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 2:40 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: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?
Nowhere. It is an omission, not a contradiction.
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.
I could not disagree with your instincts on this any more than I currently do. Even your example is perfectly innocuous. There is no contradiction between meeting Bruce's daughter and being introduced to Bruce's daughter by Bruce himself, much less a contradiction that requires that the person saying the one thing does not even know what the person saying the other thing has said.
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 3:09 pm

By your logic, Bernard, Q should not know about the gospel of Mark, since Q contradicts Mark (a true contradiction in this case!) on whether or not Jesus commanded the disciples to take sandals for their journey. I know you give a long, speculative reason for why Q made the change on your website, but there is no direct evidence for any of what you say, however reasonable it may seem. All you have to do is speculate why Acts may have omitted something from (not even contradicted) Paul's description of his own vision.

I, on the other hand, do not have to speculate like that, since I do not hold the oppressive view that contradictions and tensions imply lack of knowledge of something. I mean, the gospel of Luke says that the transfiguration happened "about eight days" after the discussion about the son of man being ashamed, whereas Mark says it was after six days; and Mark has a young man already sitting in the tomb while Luke has two angels suddenly standing by; I guess Luke must not know Mark! Mark says that it was Levi whom Jesus called from the tax booth, but Matthew says it was Matthew; Matthew also says that the spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tested, whereas Mark has it that the spirit cast Jesus out into the wilderness; and, while Mark says that the sons of Zebedee make a special request of Jesus, Matthew says that it was actually their mother; I guess Matthew must not know Mark either!
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 5:43 pm

to Ben,
Where does "Luke" involve God in the 3 descriptions of Jesus' apparitions near Damascus in Acts?
Nowhere. It is an omission, not a contradiction.
Where did I say it was a contradiction?
I could not disagree with your instincts on this any more than I currently do. Even your example is perfectly innocuous. There is no contradiction between meeting Bruce's daughter and being introduced to Bruce's daughter by Bruce himself, much less a contradiction that requires that the person saying the one thing does not even know what the person saying the other thing has said.
So, if Gary writes: the first time I knew about Bruce having a daughter is when he revealed her to me.
But later Mike wrote three times: the first time Gary met Clarisse (Bruce's daughter) is when Gary was going to work (with no mention of her father being present then). And with a conflicting detail and significant difference about what Clarisse said then.
I suppose you would think there are no significant differences in Gary and Mike's accounts about when Gary met Clarisse for the first time. And that Mike could have read Gary telling about his first meeting with Clarisse. And that Mike's accounts can be trusted to be true.
I don't.

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 5:54 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
Where does "Luke" involve God in the 3 descriptions of Jesus' apparitions near Damascus in Acts?
Nowhere. It is an omission, not a contradiction.
Where did I say it was a contradiction?
It is implied in the word "not":

According to Paul, his first revelation came from God. According to 'Acts', Paul had that revelation from the heavenly Jesus, not God....

I am pointing out that Acts does not say "not God" — that is going beyond what Acts says.
So, if Gary writes: the first time I knew about Bruce having a daughter is when he revealed her to me.
But later Mike wrote three times: the first time Gary met Clarisse (Bruce's daughter) is when Gary was going to work (with no mention of her father being present then). And with a conflicting detail and significant difference about what Clarisse said then.
I suppose you would think there are no significant differences in Gary and Mike's accounts about when Gary met Clarisse for the first time.
There are significant differences.
And that Mike could have read Gary telling about his first meeting with Clarisse.
Yes, of course Mike could have read Gary's account before writing his, despite the differences.
And that Mike's accounts can be trusted to be true.
I do not know either Mike or Gary, so how in the world would I know if their accounts can be trusted?

It is as if you have slipped into debating inerrancy or something here, Bernard, where every little difference is an error and every error means something huge. It sounds like you are suggesting that no mention of something ("no mention of her father being present then") is a point in favor of the two storytellers never even having heard the other story. But that is absurd. And, if pressed, it would mean that the synoptic gospels are all independent of one another.

The difference between God revealing his son to Paul and God's son being revealed to Paul is nowhere near as serious as the differences (some of them outright contradictions) I gave you between the synoptic gospels.
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 6:00 pm

to Ben,
By your logic, Bernard, Q should not know about the gospel of Mark, since Q contradicts Mark (a true contradiction in this case!) on whether or not Jesus commanded the disciples to take sandals for their journey. I know you give a long, speculative reason for why Q made the change on your website, but there is no direct evidence for any of what you say, however reasonable it may seem. All you have to do is speculate why Acts may have omitted something from (not even contradicted) Paul's description of his own vision.

I, on the other hand, do not have to speculate like that, since I do not hold the oppressive view that contradictions and tensions imply lack of knowledge of something. I mean, the gospel of Luke says that the transfiguration happened "about eight days" after the discussion about the son of man being ashamed, whereas Mark says it was after six days; and Mark has a young man already sitting in the tomb while Luke has two angels suddenly standing by; I guess Luke must not know Mark! Mark says that it was Levi whom Jesus called from the tax booth, but Matthew says it was Matthew; Matthew also says that the spirit led Jesus into the wilderness to be tested, whereas Mark has it that the spirit cast Jesus out into the wilderness; and, while Mark says that the sons of Zebedee make a special request of Jesus, Matthew says that it was actually their mother; I guess Matthew must not know Mark either!
All of that are embellishments on what "Mark" wrote. And these embellishments or different details are on stories which have a large content of Markan material. So that shows "Luke" & "Matthew" knew about gMark.
The same cannot be said about Paul's revelation from God about his Son and Paul's suddenly seeing Jesus as a light and hearing Jesus without God being said to be present then. The differences are just too big, the common points are just too little to say that the author of Acts knew about Galatians.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Tue May 16, 2017 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

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 6:08 pm

to Ben,
For your information, I did rephrase what I wrote earlier, in order to make it closer to the NT parallels:
>> So, if Gary writes: the first time I knew about Bruce having a daughter is when he revealed her to me.
But later Mike wrote three times: the first time Gary met Clarisse (Bruce's daughter) is when Gary was going to work (with no mention of her father being present then). And with a conflicting detail and significant difference about what Clarisse said then.
I suppose you would think there are no significant differences in Gary and Mike's accounts about when Gary met Clarisse for the first time. And that Mike could have read Gary telling about his first meeting with Clarisse. And that Mike's accounts can be trusted to be true.
I don't. <<

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 6:10 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:All of that are embellishments on what "Mark" wrote. And these embellishments or different details are on stories which have a large content of Markan material. So that shows "Luke" & "Matthew" knew about gMark.
I have to use the clear case in order to prove the point. If I found a situation where the only overlap between two texts was minimal, and there were differences, you could just assert that the one text does not know the other (as you are doing with Acts and Galatians).

What this clear case proves is that differences, even outright contradictions, do not mean that one author did not know another's work. Therefore, using differences, even outright contradictions, to show that one author did not know another's work is a fallacy.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue May 16, 2017 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 6:11 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
For your information, I did rephrase what I wrote earlier, in order to make it closer to the NT parallels:
>> So, if Gary writes: the first time I knew about Bruce having a daughter is when he revealed her to me.
But later Mike wrote three times: the first time Gary met Clarisse (Bruce's daughter) is when Gary was going to work (with no mention of her father being present then). And with a conflicting detail and significant difference about what Clarisse said then.
I suppose you would think there are no significant differences in Gary and Mike's accounts about when Gary met Clarisse for the first time. And that Mike could have read Gary telling about his first meeting with Clarisse. And that Mike's accounts can be trusted to be true.
I don't. <<
I responded to this already, line by line.
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 6:31 pm

to Ben,
I responded to this already, line by line.
I made significant changes since and added different comments.

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

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 6:37 pm

to Ben,
If I found a situation where the only overlap between two texts was minimal, and there were differences, you could just assert that the one text does not know the other (as you are doing with Acts and Galatians).
OK
What this clear case proves is that differences, even outright contradictions, do not mean that one author did not know another's work.
And HOW "this clear case proves is that differences, even outright contradictions, do not mean that one author did not know another's work"?

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

Post Reply