More Reading Incomprehension from DC

Evan, responded to my rejoinder to him here.

This comment thread is full of argument that Acts is inaccurate and heavily reliant on Josephus. The evidence is pretty clear to me

This too easy, Evan: You're dating Luke - Acts to 120, right. Keep this in mind, for Marcion died in 160. I would add that Knox, Tyson's mentor, originally theorized Luke was written as late as 150.

I'm waiting for Evan to do something besides point me to a comment thread. I'm waiting for him to construct an argument beyond his theorizing.

So far, his argument is "If Luke had a copy of Josephus..."

Where is the argument that Luke actually nhad such a copy? Where's the argument showing dependence on Josephus? All Evan does is assert his theory and provide some quotes and allege one is taken from the other.

Evan is begging the question for the dating of Acts. Evan hasn't demonstrated Luke was dependent on Josephus.

That said, saying one of the comments in this thread reads:

With regards to the dating of Acts, an excellent example of Acts directly borrowing from Josephus is found in at Acts 5:36-38. What has happened is Josephus mentioned a magician Theudas, then subsequently by way of reflection then discussed Judas of Galilee. It appears that Luke read Josephus hastily and failed to recognize that Josephus was mentioning Judas of Galilee by way of reflection, and mistakenly places Theudas prior to Judas of Galilee in his chronology.

I'll stop there, for this is sufficient make the point:

I'll quote Guthrie:

The fact that both Acts and Josephus refer to a rising under a Jew named Theudas has given rise to the theory that the author of Acts consulted Josephus Antiquities while writing his history. If this deduction is correct acts must be dated after AD 94. An alleged contradiction between Josephus and the gospel has already been cited in discussing the dating of Luke and a similar contradiction is involved here. Acts places the rising of Theudas before the riseing of Judas the Galilean, but the latter happened in the time of Augustus, while Josephus dates the former in a period subsequent to Gamaliel's speech. There are two possible explanations. Either one of these reports must be wrong, or else the Theudas mentioned in Luke is not the Theudas mentioned by Josephus. Most scholars who affirm the fomer alternative and generally presume that the historian in error must be Luke. But if the author of Acts almost certainly did not consult Josephus, for had he dones so he would surely not have made such an obvious blunder. Moreover it is no more self-evident tghat Acts must be wrong and Josephus correct than vice-versa. (Guthrie, NT intro 362)

Indeed, Evan, JAT Robinson, Redating p. 88 regards the Josephus line of approach as almost totally abandoned.

So, Evan, you need to do better here than try to revive theories that have long ago been abandoned. You need to actually demonstrate the dependence, not assert it.

I await Gene's evidence that Acts is a first century document that explains its dependence on Josephus.

Since I don't affirm it is dependent on Josephus, I don't have that burden of proof.

I await Evan to interact with conservative scholarship on the dating of Luke - Acts. I shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel on that, since this is readily available. If he can use Tyson, then he needs to interact with other scholarship and tell us why he believes Tyson has the better argument without resorting to "If Jesus never existed..."

So first Gene accuses me of the argumentum ad populum and then he argues that the majority of conservative scholars who date Acts earlier are correct, without addressing any of the things we have discussed on this thread regarding Luke's dependence on Josephus.

I was addressing your actual response to me. You referred me to Tyson, not the comment thread. So, now you're moving the goalposts.

You said "large numbers of Christians believe Luke is a 2nd century document." I merely demonstrated that you're wrong, and then I applied your own yardstick to your comment, for the majority actually affirm it is a FIRST century document. So, if you want to play the popularity card, my side beats your side, Evan. I'm merely answering you on the way you framed your reply.

If you think that conservative scholarship is flawed you need to interact with conservative scholarship, Evan.

I have given an explanation for this. I believe "Nazarene" is a pre-Christian term for what were the proto-Christian Palestinians, likely a similar sect or an identical sect to the Qumran sectarians, who were referred to as the ebionim. I have explained that more than one epithet can be used to describe similar or overlapping sets of beliefs

Actually, Evan, in your response to me, you wrote:

I refer Gene to a book by Joseph B. Tyson, "Marcion and Luke-Acts" where the date of Luke-Acts is given as 120-125 CE.

He then quotes from Epiphanius to state that at one point all Christians were called Nazarenes. This seems perfect for my theory. If there was no real Jesus, then the way to retroject the Greek gospels onto Palestine would be to take the Pauline Jesus Christ and turn him into the quasi-historical Jesus of history.

But then you're left with a problem. What about all those Christians who called themselves Nazarenes before. What do you do about them?

Perfect solution. Name your quasi-historical Jesus "Jesus of NAZARETH". Thus you explain the odd name that used to describe all Christians but now is only applied to Jewish Christians.

I've already addressed that.

Where is Evan's interaction with what I wrote? Here is my reply, yet again:

Or Jesus really existed, as the majority of scholars affirm. Those who later followed him were called that name, because Jesus was called a Nazarene. Which of these actually fits the available evidence?

Evan's theorizing grows ever more absurd. Where's the documentation for this theory?

In addition, "Nazoraean" could not be derived from the word for "Nazareth." Attempting to derive Nazoraean from Nazareth isn't linguistically defensible. Indeed, Evan's "theory" doesn't stack up to modern scholarship on the origin of this term, including those who hold to the view that Jesus was a Gnostic teacher:

http://books.google.com/books?id=GoWhptP_up0C&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=Nazarenes+Nazareth&source=web&ots=A1U26ZrPXn&sig=u4XAaR_ssAnKgrONjnVhngSjmtc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA135,M1

Indeed, even Wikipedia (and you know how much we think of Wiki's here notes this by quoting Baur's lexicon:

Nazoraean, Nazarene, quite predominantly a designation of Jesus, in Mt, J, Ac and Lk 18:37, while Mk has Ναζαρηνός ("coming from Nazareth"). Of the two places where the later form occurs in Lk, the one, Lk 4:34, apparently comes from Mk (1:24), the other, 24:19, perhaps from a special source. Where the author of Lk-Ac writes without influence from another source he uses Ναζωραῖος. Mt says expressly 2:23 that Jesus was so called because he grew up in Nazareth. In addition, the other NT writers who call Jesus Ναζωραῖος know Nazareth as his home. But linguistically the transition from Ναζαρέτ (Nazareth) to Ναζωραῖος is difficult ... and it is to be borne in mind that Ναζωραῖος meant something different before it was connected with Nazareth ... According to Ac 24:5 the Christians were so called;"

In addition to that, the term was a term of contempt given to them by the Jews of that day (Schaff), not a term that they took for themselves.

Thanks, Evan, for proving, yet again, you don't do your research. It's this sort of namby pamby theorizing that makes DC such an easy target for us here at Tblog. If you want to say this term is derived from Nazareth and a name that they took themselves, you need to actually argue for it linguistically and historically, and only then can you begin to argue for your "theory."

Decide what you wish. This is a very odd and unusual argumentum ad hominem.

On the contrary, I'm merely commenting that you don't know what you're talking about, Evan. Let me be even more candid. At the graduate level I researched 10 footnotes in Guthrie's book a week for 2 semesters and summarized them for Dr. Robinson. I did well, VERY well in his classes. Unlike you, I'm familiar with the pro's and con's for each side of the discusion. I've actually interacted with both sides of the discussion. You, by way of contrast are simply talking all up out your head. You see, Evan, if you're going to revive this old theory by way of Tyson, then you need to interact with both liberal and conservative scholarship that differs with Tyson.

There are reasons that Acts gets backed up to the 2nd century at times. What are the arguments for that?

Here's the bottom line...this whole dating scheme began in the 19th century. It is dependent on particular needs of the Tubingen school who, because they dated Luke so late then needed to ascertain a late date for Acts to patch up their reconstruction of history. To quote Guthrie again, "But the subjective character of this kind of criticism has assured its doom and the dismissal of the historical reconstruction of this school of thought has caused a general disinclination towards a 2nd century dating."

So, you're going to have to do better than Tyson if you want to redate Acts that late. Tyson is merely reviving Knox, and there is considerable rebuttal to Knox. You've not uncovered anything new, you've uncovered work that has long ago been rebutted.

I don't consider Irenaeus to be giving totally accurate information. I just expect him to be accurate when describing the beliefs of his opponents as opposed to those of him. I also quoted multiple authors attributing the same set of beliefs to this group (that Jesus was a man born in the normal way).

Then how, exactly do you differentiate between what is accurate an inaccurate in Iraneaus?

I've already told you that you can't infer anything about what these folks believed in the First Century from a description of them as they were in the 2nd. Where is the supporting argument for that move?

I do argue it is inaccurate.

No you assert it and give a gradeschool argument.

I have given my reasons.

Strings of quotes without supporting documented arguments. You theorize, you don't actually argue with documentation. You speculate.

Gene doesn't want to address them,

I've addressed them more than once.

but I argue it is based on a legend

You've not dealt with the text I quoted. You begin from Luke being a "legend" and then move to this text of Acts being wrong. You've actually demonstrated neither proposition. You merely speculate.

On exactly what legend is the text of Acts I quoted based? Remember, you also advanced a copycat thesis in your other writing. For that matter, can you tell us upon what Greek myths the stories in the Gospels are actually drawn?

You've assumed what you need to prove. Indeed, if you regard Iranaeus as partly / selectively accurate, then why not consider the text I quoted the first time from Acts to be accurate?

and a need to create an alternative church history to counter the Marcionite heresy that Jesus appeared on earth fully formed and started his ministry

Yeah, and your biggest problem is that the Marcionites actually used an edited edition of Luke in their own favor. If the Gospel was written to counter the heresy, then you have to figure out why Marcion used it, and you have to document those motives, not speculate on them.

The best that Gene can come up with is a scholar who accepts the possibility that Acts is a 2nd century document.

Go back and read the review.

I also pointed you to Guthrie.

You've also failed to ask yourself a fundamental question, Evan. How, in a period of ten to twenty years at most, did Luke gain such authority in the Christian church that Marcion could be sure of gaining support in his exclusive choice of this gospel, when Luke was written to counter Marcionism, particularly when Matthew and Mark are believed to have been in circulation much longer. Why not choose Mark, since Luke appears to rely on Mark? Why not choose a Gospel of more ancient standing? Why choose a Gospel that is uniformly linked to Acts if both the Gospel and Acts were written to counter the movement? Given the tenor of the time in which Marcion lived, it makes far more sense to use a Gospel that was already of more ancient standing and repute. Yet you have him choosing Luke, one written, according to you, very recently against the movement.

Moreover, Acts mentions the founding of a number of churches which were still functioning at the time you wish to date it. If you're going to start alleging Acts is providing a church history different than the one that they already knew, then you're going to have all of those churches colluding with the writer/s of Luke-Acts as well. In addition, you're going to have to suggest that nobody was smart enough on the Marcionite side to check those histories themselves to rebut Acts. Further, you're going to have to assert that there was even time for all of this to happen. You can't just write a book in the 2nd century, claim it is to be authoritative, and then have it be accepted over a very short period of time - not in the Subapostolic period, for this is the period in which pseudonymity was evidence a book was not authoritative, and these issues were debated between the churches frequently. The book has to be copied by hand, and then it has to circulate widely, including the churches whose beginnings are recorded in them. People have to read and rebut it, etc., and so on and so on. Your theory is beginning to take the tenor of one of a conspiracy theory.

Yet I see no specific problem that I haven't addressed.

Saying so and demonstrating that to be the case aren't convertible, and I just named more. I invite Evan to post here in this combox to demonstrate his concrete solutions.

No my argument remains the same. There are many groups that have multiple epithets attributed to them. Let's try again: Reds, Communists, Pinkos, Marxist-Leninists ... are those all different groups? Or are they different names applied to the same group with slightly different implications? It's perfectly reasonable to imagine that there was not unanimity among Palestinian Christians in the 1st century and that multiple names could have been applied at varying times to members of the same groups and that such names might not indicate any specific schism at all.

You, Evan need to do more than sit behind your keyboard and theorize. You need to document this is the case.

Nobody is arguing there was absolute unanimity among Palestinian Christians in the First Century. I never said that, for I pointed you to the Judaizers.

Further, you're now backing down from your original argument.

You just wrote:

It's perfectly reasonable to imagine that there was not unanimity among Palestinian Christians in the 1st century

Here is your original claim: 1. The earliest Palestinian Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, or his bodily resurrection.

You said this was one of three facts.

Now, you are offering a weaker claim. Please try to keep track of your argument. I hate that we have to do it for you.

It is of note that Justin does NOT use any of the terms that we are discussing here, so we have no way of knowing which group Justin would have regarded as Ebionite and which he would have regarded as Nazarene or if he would have thought of them as synonymous. Our evidence is poor.

Justin isn't our only source.

You're confusing words with concepts.

Church historians disagree with you.

I need to explain how Matthew is Greek? Did I miss a meeting? I believe Matthew is written in Greek. I need to explain how Matthew is Greek? Did I miss a meeting? I believe Matthew is written in Greek. Does Gene know something that we don't know?

Yes, Evan. The term "Greek Gospel" when referring to Matthew doesn't necessarily mean "written in Greek." Rather it's a term of art relating to the content of the Gospel and its alleged audience, according to less conservative scholars. It generally means "Hellenistic" not "written in Greek." And there is a belief to this day that Matthew was not, in fact, written in Greek when first written. Matthew's tenor is Jewish, not Greek. It uses both Hebrew and LXX references. So, it is not entirely certain it was directed at a particular version (Palestinian or Hellenistic) Jewish audience.

The web I'm theorizing is quite simple

Yes, it is something a simpleton would concoct.

There was no Jesus, therefore there was huge variation among early Christians in belief.

You have asserted this, you have not demonstrated the truth of this.

The second proposition goes without saying. The first is an excellent explanation of that fact.

So, Evan is a conspiracy theorist. Origen was the 3rd gunman.

Gene seems to be arguing that God so loved the world he sent his only begotten son, and within 100 years the whole world bollixed up its understanding of him so significantly that the only people who sorted it out were people who never went to Palestine from Rome 300 years after the fact.

Evan needs to go back and read what I wrote. For a physician, he has an amazing inability to understand that I'm describing the problems with his own position.

The fact that Nazareth didn't exist as a Jewish settlement in the first half of the first century is certainly excellent evidence for my side.

1. Evan needs to establish that "Nazarene" as used by the Church Fathers and Acts is linguistically derived from "Nazareth."

2. Evan need to do better than point me to a book by Rene Salm, published by American Atheist Press.

3. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nazy.html Tell you what, Evan, contact Miller and ask him to debate that with you.

So your source admits that it is likely that the term for Palestinian Christians PRE-DATES the dates given for the historical Jesus. You know how to make a guy feel special.

More incomprehesion. Here's what the source actually states in part:

Epiphanius even speaks of another sect, the Nasarenes (Nasaraioi) who were, he says, in existence before the time of Jesus. Consequently, he distinguishes between the Nasarenes and the Nazarenes (or Nazoreans). But his motivation in making this distinction may be because he did not wish to acknowledge that there were Nazoreans before the Nazoreans -- Christians before the Christians, so to speak.

Evan. Try to follow the argument. Where does this source say they were actually "Christians" Rather it says that he did not wish to acknowledge that there were "Nazarenes" before "Nazarenes" (for that would lead folks to think there were Christians before their were Christians), for in the minds of the Church Fathers, like him, the linguistic connection would lead to that conclusion. I know that might be difficult for you, but at least make the effort. The use of the term "Nazarene" before the time of Christ doesn't select for your theory or that there were, in fact, "Christians before Christians," and, in fact the general consensus, if you'd care to read up on it, is that there were various groups given the epithet "Nazarene(s)" by their opponents, and that the Nazarenes (as mentioned in Acts) were an independent group. They were given this name because of the way they separated themselves from others or the way that they kept certain parts of the Law, etc.

If that's too difficult for you to grasp I'll even make a quick diagram.

Nazarene is an epithet for any number of groups in Palestine prior to the time of Christ, given that name for various reasons.

The early Palestinian Christians eventually came to be tarred with that epithet too.

These in turn, over time, divided into two sects: 1 "orthodox," one "unorthodox."

This is recorded in the Bible as the division between Jewish Christians that began in Jerusalem around the time of the Jerusalem Council.

It spread into the Gentile churches, occasioning more than one letter from Paul.

So ... do you accept docetism as orthodoxy? Do you accept adoptionism as orthodoxy?

It's a pity Evan doesn't pay attention. I spoke of the divinity of Christ. Would Justin or Origen fellowship with Docetist? Adoptionist?

If you don't then you are conceding my main point, to wit: The Christians of the first century in Palestine (the earliest witnesses) did not have an understanding of Jesus comparable to that of current orthodoxy

Of course Evan likes to misunderstand his sources. I stated: If by "the Trinity" you mean something as fully orbed as the Nicene Creed, that can't be produced. That would be anachronistic. If by the Trinity you mean the divinity of Christ, that can be produced.

As usual, Evan discounts what somebody wrote with a different version from his own mind. Nobody argues that the Nicene Creed itself dropped from the heavens, as it were. We affirm that the Trinity qua Trinity developed over time. We affirm they regarded Christ as God incarnate. Evan's criterion itself is anachronistic if the Nicene Symbol itself is the standard. He offers no reason why we should set the bar at the Nicene Creed's level.

That is why when someone says someone was born by the semen of God fertilizing Mary's ovum, I am naturally skeptical.

This, of course, bears no resemblance to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth presented in the Bible.

The logical position is to remain skeptical about such claims until they are proven beyond all doubt.

Really? So you place an infallibilist contraint on knowledge? Hope that works out for you.

We've already been over this line of argumentation with Loftus many times in the archives.


You're not addressing what I stated:

And notice, In his right hand: Evan is employing the Fathers, many of whom are writing in the late 2nd and into the next century for his theory. Let's stipulate that these Ebionites they describe are, indeed, the First Century version. Okay.

Yet in his left hand, he denies the historicity of the Gospels by theories of legends and accretions and late dates and legends growing up, etc. This would, then mean that all those histories from which he quotes get worse, more legendary, etc. the further from the First Century they get. Yet he treats these as accurate descriptions/histories. At the same time, he denies Luke is accurate history, even though the upper limit given in his own source is 120 AD, and the majority of NT scholars date it much earlier. Evan suffers from epistemological schizophrenia. He desperately wants to avoid Luke, because if Luke is true, at least in Acts 24, he has a huge problem (namely interacting with and explaining Paul's writings against the Judaizers while being called a Nazarene himself), but on the other he needs something to bolster his paper theory, so he takes the Fathers accurately and without argument.

In case you don't get it, Evan, this is a problem for you:

You use the Fathers as accurate history. Yet part of your own methodology is to discount sources the further they get from the time in view. But your cited sources get progressively further from the time in view, so, if you were consistent you wouldn't treat them as accurate. On top of that, you made factual claims about this group in your first post.

The issue, Evan, isn't the historical accuracy of Luke's Gospel or even whether Jesus existed, rather it's about what a particular people group believed.

You still haven't dealt with the text I cited in Acts other than through speculation and dismissal. You have, in fact, done nothing but speculate.

I accept that most of our sources are poor and try to explain them in the best way possible.

No, you don't. You don't consult what church historians, to take just one group, have said. Indeed, I'm taking their position. It's up to you to refute that position with something more than quoting some Fathers and drawing some bad inferences, since they quote the same sources and draw different conclusions than you.

Evan then quotes Orr.

Essentially Orr is making the argument from silence. It's odd what arguments people will consider strong in one position, yet weak in another.

Hmmm, I guess Evan didn't read this:We have the direct attestation of Eusebius that the section of Jewish Christians using this Gospel were distinguished by their accepting the Virgin Birth of our Lord. We have the testimony of Epiphanius that the Gospel used by the Nazarenes was a complete one; we can be certain that Jerome, who knew and translated the Gospel, would not have failed to mention so serious an omission, had it existed."

My argument from silence is that not one person alive during the time of Jesus put pen to paper to write one word about him in any language whatsoever. That seems like a really good argument from silence, but Gene doesn't like that one.

Evan, an argument from silence cuts both ways. Thanks for cutting off your own legs. I remember this for future reference. It's a real timesaver.

So for Orr, numerous apocryphal additions are not falsifications and mutilations, but the absence of the virgin birth is a falsification. That seems odd. Maybe Gene can explain why once again his sources are proving my points for me.

One is beginning to wonder if Evan is illiterate:

Here's his second quote:

This, however was not the only form of the Gospel of Matthew in circulation among the Hebrew Christians. There was a version in use among that narrower section known commonly as the Ebionites -- the descendants, formerly alluded to (4)(Evan here -- I will quote footnote 4: See above pp. 11, 35. It should be noted that the name Ebionites was often given by the Fathers to all Jewish Christians.(emphasis mine) of those anti-Pauline Judaizers we read of in the Acts and the Epistles .... We do not know much about the Gospel used by this party -- the so-called Gospel of the Ebionites -- but it is described to us as not "entire and perfectly complete, but falsified and mutilated'; ..

Evan, this is evidence for me, not you. Try to read more carefully. Orr acknowledges that there two groups of Jewish Christians. One was a narrower group known as "Ebionites." The former believed in the VB.

Another good evangelical scholar is Gresham Machen from his book "The Virgin Birth of Christ."

Let's see what he has to say about this issue:

Whatever terminology be adopted, it is at least fairly plain that from the time of Origen to the time of Epiphanius there were two parties among the schismatic Jewish Christians, one of which denied the virgin birth, while the other accepted it. In the period before Origen, Irenaeus and, following him, Hippolytus mention only Ebionites who reject the virgin birth; but their failure to mention the other division of the schismatic Jewish Christians does not prove that it did not exist at the time they wrote.

But it certainly is evidence that the majority party were Ebionite who reject the virgin birth. Gene, you're a blast.

Hmmm, and how does this constitute an argument in your favor, exactly?

From the time of Origen to the time of Ephiphanius there were TWO parties, one denied the VB, the other accepted it.

Well, Evan, let's use your historical method. You infer that all Christians of this sort were called "Ebionites" and that they denied the VB, etc. from the sources you first quoted. But if we work back from Origen and Epiphanius, we see not one group that uniformly denied these doctrines, but TWO parties, only one of which did.

So tell us again Evan, how does this support your "factual" conclusion that "The earliest Palestinian Christians did not believe in the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, or his bodily resurrection?"

Thanks for playing Evan. You've demonstrated you have to rely on nothing but speculation that is in turn reliant on an unproven argument and that you're illiterate. Are you a physician or a college student with C average? It's rare to see this much incoherent thinking in one post. Art Sippo does a better job than you.