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

[rgprice]

When you read about Paul's trail in Acts, its as though the people officiating over the trial have no idea who Jesus is. Also, neither the Pharisees nor the Sadducees appear to have any recognition of Jesus.

Paul comes into Jerusalem. He's preaching about Jesus. He gets apprehended, but not because he's preaching about Jesus per se, but about resurrection. He's taken to the Sanhedrin, where he talks about resurrection. The Sadducees attack him on the point of promoting belief in resurrection, and the Pharisees come to his defense. At no point is Jesus even brought up!

He is later accused of being a "ringleader of the Nazarene sect." But again, Jesus isn't mentioned.

Later, in front of Aggripa II, it says that, "they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive." This seems to indicate that the people Paul is talking to have no idea who Jesus is.

Finally in Acts 26 we hear that as a part of his defense Paul said that at one point: "I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth."

At the end, Aggripa II says, to just let him go, he hasn't done anything worth arresting him over.

So in this entire account of Paul's time in Jerusalem, at no point does anyone say anything meaningful about Jesus. The Sanhedrin doesn't say, "You're a believer in that heretic we executed!" Or, "Yes, we remember Jesus, he was a false prophet, and you are too!"

The Romans don't say. "Jesus was justly executed under the law, we know he is dead. You're claims of resurrection are false! We'll show you the body!"

Nothing even remotely approaching that happens. In my mind, if I were fabricating this account after the fact, that certainly is what I would have written, something along those lines. 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!

This leads me to think that this latter portion of Acts really is based on authentic accounts and that the writer of Acts stuck pretty close to his source, at least in perhaps Acts 15-27.

[Giuseppe]

Another clue of the relative antiquity of episodes of Acts you are talking about:
Jesus is rarely called "Christ". He is called usually "the lord".

[GakuseiDon]

Nothing even remotely approaching that happens. In my mind, if I were fabricating this account after the fact, that certainly is what I would have written, something along those lines. 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!

This leads me to think that this latter portion of Acts really is based on authentic accounts and that the writer of Acts stuck pretty close to his source, at least in perhaps Acts 15-27.

You might be interested to learn that Dr Carrier comes to a similar conclusion in his book "On the Historicity of Jesus". He writes about Paul's trials recounted in Acts from pages 375 to 381:

At this point, Paul finally gets to say his piece, providing us with a lengthy speech spanning twenty-two verses (Acts 26.1-23). Yet at no point does he ever refer to a historical Jesus. We hear only of a cosmic, revelatory Jesus. No mention is made of Jesus having a ministry, or having appointed disciples, or of having been executed (on charges false or true), or having proved himself divine by miracles or teachings or anything at all. This is very much unlike Paul's speech to the synagogue in Antioch (Acts 1 3.23-41), which goes into explicit details of the gospel account of who Jesus was and what happened to him. But here, in his trial speech (of comparable length), Jesus is known only through a 'heavenly vision' (26.13-19). The only mention Paul makes of the death and resurrection of Jesus is to say that 'Moses and the prophets said it was going to happen', not that anyone had actually seen it happen nor that there was any real evidence it did, much less that Pontius Pilate played a role in it and Roman records would confirm it (26.22-23). In fact the only source Paul cites for it is scripture.
...
Even as fiction, the historical deeds and fate of Jesus would be crucial rhetorical material for both the prosecution and defense in all of Paul's trials. They should have been arguing over the facts of Jesus' ministry, teachings, miracles, the facts of his death and the fate of his body, the charges against him and the significance of his conviction, and whether he was still alive and at large, and what he was instructing his spiritual soldiers to do. That Luke wouldn't even think of this when inventing these narratives is hard to explain, especially since when he provides us with speeches elsewhere, not just from Peter but even from Paul (as in his Antioch synagogue speech), he gives us something of what we expect. Whereas here, all of those details have mysteriously vanished, despite this being collectively the longest and most detailed series of trial hearings related in Acts. I have to conclude it's at least somewhat more likely that Luke is reworking some narrative he received, a lost Acts of Paul, in which there was no Jesus executed by Pilate, but a cosmically dying-and-rising Christ known only through revelation and scripture.

[Secret Alias]

Maybe some of the 'dream-like quality' of Acts is owing to the fact it's fiction itself. If I write a bad bit of pulp fiction and in that nonsense I refer to WWII, if the account of WWII is cheesy it doesn't mean that WWII really is cheesy, it's a cheesy story. What do you expect. Acts can be fiction but Jesus history. It's not as simple as 'Acts proves Jesus doesn't exist.' Just being real here.

[Secret Alias]

I am thinking Captain America and Red Skull. If we wanted to learn about WWII from Captain America ...

[Ben C. Smith]

If the second half of Acts is based on an original and, not only that, but also an accurate source, might that source have something to do with the famous "we" passages? All of the normally recognized ones are in the second half of Acts. The others are dubious.

[rgprice]

Well, I think that from about Acts 15-27 has a good chance of being based on an authentic and accurate source. I also think that that source was likely the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark, whether written by the same person as Mark or someone else.

[Irish1975]

Thanks for these insights about the trial of Paul

Well, I think that from about Acts 15-27 has a good chance of being based on an authentic and accurate source. I also think that that source was likely the inspiration for the Gospel of Mark, whether written by the same person as Mark or someone else.

It seems to me that the scene in Athens, with its direct overtures to Stoics and the philosophical tradition, would have been contrived by a 2nd century ally of the apologists. It’s a blunt contradiction of the diatribe against wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1, and the denunciation of pagan disbelief in Romans 1, to say nothing of the pantheism of 17:28. So, very hard to see that part, at least, as “authentic and accurate.”

[Stuart]

delete

[Ben C. Smith]

It is quite a stretch to suggest that writing in the first person is a sign of authenticity.

Who is making this stretched suggestion?