Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue May 16, 2017 11:55 am

perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
Acts nowhere does. Nor do the epistles of James and Jude (first verse of each epistle). Nor does Thomas.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Peter Kirby » Tue May 16, 2017 11:59 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
Acts nowhere does.
If Acts is subverting the narrative of Galatians, would this make it more likely that Galatians hadn't been expanded with Gal 1:19 (etc.) yet?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1845
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by andrewcriddle » Tue May 16, 2017 12:01 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
No Acts doesn't. It is possible to regard this James as quite different from James the lord's brother in Paul and from James the Lord's brother in Hegesippus. I just don't think it is very likely. One should not multiply James' without necessity.

Andrew Criddle

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue May 16, 2017 12:04 pm

I always thought that the author of Acts did not know about the main epistles of Paul (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians):
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
But "Luke" (& "Matthew") knew about 1 Clement: click for http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Did "Luke" know about '1Clement'? <<

About the "we" passages in Acts: click on http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on >> Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16) <<

About the dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html & http://historical-jesus.info/64.html (in the second century & early third, Acts was conflicting with the rosy picture of Jesus' own disciples/eyewitnesses as being the first Christian missionaries all over the known world (as in gMark insertion at its end, gMatthew having Jesus sending his disciples to all nations, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

perseusomega9
Posts: 672
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by perseusomega9 » Tue May 16, 2017 12:05 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
No Acts doesn't. It is possible to regard this James as quite different from James the lord's brother in Paul and from James the Lord's brother in Hegesippus. I just don't think it is very likely. One should not multiply James' without necessity.

Andrew Criddle
But which came first, the chicken or the egg?


eta: Nor should one conglomerate them without necessity?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue May 16, 2017 12:19 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:I always thought that the author of Acts did not know about the main epistles of Paul (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians):
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
But "Luke" (& "Matthew") knew about 1 Clement: click for http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Did "Luke" know about '1Clement'? <<

About the "we" passages in Acts: click on http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on >> Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16) <<

About the dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html & http://historical-jesus.info/64.html (in the second century & early third, Acts was conflicting with the rosy picture of Jesus' own disciples/eyewitnesses as being the first Christian missionaries all over the known world (as in gMark insertion at its end, gMatthew having Jesus sending his disciples to all nations, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen).
I believe the following undermines your entire argument that Acts did not know certain Pauline epistles:

Comment: According to Paul, his first revelation came from God. According to 'Acts', Paul had that revelation from the heavenly Jesus, not God, as known through three different versions of the same alleged event.
There is a conflict between the two first versions: in one, Paul's companions hear the voice; in the other, they do not hear it!
And only in the third version, Jesus is sending Paul to the Gentiles!

You are using contradictions (and tensions) between Paul and Acts to allege that the latter lacked access to the former. Yet here, in three accounts of the same incident, it is the author of Acts who is actually introducing contradictions (and tensions). Unless you think that different authors are at work in those three passages about the appearance to Paul, you are in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of arguing that it is probable that the author contradicted him/herself but improbable that the author contradicted Paul.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue May 16, 2017 12:34 pm

to Ben,
You are using contradictions (and tensions) between Paul and Acts to allege that the latter lacked access to the former. Yet here, in three accounts of the same incident, it is the author of Acts who is actually introducing contradictions (and tensions). Unless you think that different authors are at work in those three passages about the appearance to Paul, you are in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of arguing that it is probable that the author contradicted him/herself but improbable that the author contradicted Paul.
I don't know how you can think that.
Sure, "Luke" seems to invent things as she went along writing stuff on Jesus appearing to Paul. But that conflicts with Paul saying he got the initial revelation from God, which obviously "Luke" did not know.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue May 16, 2017 12:41 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
You are using contradictions (and tensions) between Paul and Acts to allege that the latter lacked access to the former. Yet here, in three accounts of the same incident, it is the author of Acts who is actually introducing contradictions (and tensions). Unless you think that different authors are at work in those three passages about the appearance to Paul, you are in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of arguing that it is probable that the author contradicted him/herself but improbable that the author contradicted Paul.
I don't know how you can think that.
By reading your words and following their natural consequences. An author is allowed both to use a source and to contradict it. The contradictions do not disprove knowledge of that source.
Sure, "Luke" seems to invent things as she went along writing stuff on Jesus appearing to Paul. But that conflicts with Paul saying he got the initial revelation from God, which obviously "Luke" did not know.
And this one is not even a very good contradiction. Galatians 1.16 says that what God revealed was his son. And that is exactly whom Paul encounters on the road to Damascus in Acts: the son. The content of the revelation in both cases is the son. It is so easy to imagine someone turning Galatians 1.16 into the Damascus road episode(s) in Acts.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7853
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue May 16, 2017 1:33 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
Acts nowhere does.
If Acts is subverting the narrative of Galatians, would this make it more likely that Galatians hadn't been expanded with Gal 1:19 (etc.) yet?
The thought has occurred to me before. But I am not certain yet.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue May 16, 2017 2:29 pm

to Ben,
And this one is not even a very good contradiction. Galatians 1.16 says that what God revealed was his son. And that is exactly whom Paul encounters on the road to Damascus in Acts: the son. The content of the revelation in both cases is the son. It is so easy to imagine someone turning Galatians 1.16 into the Damascus road episode(s) in Acts.
Where does "Luke" involve God in the 3 descriptions of Jesus' apparitions near Damascus in Acts?
For God revealing his Son, we would expect something like: "[Jesus is] my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Lk 3:22.

If I say: Bruce presented me his daughter. Well this is not equivalent to: I met Bruce's daughter on my way to work. that's does not involve the father at all.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply