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 » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:29 pm

John2 wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:40 pm
I'm inclined nowadays to see the Catholic epistles as being "Nazarene," i.e., as genuine letters of the Nazarene leaders James, Peter and John, and that the author of Acts was thus a Nazarene or pro-Nazarene and that Acts serves as a record of the Nazarene position (pro-Jewish Torah observance and acceptance of Paul).
Are Nazarenes the same as Nazoraeans, in your view? (The gospel of Luke seems to have only one or two instances of the former, depending on how the textual variants fall, while the book of Acts has none.)
In other words, I think the author of Acts used the letters of Paul and others because that's what Nazarenes did.
Is this a departure from an earlier position of yours? I seem to recall you suggesting at one point that the Nazarenes did not use Paul. (It is perfectly fine if so; just checking.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

John2
Posts: 3371
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 » Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:54 pm

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 2:29 pm
John2 wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:40 pm
I'm inclined nowadays to see the Catholic epistles as being "Nazarene," i.e., as genuine letters of the Nazarene leaders James, Peter and John, and that the author of Acts was thus a Nazarene or pro-Nazarene and that Acts serves as a record of the Nazarene position (pro-Jewish Torah observance and acceptance of Paul).
Are Nazarenes the same as Nazoraeans, in your view? (The gospel of Luke seems to have only one or two instances of the former, depending on how the textual variants fall, while the book of Acts has none.)

Yes. I just prefer to say "Nazarene" because it's easier to type.

In other words, I think the author of Acts used the letters of Paul and others because that's what Nazarenes did.
Is this a departure from an earlier position of yours? I seem to recall you suggesting at one point that the Nazarenes did not use Paul. (It is perfectly fine if so; just checking.)

I used to see "Jewish Christians" in general as being opposed to Paul, and Acts as being proto-orthodox (i.e., Pauline), but now I think there were two kinds of Jewish Christians, those who came to be called Nazarenes/Nazoraeans (who accepted Paul) and those who came to be called Ebionites (who did not). And I think both factions are represented in Acts (as proto-Nazarenes and proto-Ebionites) and that the author sides with the (proto-) Nazarenes.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.

Post Reply