Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

[Irish1975]

What I myself mean by those terms ["founder," "Christianity"] is very simple. Paul has believed in Christ Jesus (hence "Christianity," though of course I am aware that the fuller term is probably an anachronism for Paul's time); and so has Cephas (Galatians 2.15-16), who precedes Paul (hence Paul is not the "founder" of the belief).

Galatians 2:15-16
Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου.

I don't see how this passage tells us anything about Cephas' belief in Christ Jesus. Can you explain?

[GakuseiDon]

Ok GD. But we who like to think of ourselves as better than Carrier and Giuseppe, those of us who aren't polemicists for a particular POV and who only seek after the truth - we have to admit that Acts has a strange peculiarity which might not lead to full blown mythicism per say but which is still curious.

Let me fix that: "We have to admit that Acts WHICH IS WRITTEN BY A 'HISTORICIST' AUTHOR has a strange peculiariy." Except that it isn't strange. I went down this road with Doherty years ago. Tertullian's "Ad nationes" doesn't refer to a human Jesus -- that's strange. Tatian's "Address to the Greeks" doesn't refer to a human Jesus -- that's strange. Shepherd of Hermas doesn't refer to a human Jesus -- that's strange. And so on and so on. To the point that Doherty writes in his book "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

"As one can see by this survey, if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 485)"

At some point it stops being strange. Curious, yes, but not strange. Acts of the Apostles is just another example of a CLEARLY 'historicist' writer who is not interested in writing about a human Jesus at every turn. Rgprice wrote in his OP:

"In my mind, if I were fabricating this account after the fact, that certainly is what I would have written, something along those lines [accusations about the human Jesus]. But even in Acts of the Apostles its as if the memory of Jesus has been entirely wiped from the minds of everyone in Jerusalem!"

In fact, it's just another example of an early Christian writer -- a CLEARLY 'HISTORICIST' writer -- who is not interested in the human Jesus where rgprice and yourself think that writer should be interested.

The point is that the Paul portion of the book has the Jews basically responding to Pau's vision of Jesus rather than Paul as a representative of a teacher with whom they are familiar or very familiar. Paul's speeches, Paul's teachings are what cause the reaction from the Jews. Yes there might be references to a tradition beyond Paul, but Paul and Paulism is very much what is on trial.

Yes, PAUL is on trial. What PAUL allegedly said and did was on trial. And Paul defends himself on what he said and did. So why the heck are you surprised that a human Jesus isn't being made part of the mix??? What is strange about that, in your mind? Doesn't that speak towards your own obsession about Jesus?

[Ben C. Smith]

What I myself mean by those terms ["founder," "Christianity"] is very simple. Paul has believed in Christ Jesus (hence "Christianity," though of course I am aware that the fuller term is probably an anachronism for Paul's time); and so has Cephas (Galatians 2.15-16), who precedes Paul (hence Paul is not the "founder" of the belief).

Galatians 2:15-16
Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου.

I don't see how this passage tells us anything about Cephas' belief in Christ Jesus. Can you explain?

The speech to Cephas starts in verse 14, and the logic both of the passage and of the rest of Paul's thought about Gentile inclusion makes more sense with the "we" referring principally to Paul and Cephas than with the "we" referring to some other combination which excludes Cephas. That is my take, one arrived at after a long period of seeking to interpret Paul otherwise when it comes to Cephas; if it is not yours, so be it.

[John2]

. Most of us (me) would have just assumed that Acts was a romantic history developed from the orthodox POV.

How does Acts support the orthodox point of view? It espouses Torah observance (including sacrifices) and calls Christians Nazarenes, just like Mark, Matthew and Luke. It seems simpler to me to suppose it is a Nazarene writing, since they are the ones that orthodox writers say espoused Torah observance and accepted Paul.

I gather the idea that Acts is an orthodox writing stems in part from the fact that it was used by the orthodox, but I think this was simply because the earliest Christian writings espoused the Jewish Christian point of view and there was nothing the orthodox could do but ignore it or explain it away.

I think the orthodox point of view is a later Gentile interpretation/misunderstanding of Jewish Christian writings (e.g., James, 1 Peter, Mark, Matthew, Luke and Revelation, all of which espouse Torah observance, for which Jewish Christians were condemned by the orthodox).

It seems more complicated to suppose that a) the Marcionites were right about their version of Christianity being the original version; b) that orthodox Christians reacted to this by "Judaizing" early Christian writings at the expense of contradicting their own point of view; and c) that Jews were so wowed by these "Judaized" orthodox writings that they converted to Christianity (only to in turn be condemned as heretics for espousing the very point of view of that is in these supposedly orthodox writings).

I think it makes more sense to suppose that the orthodox and the Marcionites were later Gentile reactions to Jewish Christian writings, with the former ignoring or explaining away the Jewish Christian elements (e.g., Torah observance) and the latter removing them entirely.

[Secret Alias]

It espouses Torah observance

How so?

[John2]

It espouses Torah observance

How so?

Acts 21:20-26:

Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law ... So the next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he entered the temple to give notice of the date when their purification would be complete and the offering would be made for each of them.

Acts 22:3:

I was educated at the feet of Gamaliel in strict conformity to the law of our fathers. I am just as zealous for God as any of you here today.

Acts 22:11:

There a man named Ananias, a devout observer of the law who was highly regarded by all the Jews ...

Acts 23:4-5:

But those standing nearby said, “How dare you insult the high priest of God!”

“Brothers,” Paul replied, “I was not aware that he was the high priest, for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’”

Acts 24:14:

I believe everything that is laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets ...

[Secret Alias]

You're just citing passages. Please form into a rational argument with (short) sentences.

[John2]

Jewish Christians (including Paul) are called Nazarenes and continued to observe the Torah (including sacrifices) after Jesus' death in Acts, and this is in keeping with the Nazarene point of view.

[Secret Alias]

So in your opinion Paul's doctrinal position in Acts = Nazarenism? The latter portions of Acts show no change in Christian doctrine from the Christianity Peter learned from Jerusalem.

[John2]

So in your opinion Paul's doctrinal position in Acts = Nazarenism? The latter portions of Acts show no change in Christian doctrine from the Christianity Peter learned from Jerusalem.

Yes.