New Mythicist Author writes to J. P Meier

[hakeem]

Bolding mine,

If one treats "occasional" letters as more reliable than a kind of a history book like Acts purports to be, then the details in the letters are to be preferred over details in Acts (where they are different, that is). Chances are then that Acts would be later, but may or may not be based on things written in the letters. If Acts is based on details in the letters, why are some details so different or even contradictory?

Of course, if Acts was written first (say, as a resume of Christian traditions about Paul) then the letters could have been based on Acts (again, asking ourselves why the details are different).
third option might be that the letters (if not genuine) AND Acts are BOTH based on a common independent source or sources.

The fourth option is that the author of 'Acts' did not know about the main Pauline epistles.
If so, that would imply 'Acts' was written in the 1st century, because, if written later, it would be difficult for the Pauline epistles not to be known.
And 'Acts' could not have been written in the 2nd century because, at that time, almost every "Fathers" (Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, Origen plus the interpolated ending of gMark and the ending of gMatthew) have the Christian faith propagated at first by Jesus' disciples all over the known world (which is the ideal and preferred way for initial propagation ) when Acts has a very different picture altogether, where the disciples stay in Palestine and the new faith is preached by Greek speaking foreigners in the world.
What would be the sources of 'Acts": I think the author heard about the companions of Paul, but, these ones being dead, allows the author of 'Acts' to insert a lot of fiction, embellishments, changes and out-of-sequence passages.

Cordially, Bernard

Acts of the Apostles must have been written before all the Pauline Epistles.

If Acts was written after the Pauline Epistles then it would not have made any sense to introduce the character as Saul from chapter 7 and then later change his name to Paul in chapter 13

In the Pauline writings the character called Paul is not known as Saul.

It appears that Acts of the Apostles was originally about a character called Saul who wrote no letters to Churches.

The author of Acts specifically stated that it was the Church of Jerusalem which wrote letters and that Saul/Paul and his group delivered them.

Acts of the Apostles does not quote a verse from all the writings under the name of Paul.

The author of Acts did not know the Pauline post-resurrection story that over 500 PERSONS were seen at once by the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline Epistles are later embellishments of Acts of the Apostles.

[MrMacSon]

.. Acts .. introduce[s] the character as Saul from chapter 7 and then later change his name to Paul in chapter 13

And, interestingly, there is still reference to Saul, a king 'from the tribe of Benjamin, in chapter 13 in an account of the history of the development of the faith, just before recounting that 'God raised up David their king' and then referring to his descendant, Jesus, and John, who had previously "proclaimed a 'baptism for repentance' to all the people of Israel", along with a few key OT passages: Isaiah 55:3 and Psalm 16:10 -

Acts 13:14-42 -

14 Moving on from Perga, they arrived at Pisidian Antioch, and on the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. 15 After the reading from the law and the prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent them a message, saying, “Brothers, if you have any message of exhortation for the people, speak it.”

16 So Paul stood up, gestured with his hand and said,

“Men of Israel, and you Gentiles who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors and made the people great during their stay as foreigners in the country of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. 18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. 19 After he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, [Deuteronomy 7:1] he gave his people their land as an inheritance.

20 All this took about four hundred fifty years. After this he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet.

21 Then they asked for a king, and God gave them Saul son of Kish, a man from the tribe of Benjamin, who ruled forty years.

22 After removing him, God raised up David their king. He testified about him: ‘I have found David the son of Jesse to be a man after my heart, who will accomplish everything I want him to do.’

23 From the descendants of this man God brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, just as he promised.

24 Before Jesus arrived, John had proclaimed a baptism for repentance to all the people of Israel. 25 But while John was completing his mission, he said repeatedly, ‘What do you think I am? I am not he. But look, one is coming after me. I am not worthy to untie the sandals on his feet!’

26 Brothers, descendants of Abraham’s family, and those Gentiles among you who fear God, the message of this salvation has been sent to us. 27 For the people who live in Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize him, and they fulfilled the sayings of the prophets that are read every Sabbath by condemning him.

28 Though they found no basis for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. 29 When they had accomplished everything that was written about him, they took him down from the cross and placed him in a tomb. 30 But God raised him from the dead,

31 and for many days he appeared to those who had accompanied him from Galilee to Jerusalem. These are now his witnesses to the people.

32 And we proclaim to you the good news about the promise to our ancestors, 33 that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; today I have fathered you.’ [Psalm 2:7]

34 But regarding the fact that he has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and trustworthy promises made to David.’ [Isaiah 55:3]

35 Therefore he also says in another psalm, ‘You will not permit your Holy One to experience decay.’ [Psalm 16:10]

36 For David, after he had served God’s purpose in his own generation, died, was buried with his ancestors, and experienced decay, 37 but the one whom God raised up did not experience decay.

38 Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through this one forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and by this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which the law of Moses could not justify you.

40 Watch out, then, that what is spoken about by the prophets does not happen to you: 41 ‘Look, you scoffers; be amazed and perish! For I am doing a work in your days, a work you would never believe, even if someone tells you’.” [Habakkuk 1:5]

[Joseph D. L.]

Acts of the Apostles must have been written before all the Pauline Epistles.

If Acts was written after the Pauline Epistles then it would not have made any sense to introduce the character as Saul from chapter 7 and then later change his name to Paul in chapter 13

But all of the epistles introduce Paul as the titular author.

Acts naming Paul as Saul goes along with the author(s) agenda of separating the Marcionite Paul from the Catholic Paul. Saul was a king who tried to kill David. The significance is thus revealed: the Marcionite Paul rejected the Davidic messiahship of Christ.

In the Pauline writings the character called Paul is not known as Saul.

It appears that Acts of the Apostles was originally about a character called Saul who wrote no letters to Churches.

What's more is that Paul is only called such after another Paul figure is introduced. Conspicuously, the same chapter has yet another Saul/Paul figure who is struck blind, to which afterwards the other Paul converts.

Chapter 13 gives the show away; that the author is writing propaganda.

The author of Acts specifically stated that it was the Church of Jerusalem which wrote letters and that Saul/Paul and his group delivered them.

Acts of the Apostles does not quote a verse from all the writings under the name of Paul.

Most of these points appear circular and contingent upon a presupposed idea that Acts is unaware of all of the Pauline letters. They neglect the fact that the writer(s) have their own motifs, and so is to be expected that they wouldn't quote them.

The author of Acts did not know the Pauline post-resurrection story that over 500 PERSONS were seen at once by the resurrected Jesus.

As Neil Godfrey pointed out in an older post, the Pentecostal episode in Acts may have been inspired by the Christ appearing to the 500 in Galatians, as the word for 500 is nearly identical to Pentecost.

The Pauline Epistles are later embellishments of Acts of the Apostles.

Considering that the Pauline letters were Marcionite, and Acts was the product of later attempts to besmirch Marcion, the evidence is for the inverse: Acts is an embellishment of Marcion.

[Giuseppe]

I have read the book of Nicholas Bourgeouis.

The pars destruens is not very original: the Gospels are midrash, full of contradictions and impossibilities, etc.
Idem about the criticisms against the socalled "criteria", etc.

While I like a lot the list of the citations of the Christian theologians showing dogmatic certainty about the historicity, I don't like the absence of references to Vridar on this matter.

The pars construens is that he thinks that the only difference between Christians and Jews is that the former believed in a Messiah dying and rising.

The Messiah was killed by the Jews because the Jews didn't recognize him as the Christ. 1 Thess 2:14-16 would be original.

As divulgative book it is optimal. But unfortunately it doesn't go down to details.

It is moving me to investigate about the thesis that the Jesus of the first gospel is allegory of the Jews killed in 70.

[Giuseppe]

Addition: I can't believe that the prof J. P. Meier believes in a historical kernel (sic) behind the Bartimeus episode. And would he be a so great scholar?