Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?

[RoadRunner79]

The Damascus Road bullshit story appears only in Acts and Acts is, well.....

THE EVIDENCE OF ACTS
1 . Acts as Historical Fiction
The book of Acts has been all but discredited as a work of apologetic historical
fiction. 1


Pg 359  On The Historicity of Jesus, Richard Carrier

Before some jesus freak shitwit jumps up screeching about how Carrier "hates" god I left the footnote in and print below the text of the note.

1 . See Richard Pervo, The Mystery of Acts (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 2008);
and Richard Pervo, Acts: A Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2009),
for the most thorough accounting of this fact (see especially the latter, pp. 17-18),
with substantial support in Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The
lntertextua/ Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix,
2004), esp. pp. 377-445 (on Acts specifically); Dennis MacDonald, Does the New
Testament Imitate Homer? Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 2003); and John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable:
How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 201 2),
pp. 196-217. See also Clare Rothschild, Luke-Acts and the Rhetoric of History: An
Investigation of Early Christian Historiography (TDbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004);
Loveday Alexander, 'Fact, Fiction and the Genre of Acts', New Testament Studies 44
(1998), pp. 380-99; and P.E. Satterthwaite, 'Acts against the Background of Classical
Rhetoric', in The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting (ed. Bruce Winter and
Andrew Clarke; Grand Rapids, Ml: Will iam B. Eerdmans, 1 993), pp. 337-80. There are
conservatives who protest, but not with logicaJiy valid arguments.

So, sorry assholes.  It is not just one guy telling you that your book is a pile of shit.  There are many.

In some reviews of this particular argument, it is interesting, because the reviewer notes that some of the citations would not agree with the distinction that Carrier makes.
And while it is good to have some corroboration for your thoughts, it's not a popularity contest, but about the why and the reasons for the conclusion.

There are also a number of scholars, who say that Luke/Acts is a good historical document.  And they cite historical reasons for their claim.  That Luke is generally well validated in historical facts concerning the time and location.  Some things where questioned in the past, but have since been corroborated. Others compare Luke's method to other's considered in the historical genre of the time, and find it to be consistent with that period.  It's not the same as modern standards (citation and sources), but fit's the standards of the time.  Interestingly, it seems that most of the disputes appear mostly to be with other books withing the Bible.  I think that some of these are overly critical, but each should be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

On the other hand, while I only looked at reviews of Carriers talks and arguments concerning this (both pro and con).   I question some of his attempts to making a mythicism connection.  Because there is a large voyage near the beginning of Acts, seems like a stretch to make the claim that it is historical fiction.  The story of the Titantic starts out with a large voyage, and by making grandiose claims.   It too, also has a fictional story, written prior, which has remarkable similarities (including the name of the ship and it's claims).  Yet I doubt that Carrier applies the same reasoning here (or he would be laughed at).

However, it's not about who is making the argument, how many agree with them, or their position.  It's about the reasons for the conclusion.  Now most of what I have seen in regards to Carrier for this, have not been very good reasoning in my opinion.  But I'll let you make the case, for what you think the best evidence is for this claim, and to present it.