To Peter about gLuke

[Bernard Muller]

To Peter,
I do not mean to bother you, but I think you make a mistake here:

A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html (emphasis mine)

Aren't you forgetting about Josephus' Wars, published before 80 CE?

Also here I have an objection:

The explanation could be very simple: after twenty years, Luke had received a copy of Mark's Gospel and decided to write his own version of the story, putting things in order (over against the "many" who have written before him) based on his own investigations, in response to the prompting of his patron, most excellent Theophilus.

Why do you accept, rather naively, that "Luke" wrote his/her gospel for a patron, a VIP named Theophilus?
What to we know about Theophilus: nothing. No proof he existed. You objected forcefully about me opting for Jesus or Joseph, of both, being carpenter, but you do the same for Theophilus.
I stated my view already on that matter: Theophilus was a trick, just to indicate you don't write lies on something (pretending to be) historical to a VIP, or else (you may be severely punished): therefore the gospel had to be true! There is too much evidence in the gospel confirming the author was dishonest, for me to accept the truthfulness of the introduction and more so, the existence of Theophilus as the patron of "Luke".

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

To Peter,
I do not mean to bother you, but I think you make a mistake here:

A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html (emphasis mine)

Aren't you forgetting about Josephus' Wars, published before 80 CE?

No, moron.

The website stands as is, although my own positions on some of its particulars may have changed.

You have not found any "mistake," apart from your imagination and bitter desperation.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,
Sorry, but I do not read "If Luke did not use Josephus' Antiquities, a date in the 80s is permissible.", but "If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible." That is, the 80s is permissible if "Luke" did not use any of Josephus' works. Which entails all Josephus' works were written after the 80s (which is of course not true).

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

You're failing at logic and grasping at straws at the same time.

[TedM]

Bernard try this:

A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus' Antiquities and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus' Antiquities, a date in the 80s is permissible.

That works right?

Now, this:

A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus' Wars and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus' Wars, a date in the 80s is permissible.

That makes less sense. It appears there is an implication here that Antiquities is alleged to have been used.

[Bernard Muller]

to TedM,
I do not see your point. I think you did not read one of my earlier post (emphasis mine):

Sorry, but I do not read "If Luke did not use Josephus' Antiquities, a date in the 80s is permissible.", but "If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible." That is, the 80s is permissible if "Luke" did not use any of Josephus' works. Which entails all Josephus' works were written after the 80s (which is of course not true).

Obviously that's what Peter should have written: "Josephus' Antiquities' replacing just "Josephus".

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

Disliking the way I wrote something is not the same thing as finding a mistake.

You should have said--"I don't like the way you wrote this. It doesn't go out of its way to talk about my pet ideas."

[Peter Kirby]

Bernard try this:

A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus' Antiquities and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus' Antiquities, a date in the 80s is permissible.

That works right?

It appears there is an implication here that Antiquities is alleged to have been used.

More than an implication. If Bernard quoted more of the passage, everyone would have seen that I do make reference to the Antiquities on the webpage.

I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

Nobody but Bernard would misunderstand what I was saying here or would have called me out for a so-called "mistake" ("obviously," to him).

Dude's just butthurt.

PS--

Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord...

This is far more questionable. What can I say; I was young. But it apparently doesn't offend Bernard, because it doesn't show neglect for his pet ideas.

[Bernard Muller]

to Peter,

More than an implication. If Bernard quoted more of the passage, everyone would have seen that I do make reference to the Antiquities on the webpage.

I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.

The problem here is you are implying that Josephus wrote only 'Antiquities', or that you do not know that Josephus' Wars was published before the 80s or that "Luke" did not used Josephus' Wars.

You say: "If Luke did not use Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible"
I say: "If Luke used only Josephus' Wars, a date in the 80s is permissible"
or
"If Luke did not use Josephus' Antiquities, a date in the 80s is permissible"

I do not see how your readers can read "Josephus' Antiquities" when you say only "Josephus".

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

As my mom used to say, "You're cruisin for a bruisin!"