronisms, of the kind that demonstrated that the Donation of Constantine was forged, are not found.

they are clearly post-70 (no matter what Roger says, he knows the scholarship is not with him on this),

I'm afraid I pay no attention to NT scholarship so I couldn't tell you what the "consensus" is (I can tell you what the likes of Bart Ehrman claim, but I rather doubt he speaks for the immensely learned scholars of France or Italy). I imagine it is, as it has always been, the opinions of those who control university appointments in the time and place in question. I don't find appeals to the authority of paid scholars, on matters of controversy, at all interesting, and nor should you. Scholarship isn't science. The consensus is fine, on matters where there is no controversy; but as soon as politics and religion creep in, we need to be very sceptical. 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. Curiously that is what the ancient writers say also.

they are written in educated Greek (even Mark. His Greek may superficially appear to be casual and crude, but his chiastic structures indicate formal training).

Um. I wonder what the ancients say about the style of the gospels? But suppose it was so; how would this be relevant? We all know that Josephus employed style editors to smooth his own text.

Mark can be shown to be sometimes re-writing Septuagint narratives ...

I believe somebody has sold a book claiming so. But I have found, over time, that such books are endless. And they all tell different stories, amusingly enough. We have to remain sceptical. Never read just one book; read loads.

Mark as a secretary of Peter is simply untenable - it makes no such claim on its own behalf, it is filled with geographical and legal mistakes that could not have come from a witness, (etc)

I'm afraid I prefer the testimony of a man who knew the apostles to the speculations of people 2,000 years later.

You get the idea, at any event. I just don't see the point of all this speculation. That the gospels are what they appear to be - the products of the apostolic circle - satisfies all the data. The details of their production are largely unknown to us, but such details as we know confirm that. For all we know Matthew, Mark and Luke used to have lunch together at an agreeable restaurant just off the Argiletum in Rome every Friday between 60-64 AD. If so, it would render a lot of what is written about the synoptics, with great learning and great pomp, pure waste paper. Let's be sceptical.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[neilgodfrey]

It is impossible to see Acts as post 61

Impossible?

The only way I can imagine it is "impossible" is by imputing into Acts our own notions of what it should be as "history" and without regard for the literary nature of the document as assessed by its literary context. I'm open to other criteria of "impossibilities", though.

[stevencarrwork]

It is impossible to see Acts as post 61

Impossible?

Absolutely impossible. It would mean admitting that you were uncertain about something - impossible for a Roger Pearse to do.

Anyway, he has already declared that he has the Truth and discussing it is of 'marginal interest' to him.

[Roger Pearse]

It is impossible to see Acts as post 61

Impossible?

The only way I can imagine it is "impossible" is by imputing into Acts our own notions of what it should be as "history" and without regard for the literary nature of the document as assessed by its literary context. I'm open to other criteria of "impossibilities", though.

Those nine words summarise what I wrote earlier. It's is probably best to reply to what I wrote there rather than this brief reference to them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Blood]

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

[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 on anyone who wants to assert that they were written by witnesses. They offer no internal reason think so.

We are back to the list of "bible difficulties". Any text can be objected to in this fashion. Real anachronisms, of the kind that demonstrated that the Donation of Constantine was forged, are not found.

Oh, but they are - for instance, the aposynagogos in John, anachronistic synagogues, knowledge of Gnostics (people teaching "other Christs) and the flat out errors are numerous as well - Pigs jumping into a lake from 30 miles away, going to the Decapolis by way of Sidon and Tyre, Mark's legally impossible trial and conviction before the Sanhedrin, two obviously fictional and pervasively contradictory nativities set ten years apart, both filled with purely invented details. Sure these kinds of things can be found in other texts, but we just say those texts are mistaken, we don't make excuses for them.

I'm afraid I pay no attention to NT scholarship so I couldn't tell you what the "consensus" is (I can tell you what the likes of Bart Ehrman claim, but I rather doubt he speaks for the immensely learned scholars of France or Italy).

Pretty much only conservative fundamentalists still accept the traditional authorships of the Gospels, Ehrman is very much in the mainstream. The authorship traditions of all four Gospels are almost universally regarded as spurious by critical scholars

The consensus is fine, on matters where there is no controversy; but as soon as politics and religion creep in, we need to be very sceptical. What we need is data, and that says the contrary.

There is no data to suppport traditional authorships or early dates and there is much data against it.

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. Curiously that is what the ancient writers say also.

It is impossible that Acts was written before Mark and Mark has to be post 70 (if not post-Bar Kochba). Luke almost certainly uses Josephus' Antiquities, which pushes it to the 90's.

Um. I wonder what the ancients say about the style of the gospels? But suppose it was so; how would this be relevant? We all know that Josephus employed style editors to smooth his own text.

It's relevant because Papias says that Mark wrote down Peter's words "in no particular order," and did not change them. Normal people don't speak in Greek chiasms any more than they speak in iambic pentameter or in limericks. Mark's Gospel is very much arranged in an order that could not represent the unedited memories of an illiterate, Aramaic speaking fisherman.

I believe somebody has sold a book claiming so. But I have found, over time, that such books are endless. And they all tell different stories, amusingly enough. We have to remain sceptical. Never read just one book; read loads.

Believe me I have. One of those writers who says Mark rewrites the LXX is Raymond Brown. Maybe you should read some NT scholarship.

I'm afraid I prefer the testimony of a man who knew the apostles to the speculations of people 2,000 years later.

If you're talking about Papias, I will repeat that the books he describes do not match the descriptions of the Canonicals. Papias does not quote from them or show any specific knowledge of them. Those connections were made later church fathers and they don't hold up.

[Charles Wilson]

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.

Hello RP-
"Here I go again...".

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. Mucianus, who held Imperial Power before giving it up to Vespasian, is listed as Suffect-Consul for a few years in Vespasian's reign and then disappears from the record ( as Paul mysteriously does at the end of Acts.). Acts references Polybius, Tacitus and others.

Consider:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... g=original
Polybius and Syrtis: "At length they came to the island of the Lotophagi called Mēnix, which is not far from the Lesser Syrtis. There, from ignorance of the waters, they ran upon some shallows; the tide receded, their ships went aground, and they were in extreme peril. However, after a while the tide unexpectedly flowed back again, and by dint of throwing overboard all their heavy goods they just managed to float the ships..."

Acts 27: 17 - 19 (RSV):
[17] after hoisting it up, they took measures to undergird the ship; then, fearing that they should run on the Syr'tis, they lowered the gear, and so were driven.
[18] As we were violently storm-tossed, they began next day to throw the cargo overboard;
[19] and the third day they cast out with their own hands the tackle of the ship.

Notice verse 17. In the Moffatt Translation, the first part is translated thus:
[17] once it was hoisted aboard, they used ropes* to undergird the ship,...

[[Note]]: " *Naber's conjecture, [[Greek word given]] for the [[Greek word given]] of the MSS yields this excellent sense."

What do "ropes undergirding a ship" have to do with a bare assertion that someone rewrote Polybius to create a Story in Acts?
Look at Tacitus, Histories, Book 3:

"A sudden outbreak had been excited in Pontus by a barbarian slave, who had before commanded the royal fleet. This was Anicetus, a freedman of Polemon...

"Anicetus also set fire to the fleet, and, as the sea was not guarded, escaped, for Mucianus had brought up to Byzantium the best of the Liburnian ships and all the troops. The barbarians even insolently scoured the sea in hastily constructed vessels of their own called "camarae," built with narrow sides and broad bottoms, and joined together without fastenings of brass or iron. Whenever the water is rough they raise the bulwarks with additional planks according to the increasing height of the waves, till the vessel is covered in like a house. Thus they roll about amid the billows, and, as they have a prow at both extremities alike and a convertible arrangement of oars, they may be paddled in one direction or another indifferently and without risk...

"The matter attracted the attention of Vespasian, and induced him to dispatch some veterans from the legions under Virdius Geminus, a tried soldier. Finding the enemy in disorder and dispersed in the eager pursuit of plunder, he attacked them, and drove them to their ships. Hastily fitting out a fleet of Liburnian ships he pursued Anicetus, and overtook him at the mouth of the river Cohibus, where he was protected by the king of the Sedochezi, whose alliance he had secured by a sum of money and other presents. This prince at first endeavoured to protect the suppliant by a threat of hostilities; when, however, the choice was presented to him between war and the profit to be derived from treachery, he consented, with the characteristic perfidy of barbarians, to the destruction of Anicetus, and delivered up the refugees. So ended this servile war..."

(I am desperately trying to keep this Post short.) Have we seen this before?

Acts 8: 27 (RSV, in part):
[27] And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian...

Read the entire passage of the Queen's Treasurer. It is a war story ("Chariots") and it ends with one of the most VICIOUS Satires in all of the NT:

Tacitus: "...and overtook him at the mouth of the river Cohibus..."
[36] And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, "See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?"

Uh, oh!

[39] And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing

Were the semicolon and the comma in the original? "If not..." then, of course the eunuch saw him no more. The eunuch is dead.
VICIOUS!:

[32] Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep led to the slaughter
or a lamb before its shearer is dumb,
so he opens not his mouth.
[33] In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
For his life is taken up from the earth."
[34] And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?"

Of the King of Sedochezi: "...This prince at first endeavoured to protect the suppliant by a threat of hostilities; when, however, the choice was presented to him between war and the profit to be derived from treachery, he consented, with the characteristic perfidy of barbarians, to the destruction of Anicetus, and delivered up the refugees..."

One last point on this Story. The Camarae Boats are secured with ropes. When you get in rough waters, you tie more planks to enclose the boat and you are tossed this way and that to no ill effect. The last 2 chapters of Acts are recognized by Skollers everywhere as additions. We now know what those additions were and what they were written about. A Story is created describing the "ride" inside one of these Camarae Boats. The boat crashes into the bay (Inlet for the Cohibus River) and those who cannot swim are told to grab hold of the planks floating around. Vespasian's goons bribe the King of the Sedochezi and they use treachery to kill Anicetus and they then rescue the "refugees". The Analysis obviously goes deeper than this but the question remains:

What counts as data, what counts as evidence?

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.

CW

[steve43]

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.

[Charles Wilson]

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

Thank you.

CW

[hjalti]

It is impossible to see Acts as post 61

Why is it impossible?