neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 1:18 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:10 pmWhat, then, is the difference (if any) between Carrier's use of source criticism here and, say, Theissen's when he argues for a passion narrative dating to the 30's and a form of Q dating to before 70?
I have very problematic internet connection now which is likely to persist for some days. Look forward to responding though may be quite some delay. (Can only log on for very short bursts right now.)
Sure. Hope you can get it sorted out.
In the meantime, let me sharpen the focus on this question as best I can. You wrote earlier:
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2017 12:34 amCurrently biblical scholars do not treat the NT documents like any other ancient documents and they do not apply normal historical methods. Their historical arguments are in effect, and by the admission of some of them, circular. And since they do not have primary sources for Jesus, they find ways to create imaginary primary sources to work with by doing something no other historian would dare do with his sources -- get "behind" or "beneath" them with circular "criteria".
And now here we have Carrier doing source criticism in order to come up with a trial account behind the book of Acts which hints at a nonhistorical Jesus. I cannot imagine how he would even argue it to be a true primary text for Jesus' lifetime, since would such a text not presume events toward the end of Paul's putative life? So there is that matter (and, again, I cannot lay my hands on the book at the present time). But, more importantly for my question here, Carrier has "discovered" a source document behind Acts, one which he thinks contributes to his overall views.
So... how does this differ from what Theissen does in
The Gospels in Context? You accurately point out upthread a bit that one does not have to agree with Carrier's source criticism itself; but he is still doing what historians do when he uses it. Honest question: would the same apply to Theissen (and other scholars who have dated the passion narrative to the thirties)? Unless I misunderstand what you mean by criteriology, neither Carrier (on behalf of his trial account) nor Theissen (on behalf of his passion narrative) uses the much maligned criteria (dissimilarity, embarrassment, and so on) in this particular connection. So how can we tell which of the two is doing source criticism in a way that "no other historian would dare"and which is doing things properly? Or are Theissen and his ilk (including Crossan on this particular topic, as well as Bauckham himself and a host of commentators on Mark) exceptions to your generalization that biblical scholars are cheating, so to speak, in their method of finding primary sources behind the secondary gospels?