Dating Paul's Conversion c.36 C.E.

[Tod Stites]

Why do you Tod start each sentence with an asterisk?

Why can’t you use paragraphs with spaces between them?

I have read you OP but I can’t see within it a logical case for why the year 36 is a better year than say 37, 38, 39 or 40. There is no discussion on whether 2 Cor. 11:32 is an interpolation or not: There was no discussion on whether the event in 2 Cor. 11:32 happened just after Paul’s conversion or on his second visit to Damascus (Gal 1:17) during the three years (Gal 1:18). There was no discussion of the likelihood that the whole Stephen story was a creation of Luke’s.

Hopefully Tod you will respond (I note you haven’t responded to my comments in another post started by you).

Michael BG

I am sorry about formatting and will make every effort to improve..but I am not very knowledgeable

when it comes to computers. I am sorry I did not get back to you earlier but have been very busy..

Thank you for reading my post and among the points you make is the quite valid question of the

historicity of the Stephen episode. I believe I touched on the issue briefly and noted the uncertainty

of Dunn, Gutbrod and Haenchen. But of course skepticism about Luke's account does not end

there, and you probably agree that the historical reliability of Acts has long been called into question.

Helmut Koester (2007) for instance has lamented the use of Acts by so many other scholars as a
source for early Christian history ("From Jesus To The Gospels" p.250).

Ernst Haenchen (1971) said that "Luke as a historian enjoyed a freedom which we grant only to the
historical novel"(Acts Of The Apostles" p.120).

Gerd Ludemann (2004) seems to have doubts about whether the "un-Pauline" theology of Acts could
really have come from someone who stood so close to the historical Paul ("Acts Of The Apostles" p.26).

Rudolf Bultmann (1951) declared that "Acts offers only an incomplete and legend-tinted history
of the earliest church"("Theology Of The New Testament" v.1,p.33).

Theissen and Merz (1998) have presented evidence that the author of Luke-Acts was "certainly not
a companion of Paul", and that a "critical consensus" has emphasized the "countless contradictions"
between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters ("The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide" p.32).

Wayne Meeks (1983) notes that Acts repeatedly has Paul go straight to the synagogue, which
seems to contradict Paul as seeing his mission as directed primarily or exclusively to the gentiles
(Gal 1:16):(2:7-9):(Rom 1:5,13-15):(11:13-14):(15:15-21):("The First Urban Christians" p.26,204n114).

Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza (1983) said that "in all probability the author of Acts does not know
the genuine Pauline letters"("In Memory Of Her" p.160).

Steve Mason (2003) noted that "Almost entirely absent from Paul's speeches in Acts are his distinctive
themes.."("Josephus And The New Testament" p.263).

Justin Meggitt (1998) rejected Acts as primary source for his study ("Paul, Poverty And Survival" p.8-9).

Boring, Berger and Colpe (1995) suggested that the determination of Peter and John in the face of
threats to "obey God and not men"(Acts 4:19):(5:29) is derived from the attempt of Hellenized Christians
to impress Greeks, among whom it was recalled that Socrates, in the face of a warning given under pain
of death, insisted that he must "obey the god" ("Hellenistic Commentary On The New Testament" p.314).

Martin Dibelius advised that "we must not allow our attempts to prove the authenticity of the
speeches (in Acts) to cloud our perception of their kerygmatic nature"("Book Of Acts" 2004 ed. p.81).

And so James Dunn (2015) reminds us that "The use of Acts as a historical source for the first
decades of..Christianity remains controversial"("Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.4n2).

I am glad we were able to shed further light on this all-important issue..

P.S. Regarding 2 Cor 11:32, Metzger allows that "desiring to seize me" is possibly an interpolation,
wholly or in part ("Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.515-6).

[Michael BG]

I am sorry about formatting and will make every effort to improve. but I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to computers. I am sorry I did not get back to you earlier but have been very busy. Thank you for reading my post and among the points you make is the quite valid question of the historicity of the Stephen episode.

Thank you for responding and not starting each sentence with an asterisk.

and you probably agree that the historical reliability of Acts has long been called into question.
…
And so James Dunn (2015) reminds us that "The use of Acts as a historical source for the first decades of..Christianity remains controversial"("Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.4n2).

And is this your position regarding Acts?
Do you think there is anything historical in Acts 6:8-8:1?
If you do, which parts and why?

P.S. Regarding 2 Cor 11:32, Metzger allows that "desiring to seize me" is possibly an interpolation, wholly or in part ("Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament" p.515-6).

Is this your position?
If so, what is the case for why you think the rest of 2 Cor. 11:32 is historical?

How to you get 36 CE from Gal. 1?

[Tod Stites]

Yes, Dunn's position suits me just fine, the historicity of Acts is still controversial..

However I am drawn to the speeches in the early chapters which have the look of the

primitive kerygma of the church, and will gladly expound on the scholars who think

they bear the look of authenticity, if you will only wait a little while..

I don't get 36 C.E. from Gal 1 or from anywhere, and have not asserted

it as a firm date for Paul's conversion, having noted the earlier dates proposed

by Koester, Dodd, and Dunn, but I have long thought it important to remind myself

that Paul does not say that he spent three years in the desert, only that it was three

years after his conversion until he went up to Jerusalem..

[Michael BG]

However I am drawn to the speeches in the early chapters which have the look of the primitive kerygma of the church, and will gladly expound on the scholars who think they bear the look of authenticity, if you will only wait a little while..

I don’t disagree that there could be some historical data regarding the early Kerygma in some of the speeches in Acts. I posted what I thought might be the Kerygma in Acts 2:14-38 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2135

Is there a reason why you quote the opinions of the scholars rather than using them to back up your own position?

I don't get 36 C.E. from Gal 1 or from anywhere, and have not asserted it as a firm date for Paul's conversion,

What was the point of your original OP if not to either defend the year 36 or make the case for why you don’t think it is correct?

that Paul does not say that he spent three years in the desert, only that it was three years after his conversion until he went up to Jerusalem..

I am aware of the implied two visits to Damascus and the idea that the second visit to Damascus is not stated as being at the end of the three years. Hence my request for you to address Gal 1:17 and 18.

[Tod Stites]

However I am drawn to the speeches in the early chapters which have the look of the primitive kerygma of the church, and will gladly expound on the scholars who think they bear the look of authenticity, if you will only wait a little while..

I don’t disagree that there could be some historical data regarding the early Kerygma in some of the speeches in Acts. I posted what I thought might be the Kerygma in Acts 2:14-38 viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2135

Is there a reason why you quote the opinions of the scholars rather than using them to back up your own position?

I don't get 36 C.E. from Gal 1 or from anywhere, and have not asserted it as a firm date for Paul's conversion,

What was the point of your original OP if not to either defend the year 36 or make the case for why you don’t think it is correct?

The answers to the last two questions are encapsulated in my overall approach of holding very
few firm positions about anything in the field of historical Jesus/early Christian history, except the
position that no one should be dogmatic about their position, since what we have are probabilities
and not certainties. There is in the end no airtight proof that Jesus, or for that matter God, ever
existed, so we must exercise caution in expressing what are in reality only suppositions.

When it comes to c.36 C.E., the date was offered, as with all my suggestions, as food for
thought, and a topic for discussion, since it is clear that scholars cannot themselves agree on
a firm date for Paul's conversion. Paul's sojourn in the desert and his three years at Damascus
(Gal 1:17-18) are best explained-I THINK-by either the danger emanating from Jerusalem and
the Jewish authorities and/or his perceived need to more fully absorb the gospel, ala the
Rabbi Laqish, as mentioned in my post. It occurs to me that Paul's "revelation of Jesus Christ"
may have consisted of nothing more than his finding one of the primitive speech gospel in a
house church raided by Paul and his Pharisee friends prior to his conversion. Whatever Paul
may have seen may have been nothing more than a celestial anomaly, since it was remembered
in tradition as a "heavenly vision"(Acts 26:19), and I intend to compose a thread on celestial
anomalies as the origin of the earliest reported sightings of the "Risen Christ".

Information on scholars who discern a certain archaic character in the early speeches in
Acts is pending..there are not as many of them as I had previously thought, but the lack of
atonement theology there (as in almost all of Luke-Acts) I find fascinating, especially since
there is no atonement theology attached to the death of Jesus in the Sayings Source Q.

that Paul does not say that he spent three years in the desert, only that it was three years after his conversion until he went up to Jerusalem..

I am aware of the implied two visits to Damascus and the idea that the second visit to Damascus is not stated as being at the end of the three years. Hence my request for you to address Gal 1:17 and 18.

[outhouse]

Y'now, Tod, you might try some formatting in future posts.

Remove the carriage returns (or paragraph symbols) at the end of each lines from your books and replace with a space (sometimes not, depends on your software) and put a blank line before each new paragraph.

Otherwise, I cannot bring myself to read long unbroken narratives in posts.

DCH

Thank you for your recommendation..I don't know all the terms you are using but will try to

improve formatting...I am sorry you are having trouble reading my posts..I will make the

utmost effort to improve their look..

You need to take smaller bites and get to your point, not why you reached your point, unless asked.

Your quote mined OP's or more directed at Proselytizing your rhetoric, then discussing historical plausible context here.

[outhouse]

When it comes to c.36 C.E., the date was offered, as with all my suggestions, as food for
thought, and a topic for discussion

Then state this as context, but we do not need topics to discuss as much as want to discuss YOUR understanding.

I guess I'm asking you to get to the point

[Michael BG]

Is there a reason why you quote the opinions of the scholars rather than using them to back up your own position?

The answers to the last two questions are encapsulated in my overall approach of holding very few firm positions about anything in the field of historical Jesus/early Christian history, except the position that no one should be dogmatic about their position, since what we have are probabilities and not certainties. There is in the end no airtight proof that Jesus, or for that matter God, ever existed, so we must exercise caution in expressing what are in reality only suppositions.

I am not asking you to hold a dogmatic opinion. Because of my education where in essays dealing with history or discussing other alternatives we were told we had to have a conclusion where we came down on one side or the other. I am quite happy with the idea that someone only just concludes one thing is only just likely to be more likely than the other.

I think it is OK to post asking for views on alternatives, but you need to engage with the issues, which I don’t think you are doing.

When it comes to c.36 C.E., the date was offered, as with all my suggestions, as food for
thought, and a topic for discussion, since it is clear that scholars cannot themselves agree on
a firm date for Paul's conversion.

It was not clearly offered along other alternatives and nothing was clear in your OP.

Information on scholars who discern a certain archaic character in the early speeches in
Acts is pending..there are not as many of them as I had previously thought

I don’t understand why it matters if there are few scholars agreeing with your position. You should have the courage to state a position, provide scholarly support if you wish, but base it on the texts, and then defend it.

Paul's sojourn in the desert and his three years at Damascus (Gal 1:17-18) are best explained-I THINK-by either the danger emanating from Jerusalem and the Jewish authorities and/or his perceived need to more fully absorb the gospel, ala the Rabbi Laqish, as mentioned in my post. It occurs to me that Paul's "revelation of Jesus Christ" may have consisted of nothing more than his finding one of the primitive speech gospel in a house church raided by Paul and his Pharisee friends prior to his conversion. Whatever Paul may have seen may have been nothing more than a celestial anomaly, since it was remembered in tradition as a "heavenly vision"(Acts 26:19), and I intend to compose a thread on celestial anomalies as the origin of the earliest reported sightings of the "Risen Christ".

Isn’t the threat to Christians from Judaism a creation of later Christians? Christians met to worship and pray with Jews until the end of the first century. This assumes that the Birkat haMinum was issued at the Council of Jamnia assuming it took place in the late first century CE. This is based on John 9:22 being a reference to late first century or early second century practice of those confessing Christ being put out of the synagogue.

I have no problem with the idea that someone may wish to go off into the “desert” or “wilderness” after a religious experience.

Do you have any evidence that “primitive speech gospels” existed say before 50 CE? What do you mean by “primitive speech gospels”?

[outhouse]

Christians met to worship and pray with Jews until the end of the first century

This has to be stated in context to be best understood.

Do you think Christians worshipping Jesus as gods son would not be blasphemous to a pious Aramaic Jew?

Or do you think Christians were all Hellenist in the Diaspora and in these places there were Hellenistic Proselytes and gentiles were also welcome and worshipping a form of Judaism light where laws were not adhered to like in Israel???

I guarantee you no Christians were worshipping with real Jews in Israel.

The whole Jewish Christian name started IMHO due to Romans not being able to tell the difference because this new sect mirrored other Hellenistic Jews in the Diaspora who had been perverting Judaism and its laws for a long time.

During this period Hellenistic Jews considered other Hellenist Jews simple for swearing off pagan deities, meaning Proselytes in Israel were probably more Jewish then Diaspora converts.

Think about the evidence, Paul a Hellenist states he went to Jerusalem and argued Jewish law with founding fathers, which is fictional to me. The house there not church probably used the names of Peter and James to build said houses authority. [that is my own opinion, take it for what its worth] either way they argued with Paul about laws.

[outhouse]

raided by Paul and his Pharisee friends prior to his conversion

.

First

You have no evidence the Pharisees hired him to head hunt Christian sects in the Diaspora or went with him. I wish we had more to go on.

Second

No primitive speech gospel is behind his conversion and you can leave Damascus out of it as Acts is fiction.

Paul tells us himself he had a feeling from within as his reason for change, and he does not tell us it was due to some quick read of text nor does he say a celestial anomaly of jesus was responsible. You should know the scholar who taught his, do you even still recognize it as bad as you went off his track?