Does Carrier get his Acts together?

[ignorantianescia]

There is a post on Exploring Our Matrix about a lecture Carrier apparently had. McGrath has some fun describing and critiquing it.

www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2014/03/richard-carrier-on-acts-as-historical-fiction.html

John Loftus drew attention to the lecture above. Here are some comments on it.

The presentation starts with best books, mentioning Richard Purvo, Dennis MacDonald, and John Dominic Crossan. This was misleading, because these scholars do not draw the distinctive conclusions that Carrier does.

Luke-Acts is said to have been written by the same guy, and as a response to Matthew, which in turn was a response to Mark. Brief and oversimplified summaries of the aims of each Gospel. Carrier mentions the consensus (Q) but says that it is a non-viable hypothesis that never ought to have been proposed. This is the same unfortunate kind of thing you get from Christian apologists. While one may well be able to make a scholarly case against an earlier view, the idea that those earlier scholars were foolish is ridiculous. Scholarship is progressive, and it is often possible to see more clearly in light of what others did before us.

[evangelion]

That really is atrocious. Incredibly, Carrier's public presentation skills still haven't improved! His PowerPoint slides are dire too.

[ignorantianescia]

I suppose he flew off into outer space for some heavenly bull.

But you're right on his presentational skills, his speaking really makes it difficult to follow his case. Around 37:20 he claims that Paul dies and is resurrected in Acts like Jesus ( ), but adds something inaudible. Is he referring to being bitten by a venomous snake in Acts 28? Nope, it seems the reference is to Acts 14. No resurrection there. And this guy accuses scholars of being incompetent?