Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ical-paul/

eg.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:51 pm https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ical-paul/

eg.

There are four different “Pauls” in the New Testament, not one, and each is quite distinct from the others. New Testament scholars today are generally agreed on this point ...

First he says



I love that emphasised label. Completely new, implausible and unbelievable events? No, just independent data

And then he treats the content of Acts, and concludes:


And if that weren't enough, he continues with


It remains hilarious how the religiots bend over backwards trying to seem rational yet clutch to every dogmatic straw they can, even if that means contradicting themselves (more than once).
It can't be his age of 74 (yes, the picture is rather flattering) as his The Jesus Dynasty was equally ambivalent

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:46 am
First he says

As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:

• Never accept anything in Acts over Paul’s own account in his seven genuine letters.
• Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul and one can detect no obvious biases.
• Consider the independent data Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use.

I love that emphasised label. Completely new, implausible and unbelievable events? No, just independent data

Yep though I emphasis that last point thus -


I presumed he meant 'data' independent of Paul (see below).

And at least he said



Tabor's article was first published on his blog in November 2012, just over a year after the Westar Institute first reported on their ten year seminar on Acts* (though he doesn't cite it in his article, afaik). They didn't publish their report until November 2013: https://www.westarinstitute.org/store/a ... eginnings/ (available via Kindle for $US10).

* a summary of their findings -

Funny, isn't it

10 years? Took me 10 seconds

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:49 am
Funny, isn't it

10 years? Took me 10 seconds

The ology took a while to sort out ... it took a while to get their Act together ...

Maybe you meant to type James Tabor, not Tarbor.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:28 am Maybe you meant to type James Tabor, not Tarbor.

Not likely. Everyone knows that Tabor is just an anagram for Borat: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat_Sagdiyev
Arbor, arboris - tree. T...ree!
It's the contemporary version of σταυρός. James σταυρός

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.

These are the conclusions of a group of very biased individuals, anxious to keep pace with some trends.

I addressed the issues in some of my blog posts:
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html The author of 'Acts of the apostles' ("Luke") knew about Josephus' Wars but not his 'Antiquities of the Jews': a smoking gun
Note: Ben does not agree with the smoking gun, but I have many other arguments to prove my point)
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html Dating of 'the Acts of the Apostles'
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html Did the author of 'Acts' knew about Paul's epistles, as the Westar Acts Seminar contends?
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html Arguments against "Luke" knowing Paul's epistles and a late dating of 'Acts'

And I find myself basically agreeing with scholar James Tabor on these comments on pages 229-230 of "Paul and Jesus " (2012), but with some reservations:
"Many historians are agreed that it merits the label, 'Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.' As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:
1. Never accept anything in Acts over Paul's own account in his seven genuine letters.
2. Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases.
3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use."

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:09 am These are the conclusions of a group of very biased individuals, anxious to keep pace with some trends.

One thing I love about this website is the security of knowing that no one here is a biased individual

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:15 am

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 10:09 am These are the conclusions of a group of very biased individuals, anxious to keep pace with some trends.

One thing I love about this website is the security of knowing that no one here is a biased individual

I for one am also very well known to keep pace with some trends - unlike everyone else in here, who errr, ... errr... well. You know. Right?

Funny how Bernard agrees that fresh information in Acts (found nowhere else) is completely unreliable, yet still doth protest