Page 2 of 2
Re: Marcion and Acts (for Andrew Criddle).
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 12:08 pm
by andrewcriddle
perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:38 am
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:17 am
There are several specific bits of information like knowing that Gallio had served as proconsul of Achaia and approximately when.
Wasn't that public knowledge, as in there was a very public monument to that effect?
In principle the evidence was accessible. One would have to discover the inscription at Delphi (not an obvious place to look if you were a second century Christian researching Christian history) and know enough of the history of the Roman Emperors to interpret it correctly. In practice it is something a mid 2nd century Christian would be unlikely to know about in the absence of relevant written Christian sources.
Andrew Criddle
Re: Marcion and Acts (for Andrew Criddle).
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 5:29 pm
by Secret Alias
But this is like the arguments against Clement's Letter to Theodore. If you want to believe that the letter is authentic you maximize what is plausible. If you want to deny authenticity you minimize what's possible. Not sure we know how available information was in antiquity let alone modernity.
Re: Marcion and Acts (for Andrew Criddle).
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 5:45 pm
by Ben C. Smith
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 10:17 am
There are several specific bits of information like knowing that Gallio had served as proconsul of Achaia and approximately when.
There is also an awareness of social and legal issues in the 1st century which had changed in the 2nd century.
In Acts Roman citizenship outside Italy is rare, is a yes no issue (you either are one or not) and gives protection against being whipped by the authorities. In the time of Hadrian Roman citizenship is more common and we have the beginnings of the division between honestiores (citizens 1st class) and humiliorte.es (citizens 2nd class). Only the top grade of citizenship protected you from harsh treatment by the authorities.
There are more examples of Acts familiarity with the 1st century but I would need to look them up.
Andrew Criddle
Edited to Add
Acts has clearly undergone editing as shown by the differences between the Alexandrian and Western texts. This editing may well be mid 2nd century and might in principle have been influenced by anti-Marcionite concerns. However we are talking here about editing an already existing narrative, not putting together different sources.
Specific verses in Acts might well be Anti-Marcionite. What I reject is the idea that the basic narrative of Acts, in which Paul Peter and the Jerusalem leaders are all very much on the same side, was produced in response to Marcion.
Thanks, Andrew.
Re: Marcion and Acts (for Andrew Criddle).
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 7:22 pm
by Bernard Muller
Because it appears to use Josephus' Antiquities
Despite some appearances, the author of Like did not know Josephus' Antiquities.
If "Luke" had 'Antiquities' when writing the gospel, most of the historical mistakes (and different spellings) would have been avoided:
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on
Did "Luke" know about Josephus' Antiquities
About the authorship of Acts and the "we" passages: Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts:
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on
Remarks about the three "we" passages
About the dating of Acts:
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html
Cordially, Bernard
Re: Marcion and Acts (for Andrew Criddle).
Posted: Fri May 10, 2019 8:15 pm
by John2
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 7:22 pm
Because it appears to use Josephus' Antiquities
Despite some appearances, the author of Like did not know Josephus' Antiquities.
If "Luke" had 'Antiquities' when writing the gospel, most of the historical mistakes (and different spellings) would have been avoided:
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on
Did "Luke" know about Josephus' Antiquities
About the authorship of Acts and the "we" passages: Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts:
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on
Remarks about the three "we" passages
About the dating of Acts:
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html
Cordially, Bernard
Well, I may not buy the argument (I guess I'm just comfortable with Mason), but I could live with a statement linked to in one of your links, that "If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible." That would just mean (from my point of view) that Epaphroditus wrote Acts a decade sooner than I'm supposing.