Argument from Historical Proximity

[Adam]

Majority opinion is dictated by scholarship, not fashion, and it’s the best we have available at this time.

I'm much more cynical than your are, then. Intellectual History was my preferred major for college, but few colleges offer it. I'm very familiar with how fashions change unaccountably in history and philosophy (including philosophy of science).

You may “know”, but yours is a minority viewpoint. You could be right but the chances are that you are not. It’s not for me to say.
Regardless, the majority view of Johns’ composition and all the canonical gospels is that they are the end product of oral transmission and the evolved Jesus-tradition of a particular Christian community.

FALSE! That is a MINORITY opinion quite out of fashion, and it never was a majority opinion even in the hey-days of form criticism. Except for fundamentalists (whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox) who believe the canonical gospels appeared all at once in their final form, almost everyone regards the canonical gospels as the final form of written sources, editions, and redactions. Oral transmission is favored by Finnish scholars, but few others.

John’s Christology virtually guarantees it being a late gospel. I don’t know your articles but I gather they are not the majority view and I don’t have time to explore the minor scholastic byways. It’s enough keeping up with the mainstream. I’m sorry! I know it is important for you.

As shown above, we can't assume that you are correct about the "majority view".
Didn't I say this before? Rudolf Bultmann made such a great name for himself by assigning the theology in John to sources, meaning earlier. Howard Teeple details this source by painstaking literary criticism. He was an atheist, so he was not saying the theology was early to prove it genuine, he just by scholarship decided that it was indeed early.
I appreciate your apology. It's nice to know I'm debating with a real person out there who understands where I'm coming from and acknowledges his own limitations of knowledge and time.

Yes, there are probably some episodes originally based on eyewitness sources – but they had been filtered and embellished during their oral transmission by the time they were recorded in the gospels and come down to us.

You admit you don't have time to read my references to my articles and threads, so take my word for it, what I have written refutes all you've said here. But I don't deny that there were embellishments, but they were additions to written sources.

But, we do not have the original autographs and although much can be reconstructed with reasonable surety there is some that simply cannot – this according to Erhman’s ‘Jesus Interrupted’, which I’ve just finished. Only a theist would place too much weight on them.

Interesting--you acknowledge that much can be reasonably reconstructed--maybe as seen in Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John to which I refer so often?
Yet from that much I can establish my principles. I'm interested in what you say cannot be reconstructed--or do you mean simply years that are skipped in the gospels?

Your theory of Nicodemus’ authorship of the Discourses and The Prologue is yours alone as far as I can determine – I’ve not come across it before. But I agree with your conclusion about The Prologue as opposed to 'Juice'.. It is theology, not eyewitness reportage.

Sydney Temple believed that Nicodemus wrote most of John (The Core Gospel, 1975). I can't remember whether I already had the idea before I read I read Temple. Temple is rarely cited, probably because it has long been out of fashion to name authors of gospels or their sources. Yes, the conventional four authors are readily named, but that's the point--that's not fashionable. So don't expect to come across many other suggestions of names for authors. My livelihood does not depend upon keeping within fashion (or the orthodox four authors, either), so I can name names as the evidence warrants.

[Adam]

I do not believe that John is considered an eyewitness testimony by most scholars, and there is no evidence that it is. It is not a matter of giving it up. the history of the document just does not support, nor that any of the gospels are written by eyewitness authors..

Shunya has for over five years entered threads in Apologetics 301 in which I have presented the evidence for the eyewitness nature of most of the gospels, independently of the four articles I link to or the 1988 article I transcribed in this thread or my own current thread here, "Source Strata in the Gospel of John". Shunya here again refuses to debate the evidence, he just denies it without study. I don't expect him to contribute any value to this thread either. He won't read what I write, so what entitlement does he have to post?

[Adam]

Adam
I asked: I am not demanding proof, but some degree of certainty. Can you assess the probability that Luke was writing before Paul died? Do you intuitively feel it is 30%, 70%, 95%, what?
...;
So the question is: How certain can you be that Acts was written before Paul was beheaded, and how do you justify that certainty?

You contradict yourself here. First you come down off your high horse and consent to talk about probabilities. Then you go back to The Logical Fallacy that demands absolute truth.
I thought I already said 95% probability.

With regards to the author being an eye witness, the fact that it is not until the sixteenth chapter of Acts that the author uses the first person plural suggests to me that he was not part of Paul's group until Paul headed to Macedonia. This really does not look like a witness to anything that occurred during Jesus' time.

I never said Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus. Now you're admitting that he does seem to be an eyewitness of Paul's travels. Good. That gets us to Luke and Acts being written during the lifetime of that person. And he says at the start of Luke that many accounts of Jesus had already been written, putting them necessarily earlier. Then I can proceed by internal and external criticism to identify these sources and give dates and authors. But that takes getting into more than just the .5% of my stuff that you have read. The evidence is there that Nicodemus wrote much of the Gospel of John during Jesus's lifetime, Matthew may have written Q then, John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative before 44 AD, John Mark and Peter wrote Ur-Marcus in 44 AD, the Signs Gospel was written about that time by Andrew, and the Apostle John put together the first and last of these into his Gospel pretty much as we now have it.

[Adam]

Further I humbly suggest you try expanding your reading to some other ancient secular works that never internally claim “I” or authorship but are widely regarded as eyewitness accounts.

Pending a more detailed response, may I suggest you read something I have written? Without the proof of a single "I" statement I have nevertheless claimed seven eyewitnesses wrote most of what we have in the gospels. See my preceeding post. (The seventh? Simon Barsabbas.)

[The Pixie]

Adam

Pix: I am not demanding proof, but some degree of certainty. Can you assess the probability that Luke was writing before Paul died? Do you intuitively feel it is 30%, 70%, 95%, what?

You contradict yourself here. First you come down off your high horse and consent to talk about probabilities. Then you go back to The Logical Fallacy that demands absolute truth.

Is the "degree of certainty" confusing you? I mean, how certain can we be? The "degree of" bit indicates a range, a relative term. Thus we might be 30% certain, or 95% certain, or whatever.

There was no high horse here!

I thought I already said 95% probability.

Ah, I see. When you said this:

And let me say once again that even in the 2% I list the "we" passages in Acts that show the author was an eyewitness to that. Your intuition tells you that that is fakery? I would regard it as solid evidence, though not 100% proof. 95%?

I thought the 95% was referring to the author being an eye witness, rather than to the writing being dated to before the traditional death of Paul. Apologies for not understanding (but I hope you can see why I misunderstood).

Now can you answer the rest of the question.

How certain can you be that Acts was written before Paul was beheaded, and how do you justify that certainty?

I know this is that awful business about "petty details of the senses", and I appreciate that you dislike being "mired" in actual evidence, but seriousl;y, if you want to convince people, it really is the only way to go.

Have you discovered any historian or scientist who publishes intuitions without evidence by the way?

I never said Luke was an eyewitness to Jesus. Now you're admitting that he does seem to be an eyewitness of Paul's travels. Good. That gets us to Luke and Acts being written during the lifetime of that person. And he says at the start of Luke that many accounts of Jesus had already been written, putting them necessarily earlier. Then I can proceed by internal and external criticism to identify these sources and give dates and authors. But that takes getting into more than just the .5% of my stuff that you have read. The evidence is there that Nicodemus wrote much of the Gospel of John during Jesus's lifetime, Matthew may have written Q then, John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative before 44 AD, John Mark and Peter wrote Ur-Marcus in 44 AD, the Signs Gospel was written about that time by Andrew, and the Apostle John put together the first and last of these into his Gospel pretty much as we now have it.

All that dating is based on the assumption that Luke wrote before the traditional death of Paul. You say you are 95% certain that that is so, but where is the evidence to support that claim? Frankly, the fact that your intuition says it is so means three quarters of nothing. So once more we are back to getting "mired in petty details of the senses", or, as real scientists, lawyers and historiand call it, presenting evidence.

[Adam]

Adam
I know this is that awful business about "petty details of the senses", and I appreciate that you dislike being "mired" in actual evidence, but seriousl;y, if you want to convince people, it really is the only way to go.

Have you discovered any historian or scientist who publishes intuitions without evidence by the way?

All that dating is based on the assumption that Luke wrote before the traditional death of Paul. You say you are 95% certain that that is so, but where is the evidence to support that claim? Frankly, the fact that your intuition says it is so means three quarters of nothing. So once more we are back to getting "mired in petty details of the senses", or, as real scientists, lawyers and historiand call it, presenting evidence.

I see you have not yet been able to name one historiographer or philosopher of science to support your trashing of intuition.
But this thread is not about that. We can have a thread in Philosophy 201 to discuss that, if you like. I suppose such a thread already exists.
This thread is about historical proximity to Jesus, and you and I need to discuss the evidence to that. That I have found seven eyewitnesses with testimony in the gospels stems from my high degree of intuition (I'm 3-sigma SD on the NT side), but I support it with thorough evidence. You're the one who refuses to look at evidence. Looks like about a 95% probability that my estimate is correct that you have not read more than .5% of what I have written here or referred to. So who is the one who disregards evidence and relies on his intuition based on a sample so small that does not even support his intuitive dismissal? You don't contest that Luke (or whoever the writer was) entered in at Acts 16 as an eyewitness.
You claim, without looking at the other 99.5% of what I wrote, that all my "dating is based on the assumption that Luke wrote before the traditional death of Paul". Where's your evidence? So your intuition is better than my intuition? Hardly! If you had read just a little farther, you would have found out that the dating primarily depends upon the date of Herod Agrippa's death (Acts 12), and that was in 44 AD.
'...the source connected with Peter seems to end at Acts 12:19. The death of King Herod Agrippa I (12:23) sets the date at 44 A.D. This likely sets the date of the writing of the source and also establishes the likely author, as this is when Peter “went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark.” Church tradition also supports this logic, that Peter’s scribe was Mark, and critical scholarship calls this source “Ur-Marcus.” '
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
You conclude by citing "lawyers and historians", neither of which make predictions about the future, both of which weigh the preponderance of the evidence, not certainty. You're the one who refuses to look at the evidence, because even in your tiny sample it refutes you. (By "refute" I mean it dismisses any claim by you to certainty or even preponderance of the evidence.)

[Juice]

The authors of 2 Peter and 1 Timothy both claimed to be eyewitnesses but we know they weren’t.

We know that huh? Tell me how we know that. Is this kinda like how you know John was illiterate? Or are you going to appeal to anonymous scholarship yet again…

You have yet, after multiple pages and posts, shown to be false the claim to be a witness at 1:14. Historians do not start under the presumption that a claim to be a witness to events is false. Surely the burden here must fall on the skeptic to show this claim false.

As well the only evidence you provide is a verse from The Prologue – and The Prologue is not intended as history. It is a mystical meditation on the nature of Jesus Christ, i.e. it is metaphor.

Are you now denying that the author of John meant to imply, from his perspective, that it was true that the Word was God, that the Word became flesh, that flesh dwelt among them, and that flesh was Jesus? Are you seriously denying this now?

As well there are numerous flat contradictions and inconsistencies and the combination of these plus the difficulty in obtaining “authentic” material renders any harmonization suspect.

Once again you miss the point and once again your argument doesn’t hold water. Inconsistencies in accounts don’t stop historians from piecing together Caesar’s assassination even though there are more “flat contradictions and inconsistencies” between the accounts than you could shake a stick at. Shall I list them? Or you could read side by side Nicolaus’, Plutarch’s, and Suetonius’ accounts of Caesar’s assassination and discover them for yourself. I promise you’ll find it illuminating. When it comes to secular history there isn’t anywhere near the same critical standard applied as is to the NT.

You missed the point that majority scholarship regards the early Jesus communities as each having their own Jesus tradition. A whole range of theological perspectives existed in the early church as diverse as those of the Jerusalem Church, Pauline theology and Christian Gnostics.

Actually, you have utterly missed the point once again and have yet to address it. Here I’ll repeat for you…

Further, you utterly miss the point of my use of Paul and Philippians ch2. Paul’s writings falsify two notions...

1. That “high Christology” or “advanced theology” is necessarily indicative of later composition (later than 50-60 AD anyway) and
2. That if a writer is emphasizing “Christology” he is not concerned with historical events. Scattered throughout Paul’s letters are historical details about Jesus’ life on earth.

What are the historical details about Jesus’ life on earth in Paul which you are claiming?

I’ll again repeat them for you. Try not to ignore them this time…

”Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord” – Romans 1:1-4

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2

”For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." – 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

”You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” – Galatians 3:1

Here’s another one…

”For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” – 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

The very type material of John’s gospel (i.e. long theological discourses) explicitly excludes it as an eye-witness account. The author was a theologian who rethought the meaning of Jesus' life, and interpreted it in his own way with little regard to its historicity or compatibility with other Jesus traditions.

“explicitly excludes it as an eye-witness account”? Why? Because you say so? Because you don’t like theology? Why? Is this just stuff you make up as you go along? I’ve already shown with Paul that theology can be mixed with history. The author of John also reports history throughout his Gospel. Your false dilemma of either history of theology, again, doesn’t hold water.

Not quite! My counter argument is that we don’t know but that it’s unlikely given that the median life-span in that era was 35 years - fish diet or no fish diet.

Poor reasoning. Setting aside the impact that high infant mortality has on average life expectancy tables of people from antiquity, 2,000 years from now using your reasoning it could be argued that it was unlikely that Denis Avery wrote his account of events in Auschwitz at age 92 because the average life expectancy in our era is age 66 according to WHO.

John 1.14 is presented as “FACT” by you but rejected as “FACT” by majority scholarship. The only “fact” is the claim - not that it’s a correct claim.

Thank you for at least acknowledging it is a “fact” that John 1:14 claims to be a witness.

Only John shows Jesus as the pre-existent god, eternally divine.

No. The gospel of John claims God became flesh. Matthew 1:23 can be understood in the same light, though not as explicit.

Re the epistles including Philippians, Paul and other early writers speak of Jesus entirely in terms of a spiritual and heavenly figure. Jesus’ earthly life as a teacher and miracle worker is never mentioned. It was a different Jesus tradition and arose from a different Christian community.

Patently FALSE! (as I’ve shown above)

In secular history we are dealing with secular figures, not ‘supernatural divinities’. There may be differences regarding the details but, unlike Jesus, there is very little controversy over whom or what they were. They were regular men and women.

Red Herring. The argument being refuted was…

Tassman – ”What you do NOT have is the original autograph. You are dependent on texts dating from the 2nd century in an environment of known textural emendations, interpellations and scribal errors and with the known fact that the many different forms of early Christianity ALL claimed to be the authentic version of it - and had their own texts and/or emmended texts. We know this. Many of the Church Fathers complained about the corrupted texts. Conversely, secular texts do not have anything like the same level of deliberate alterations to promote particular viewpoints.”

You completely ignored the evidence I provided that shows your reasoning to be faulty.

More significantly, with the likes of Caesar there are independent sources, multiple artifacts including statues and coins from life etc. None of this exists for Jesus and there are NO contemporary writers or historians (e.g. Philo) that even mention his existence.

Again avoiding the original point entirely. It doesn’t serve you well to throw in these Red Herrings when you have been refuted.

[Juice]

Pending a more detailed response, may I suggest you read something I have written? Without the proof of a single "I" statement I have nevertheless claimed seven eyewitnesses wrote most of what we have in the gospels. See my preceeding post. (The seventh? Simon Barsabbas.)

Strange considering you seemed to be chastizing me for coming back to John as an eyewintess even though there is never an "I" statement when you wrote to me... "You keep trying to come back to John as the eyewitness even though he is never named in the gospel and there is never an "I" statement."

Which post were you referring to by the way?

[The Pixie]

Adam

I see you have not yet been able to name one historiographer or philosopher of science to support your trashing of intuition.

Sorry, I did not make it clear. I linked to a university site that described the scientifioc process. I admit I did not name anyone specific, but I did show that that was how science is done. The implication is that the vast majority of scientists do not consider intuition a replacement for "petty details of the senses", or evidence as it is more formally known.

For reference, here is what I said:

Pix: Furthermore, intuition is a very poor basis to an argument. As a starting point to an investigation, it is great - it gives us an idea of where to look. But you have to then look for and present the evidence that turns up. ... Science and history are the same. All our scientific knowledge and history come to us through the senses, not from intuition.

Adam: I challenge you to find one philosopher of science or one historiographer who would agree with you. (I was a Philosophy major for a while and have an M. A. in History.)

Are you aware of how the scientific method works? I guess not.

A scientist will devise a hypothesis to explain an observation. This is where the intuition comes in. However, the hypothesis at this stage is worthless, it is only when there is evidence for it (specifically that the predictions it makes are fulfilled) that a hypothesis will be accepted as science.

You seem to want to label that collecting of evidence as "mired in petty details of the senses".

Perhaps you can find some historians or scientists who are happy to accomodate new ideas on the base of intuition, when the evidence is entirely lacking. You have an M.A. in history, so I am sure that that will be easy for you (me, I have a Ph.D. in science, so I do have some clue about this).

This thread is about historical proximity to Jesus, and you and I need to discuss the evidence to that.

That is exactly what I am asking about, the evidence.

You have made the claim that it is 95% likely that the author of Luke and Acts wrote them before the traditional date for the death of Paul. I have asked you to present evidence for that figure. For reference (with bold and italic as per the originals):

Post #127: If you offered evidence that it was 95% likely that Luke was written before Paul died, then I would believe that Luke was probably written before Paul died. From that basis, I might then be convinced about the other claims in the article.

Post #133: How certain can you be that Acts was written before Paul was beheaded, and how do you justify that certainty?

Post #140: How certain can you be that Acts was written before Paul was beheaded, and how do you justify that certainty?

Let us see what you have to offer:

That I have found seven eyewitnesses with testimony in the gospels stems from my high degree of intuition (I'm 3-sigma SD on the NT side), but I support it with thorough evidence. You're the one who refuses to look at evidence. Looks like about a 95% probability that my estimate is correct that you have not read more than .5% of what I have written here or referred to. So who is the one who disregards evidence and relies on his intuition based on a sample so small that does not even support his intuitive dismissal? You don't contest that Luke (or whoever the writer was) entered in at Acts 16 as an eyewitness.
You claim, without looking at the other 99.5% of what I wrote, that all my "dating is based on the assumption that Luke wrote before the traditional death of Paul". Where's your evidence? So your intuition is better than my intuition? Hardly! If you had read just a little farther, you would have found out that the dating primarily depends upon the date of Herod Agrippa's death (Acts 12), and that was in 44 AD.
'...the source connected with Peter seems to end at Acts 12:19. The death of King Herod Agrippa I (12:23) sets the date at 44 A.D. This likely sets the date of the writing of the source and also establishes the likely author, as this is when Peter “went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark.” Church tradition also supports this logic, that Peter’s scribe was Mark, and critical scholarship calls this source “Ur-Marcus.” '
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
You conclude by citing "lawyers and historians", neither of which make predictions about the future, both of which weigh the preponderance of the evidence, not certainty. You're the one who refuses to look at the evidence, because even in your tiny sample it refutes you. (By "refute" I mean it dismisses any claim by you to certainty or even preponderance of the evidence.)

I see zero evidence here to support your figure of 95%.

Let us look at this in detail to be sure.

That I have found seven eyewitnesses with testimony in the gospels stems from my high degree of intuition (I'm 3-sigma SD on the NT side), but I support it with thorough evidence.

An assertion there is evidence, but nothing more, and in any case this relates to another issue.

You're the one who refuses to look at evidence.

I keep asking for it, you keep failing to provide any.

Looks like about a 95% probability that my estimate is correct that you have not read more than .5% of what I have written here or referred to.

How many of my 1500 posts at TWeb have you read, Adam?

If one or more of your posts answers the question, why not reproduce it here, or just point me to the relevant bit in the post. It is curious how much writing you are prepared to do complaining I have not read your other posts, when you could just as easily answered my question. Why would you choose to spend your time like that? Does it not seem to you that your arguments would be more convincing if you simply presented the evidence, insead of expecting me to read all your posts?

If I had the evidence to support my position, I would take every opportunity to present it. Hmm, I suppose if I was spouting unsupported assertions, on the other hand, I might not.

So who is the one who disregards evidence and relies on his intuition based on a sample so small that does not even support his intuitive dismissal?

Given you are unable to present the evidence, I would say you.

Are you aware that as the person presenting the argument, the burden of proof lies on you, not me?

You don't contest that Luke (or whoever the writer was) entered in at Acts 16 as an eyewitness.

Okay, this could be leading somewhere.

You claim, without looking at the other 99.5% of what I wrote, that all my "dating is based on the assumption that Luke wrote before the traditional death of Paul". Where's your evidence?

It does not matter what I think of your article. The fact is that you have made a claim that it is 95% likely that Luke and Acts were written before the traditional date of Paul, and you are unable to present any evidence to justify it.

So your intuition is better than my intuition? Hardly! If you had read just a little farther, you would have found out that the dating primarily depends upon the date of Herod Agrippa's death (Acts 12), and that was in 44 AD.
'...the source connected with Peter seems to end at Acts 12:19. The death of King Herod Agrippa I (12:23) sets the date at 44 A.D. This likely sets the date of the writing of the source and also establishes the likely author, as this is when Peter “went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark.” Church tradition also supports this logic, that Peter’s scribe was Mark, and critical scholarship calls this source “Ur-Marcus.” '
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common

Ooh, I thought you might be actually presenting evidence for a moment there.

But no, you are talking about the writing of one of the sources. That puts a lower limit on the date, but in no way even suggests that the writing might be before the traditional death of Paul. This is just another red herring.

You conclude by citing "lawyers and historians", neither of which make predictions about the future, both of which weigh the preponderance of the evidence, not certainty.

This is none too clear, but I think I get what you mean here. First of all the scientific method can also be used in history; a historian can predict the future in terms of what will be discovered (in the same way evolution makes predictions about what will be found in the fossil record). I do not think it works quite like that (but I am not a historian), but potentially historians can make predictions about the future.

Furthermore, I think you are still confused about the certainty issue. I am asking you how certain you are. The wording should imply that this is not a yes or no answer. It is not "Are you certain or not?", it is "How certain are you?". Back in post #127 I said "I am not demanding proof, but some degree of certainty. Can you assess the probability that Luke was writing before Paul died? Do you intuitively feel it is 30%, 70%, 95%, what?". I was hoping that at that point you might have got it (are you actually in the Mega Society, by the way?).

Scientists, courts and historians all weigh the evidence. Their intuition might suggest avenues to explore, but none of them use intuition to make the case for their claims. As you say, they "weigh the preponderance of the evidence". So how about you present the evidence for your claim?

You're the one who refuses to look at the evidence, because even in your tiny sample it refutes you. (By "refute" I mean it dismisses any claim by you to certainty or even preponderance of the evidence.)

I have not looked at the evidence because you have not presented it. Despite my repeatedly asking for it. How can you talk about a "preponderance of the evidence" when you offer us exactly zero?

Seriously, Adam, what is going on here? You made the claim, why are you unable or unwilling to support it? Why all this misdirection? You seem an intelligent guy; surely you can understand what the question is (and you have never asked for clarification), why is the answer so difficult for you? I am sorry to say, but it increasingly looks to me as though all you have is your intuition. For all your talk of a "preponderance of the evidence", it looks as though the truth is that there is none, just your own wishful thinking. If that is the case, it is a shame you are not able to admit it.

So I ask again: What is the evidence and reasoning behind your figure of 95% for the probability that Luke and Acts was written before Paul was beheaded?

[Adam]

Strange considering you seemed to be chastizing me for coming back to John as an eyewintess even though there is never an "I" statement when you wrote to me... "You keep trying to come back to John as the eyewitness even though he is never named in the gospel and there is never an "I" statement."
Which post were you referring to by the way?

Considering that you responded here to my Post #140, that would make the preceeding post my #139. I was trying to avoid listing the seven eyewitnesses in two consecutive posts.
You make so much use of John 1:14 as internal evidence of an eyewitness, but the verse is anonymous. Sometimes you concede that the writer may not be John the Apostle, sometimes not. Sometimes you say it does not matter who he is, but going back later to John as writer again suggests that it does matter who he is.
Once again, I say it is clear that I do not regard an "I" statement as necessary to determine that there is an eyewitness. Yet it is surely helpful in naming who that eyewitness is, and thus John 1:14 does not help at all in naming the writer, as there is no context at all to the Prologue.
I hope you will not continue belaboring this point, as I weary quickly of arguments like The Pixie likes, the old, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type.

[Adam]

Don't need to quote your tiresome drone. Why should I even read it (though I admit that I did) when you refuse to read past the first paragraph of the first article I cited to you? Can I possibly believe your claim that if I could show 95% probability for my first paragraph, that you would then believe the other 99.5%? I wasn't born yesterday. I can believe with 95% probability that you already know that there is no way whatever that I could persuade you to the 95% level. Why should I frustrate myself by trying?
Nevertheless....
For your type mind, I suppose one would quote from whatever classicists give the best argument for Luke-Acts being written in 60-64 AD. To which you would of course respond with your favorite authorities who do not so believe.
Instead I'll give you evidence you won't accept anyway (certainly not to the 95% level) that at least has the benefit of being original (created by me, as far as I know) and perhaps impressive to more reasonable people than you.
In the Roman Empire, people did not live very long. The most likely time for the writer of Luke-Acts to die would have been just after he last wrote in it. He may even have died during the first two years Paul was in Rome, and someone else added the last two verses.
Christians particularly did not live very long. At the same time Peter and Paul were martyred, Luke may have been executed as well. Even if not executed, he may have had to flee unexpectedly, leaving his manuscript behind. Or maybe he did take his manuscript with him, but found good place to store it. Or he was henceforth too busy, too sick, or too old to add to it. In all these cases Luke-Acts would have been written by 64 AD.
(Oh, by the way, Einstein....or almost any scientific genius, all of whom get their great ideas by intuition and later test them to provide evidence.)
Edited to add:
Turns out I'm not the first to suggest such ideas:
"W.A.Strange makes a pretty good case for a similar scenario, explaining that
the publication of Acts was posthumous, with the Western and non-Western
texts
being derived from different editorial treatments of the author's
annotations.
His book might help layout some of the evidence. >>"
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...www.google.com
In my own posts I had never gotten around to mentioning that Luke-Acts comes in two different versions, one rougher, the Western, as against the preferred canonical text we have. In my own posts I would have argued that two different editions, neither advancing farther in time, would indicate that they were both edited at about that particular time. Sorry for not mentioning that earlier, it might have avoided these nasty polemics. Oh, that would not have convinced you either? Sorry for mentioning it.

[Juice]

Considering that you responded here to my Post #140, that would make the preceeding post my #139. I was trying to avoid listing the seven eyewitnesses in two consecutive posts.

You are arguing for the identity of the author(s) of John, yes?

You make so much use of John 1:14 as internal evidence of an eyewitness, but the verse is anonymous.

So what? Most works from history are strictly speaking anonymous. Some works from antiquity that are widely held to be eyewitness accounts don’t even internally claim to be an eyewitness, where at the very least John does at 1:14. You and Tassman appear to regard this as insignificant, I don’t.

Sometimes you concede that the writer may not be John the Apostle, sometimes not. Sometimes you say it does not matter who he is, but going back later to John as writer again suggests that it does matter who he is.

At no point in this thread have I claimed who the writer of John is. It may appear I’ve flipped back and forth from John to someone else, but that’s because I’ve at times been foolishly sucked into responding to Tassman’s strawman argument that the apostle John was not the writer. It also may appear that way because it gets tiresome writing “the author of the Gospel of John” all the time so there may be times when I just write “John.”

Once again, I say it is clear that I do not regard an "I" statement as necessary to determine that there is an eyewitness. Yet it is surely helpful in naming who that eyewitness is, and thus John 1:14 does not help at all in naming the writer, as there is no context at all to the Prologue.

What would be helpful is if ancient writers wrote the way we wanted them to. But alas, they didn’t. So we are left to evaluate the available evidence using fair and consistent methods.

I hope you will not continue belaboring this point, as I weary quickly of arguments like The Pixie likes, the old, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type.

Well, feel free to ignore me then. Frankly, I’m growing tired of your attempts to run me off so you can have free reign in this thread to pedal your pet theories. Maybe you should focus your energy on what was it you said you were going to do again? Oh, yes “vanquish the field.” How's that goin' by the way? Seems like the field has returned...

[Doug Shaver]

He won't read what I write, so what entitlement does he have to post?

It's been a few years since I read the TWEB TOS, but if I recall correctly, registration was sufficient to entitle anyone to post.

[Adam]

It's been a few years since I read the TWEB TOS, but if I recall correctly, registration was sufficient to entitle anyone to post.

I stand corrected. Although I didn't mean that Shunya should be banned for illegitimate posting, just....well, you get the idea.

[Adam]

Adam
Are you aware that as the person presenting the argument, the burden of proof lies on you, not me?....
This is none too clear, but I think I get what you mean here. First of all the scientific method can also be used in history; a historian can predict the future in terms of what will be discovered (in the same way evolution makes predictions about what will be found in the fossil record). I do not think it works quite like that (but I am not a historian), but potentially historians can make predictions about the future...
Seriously, Adam, what is going on here? You made the claim, why are you unable or unwilling to support it? Why all this misdirection? You seem an intelligent guy; surely you can understand what the question is (and you have never asked for clarification), why is the answer so difficult for you? I am sorry to say, but it increasingly looks to me as though all you have is your intuition. For all your talk of a "preponderance of the evidence", it looks as though the truth is that there is none, just your own wishful thinking. If that is the case, it is a shame you are not able to admit it....
So I ask again: What is the evidence and reasoning behind your figure of 95% for the probability that Luke and Acts was written before Paul was beheaded?

My post #146 was of course replying to this Post #144.
Actually, the burden of proof lies with you for denying the argument. The claims of (or about) Jesus Christ are so important that one should be very sure they are untrue before dismissing them. A probability of 30% or even 10% leaves it up to you to prove the odds are even less than that.
No, the scientific method is not used in history. One cannot reproduce an experiment nor make predictions about the future. You're a scientist, I'm surprised you do not know this.
Nor can syllogistic logic be used in history, so almost nothing is ever "certain" about ancient history. Syllogistic logic may occasionally be applicable to theology, as in the Problem of Evil. This thread is about religion in ancient history, so you are out of your bailiwick. It's one thing for an atheist to come over here to this site and argue against us. It's quite another to claim that we must argue only in your own terms, and even choose to do this in a thread where your own terms are clearly not applicable. I've backed you down into arguing probabilites, but at first you insisted upon certainties. You define evidence as what you can see and touch (if you're holding by scientific method), and then claim that we are presenting no evidence. Even if so, you yourself are presenting no evidence by your definition. So you have no reason to deny my claim about when Acts was written.
So I ask, how do you define "evidence" and "reasoning"? We may be living in parallel universes. Apparently yours is one in which the magical incantation of the word "science" automatically disposes of God, no matter how much evidence and reasoning can be presented by someone living in the alternate universe. (Which reminds me, the latest episode of Fringe is about to start about that parallel universe.)