I haven’t investigated that specific question. But the place to start is Alan Segal’s Life After Death.

P.S. No.

I give a full treatment, with cited bibliography of scholarship on those very criteria, in Proving History.

Quick question on Hell! I know, not the cheeriest of topics, but you’re one of few I trust on these issues.

Why is the Valley of Hinnom/Gehanna considered the destination of the wicked in the Bible?

I have only found that Pagans were worshiping the god Moloch here and the Jews didn’t like this so cheerily they slandered this area.

Thanks!
Jon

Side Question: Do you ever think the Christians could be right about Hell?

can you recommend any books or youtube videos which explain and critique criterion’s such as

multiple attestation
criteria of embarrassment

criteria of dissimilarity

thanks

(1) Violates Occam’s Razor. The common source problem doesn’t explain Luke’s mistakes, some of which are based on peculiar decisions of order made by Josephus. Plus, that theory requires positing an additional unknown entity: a third unevidenced document. Which also by remarkable coincidence has all the same material shared between Luke and Josephus (why should there be so much in Luke that is also in Josephus?). So it’s prior is low as a hypothesis. It requires too many ad hoc assumptions.

(3) Is not ad hoc. You have invalidity merged three separate hypotheses in order to claim it’s one complex hypothesis. That’s dirty pool logic-wise. They are completely separate hypotheses. The TF status as forged was established separately (no one knew it derived from Luke), and it is internally obviously a Christian invention (that’s not an ad hoc assumption; the probability Josephus wrote the TF as-is is virtually zero from internal evidence alone). The reliance of Luke on Josephus was also established separately, on separate evidence, which excluded the TF by prior proof (not by ad hoc assumption). Then, after that happened, the dependence of the TF on Luke was discovered separately. The interpretation of that discovery must take into account what has been previously proved (Luke’s reliance on Josephus and the TF not being by Josephus).

That third hypothesis then lends itself to the trifold question: (1) Did Josephus (or whoever) use a different Gospel than Luke but which Luke used? (2) Did Luke derive his Gospel from the TF in Josephus? (No matter who wrote the TF) or (3) Did someone insert the TF using Luke as guideline?

(1) Is far too ad hoc (too many improbable and unevidenced assumptions). It is so obviously dependent on Luke, that we do not need to posit an imaginary and conveniently-similar third document to explain its content. (2) Is too improbable on two counts: (a) Luke’s account is far too complex to have been based on the outline of the TF, because its order of events follows from his fleshed out narrative that links to his whole Gospel; whereas the TF author far more evidently has just taken bullet points from Luke and kept them in the same order, while leaving a lot out that doesn’t make any sense to anyone who hadn’t already read a Gospel—that is, we can explain that order in Luke as resulting from his narrative structure, and his structure makes sense of everything on the list; we can’t explain that order in the TF by any other means than supposing it’s a bullet list stripped from Luke’s narrative (because there is no other reason for that order to be so consistently replicated there, and the elements make little sense in the absence of Luke’s fuller narrative). And (b) the vocabulary of the TF is more Lucan than Josephan (or anything else), which is less probable on any other hypothesis than influence from Luke.

That leaves (3).