Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Acts 16:7
7 And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.

Sinope is in Pontus immediately after Bithynia.
In this case the Criterion of Embarrassment say us why the Spirit of Jesus was so prohibitive.

Excellent find. That always struck me as odd in Acts. Glad to finally know why it was made up.

I've never noticed this before and have no opinion about it, but it looks like there is at least one manuscript that says "the spirit" and not "the spirit of Jesus."

https://books.google.com/books?id=m-q8x ... us&f=false

John2 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:49 am I've never noticed this before and have no opinion about it, but it looks like there is at least one manuscript that says "the spirit" and not "the spirit of Jesus."

https://books.google.com/books?id=m-q8x ... us&f=false

Yes, but I don't think for the point here it matters much if the spirit is Jesus' spirit or the holy spirit.

.
I'm moved with compassion because you look like sheep without a shepherd

imho Luke simply tried to communicate that the spirit casts Paul andTimothy out of Asia and drives them into Europe

I think we already had a longer thread about this here some time ago. The point that also the province of Asia is mentioned, another known Marcionite stronghold, may indicate an attempt to dissociate the apostle Paul from Marcionites, who seemed to have claimed that apostle for themselves.

to Kunigunde Kreuzerin,

imho Luke simply tried to communicate that the spirit casts Paul and Timothy out of Asia and drives them into Europe

True, KK. Furthermore Bithynia is not Pontus. Another attempt for post-dating Acts.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:13 pm
Another attempt for post-dating Acts.

Hi Bernard, what do you mean by that? An attempt to date Acts later? Later than the synoptics?

"Proof that Marcion existed" is a bit strong (and a bit circular, too, actually -- which the arguments based on "the criterion of embarrassment" usually are), but there is a plausible connection between the Acts 16 passage and the Marcionite phenomenon. Joseph Tyson in Marcion and Luke-Acts writes:

A plausible suggestion is that in the second century Bithynia, which was generally connected with Pontus, was known as the place of Marcion’s origin and that Luke wants to disassociate Paul from Marcion. He does so by affirming that in the very area where Marcion was born and began his preaching, there had been no Pauline mission, thus no association with earlier Christianity. The author of Acts would be signaling the reader that the claims of the Marcionites to be followers of Paul are mere fabrications, unsupported by the historical “facts” and, what is more important, contrary to the “Spirit ofJesus.” (p.77)

The suggestion is only supported, however, by the larger context (and details) of Tyson's argument that the canonical form Luke-Acts is an anti-Marcionite redaction.

(What I find of particular interest is that Paul turns instead to go to Troas (the region of Troy) where he receives a vision that leads him to a new continent and a place explicitly said to be a "Roman colony". This is one of numerous shadowy echoes of the myth of Aeneas and hints that the author had that myth in mind when he narrated the preparation for the church's base being moved from Jerusalem to Rome.)

Hi Bernard, what do you mean by that? An attempt to date Acts later? Later than the synoptics?

Definitely later than gLuke, therefore later than gMark. Likely later than gMatthew but most probably earlier than the final version of gJohn. Around 90-95 CE.
Written by the same author of gLuke (a Roman woman from Philippi, Macedonia), a few years after her gospel.
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html
http://historical-jesus.info/64.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html

Cordially, Bernard