Westar finally releases Acts Seminar Report

[Bernard Muller]

By the way I have more arguments about the dating of Acts here:
OOPS, my Blog is down at this time. I'll give the URL later.

Here it is:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p67.htm
Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

Ted. Did you get that URL?

[andrewcriddle]

To explore the other half of that dichotomy, what sources would he need?

One possibility is that the 'we' sections of Acts are from a contemporary account of Paul's travels to which the author of Acts had access.

Why is something like that needed? Because of geographical verisimilitude?

Basically yes. It is not just knowing roughly when Gallio was governor. Acts is mostly accurate on 1st century local government in the mediterranean. Either it is 1st century (maybe very late 1st century) Or it had access to a lost 1st century source.

The author probably would also have to have access to an account of Paul's dealings with the Jerusalem church leaders written from their viewpoint. If Paul's letters were his only source for these events one would expect the accounts in Acts and Galatians to be easier to reconcile.

I'm pretty sure the most common argument regarding dependence either way (Acts to Galatians, or Galatians to Acts - the latter must be the book's position) is that the "irreconcilable differences" between the two are intentionally such, i.e., redactional corrections in a struggle over who can claim Paul's legacy. Galatians for the independent validity of Paul's mission and calling, and Acts for its dependence.

One problem I have with this is the idea that Acts was written in the context of a struggle over Paul's legacy, but this struggle had not produced traditions (maybe legendary traditions) about Paul's life. If such traditions had developed then the author of Acts would presumably have made use of them.

Andrew Criddle

[andrewcriddle]

Either Acts is earlier or the author had other sources for Paul's life.

Nonsense. Would you say the same thing about the Acts of Paul?

IF the author of the Acts of Paul knew canonical Acts, then I would see no need for another source. (The author clearly knew the letters of Paul).

Although knowledge of canonical Acts by the author of the Acts of Paul is IMO true, some scholars question it. Without knowledge of canonical Acts then yes the Acts of Paul would require a lost source for Paul's life.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

Although knowledge of canonical Acts by the author of the Acts of Paul is IMO true, some scholars question it. Without knowledge of canonical Acts then yes the Acts of Paul would require a lost source for Paul's life.

Why? I think a lot of the mythicist argument about the invention of Jesus is untenable. But there were clearly serious disputes about the identity of Paul - i.e. that people denied he was Saul, that people denied he was a Benjamite etc. I don't see how that can be resolved with the idea that everyone went back to real historical information about Paul. Some of the traditions about Paul out there had to have been made up. That's it. That's the bottom line. The question is whether it was the catholics or the Marcionites. Since the Acts of Paul is dishonest and the author was a catholic, I hope its not too much of a stretch to say that 'the catholics' were making shit up about Paul and the Marcionites weren't.

[andrewcriddle]

Although knowledge of canonical Acts by the author of the Acts of Paul is IMO true, some scholars question it. Without knowledge of canonical Acts then yes the Acts of Paul would require a lost source for Paul's life.

Why? I think a lot of the mythicist argument about the invention of Jesus is untenable. But there were clearly serious disputes about the identity of Paul - i.e. that people denied he was Saul, that people denied he was a Benjamite etc. I don't see how that can be resolved with the idea that everyone went back to real historical information about Paul. Some of the traditions about Paul out there had to have been made up. That's it. That's the bottom line. The question is whether it was the catholics or the Marcionites. Since the Acts of Paul is dishonest and the author was a catholic, I hope its not too much of a stretch to say that 'the catholics' were making shit up about Paul and the Marcionites weren't.

Apart from anything else; there is enough agreement between canonical Acts and the Acts of Paul that either one knew the other or they both used a common source.

Andrew Criddle

[stephan happy huller]

there is enough agreement between canonical Acts and the Acts of Paul that either one knew the other or they both used a common source

Agreed but that says nothing about the authenticity of the underlying tradition about Paul and that source may well be the imagination of the same author or a collection of authors (i.e. a spiritual community along the line of the Cataphrygians).

[andrewcriddle]

Re-reading the Acts of Paul it may be possible to see it as based only on Paul's letters if you include the Pastorals.

In principle there might be a similar argument for Canonical Acts but it is unlikely IMO that the author of Canonical Acts had access to the Pastorals.

Andrew Criddle

[Rosekeister]

My copy is supposed to arrive tomorrow. I encourage everyone to review it for Amazon. E. M. Cooper has apparently become a Jesus Seminar troll as he has also reviewed their book on the first New Testament. Look at his review of "Mokele-Mbembe: Mystery Beast of the Congo Basin" to get a glimpse of his mind:

"The subject of living dinosaurs has always been dear to the creationist heart, yet it is one which has been too-rarely served by modern authors. Here, however, is a rich remedy. The author, Dr Bill Gibbons, has spent almost thirty years now taking expeditions into the very heart of the Congo Basin, a truly forbidding part of the world (no armchair explorer he). The aim of the expeditions has been to gather information from local tribes people about an animal which they have consistently reported over many years, and which bears every resemblance to a type of dinosaur known to us as a sauropod. There are, in fact, several other types of animal which the locals describe, and they are all large reptilian creatures whose features are readily recognisable from the fossil record. And what is more, they are alive, and the locals fear them greatly. Ultimately, of course, it is hoped, after several near misses, to film a live specimen or two, or maybe bring back some fresh remains...

"The subject of this book, living dinosaurs, is of immense importance to the creation/evolution controversy. Should just the physical remains of one of these creatures be brought home, it would present an unanswerable challenge to those who, in their thousands, have spent their lives convincing an unwary public that dinosaurs died out millions and millions of years ago. It would seriously challenge the wholly unproven and ludicrous - yet untiringly persistent - claim that mankind `evolved' from some kind of primitive ape. In short, it would upend the entire and godless Darwinian philosophy upon which the western world is now built. It is my fervent prayer that many more such expeditions are to come, and that they will at last bear fruit."

I again encourage some objective reviews of the book on Acts as well as the first New Testament.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I'm about halfway through it. I'm reserving my review until I'm finished, but I'll say that I haven't seen anything really new so far, and I think it's a bit on the light side academically. Not much technical meat, more of a dumbed down, popular tone. I haven't spotted any huge mistakes, but I admit that I haven't spent nearly as much time studying Acts as I have the Gospels. I've always just dismissed it as having no historical value. From what I've read so far, I'd say this is a decent introductory book to historical and literary criticism of Acts, but it's not presented with a lot of academic density or technical depth. Looks like it was pitched to a lay audience.