@gryan
I can't find my listing of all the parallels between Acts and the Gospels as the moment, which is unfortunate because I really need that. I'll have to keep looking.
At any rate.
Mark 1:1 is “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ.” I take this as the actual title of the original work.
Philippians 4:15: "the beginning of the good news when I went forth from Macedonia."
The first "we passage": Acts 16:10 "When he had seen the vision, we immediately sought to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them."
The beginning of the Gospel of Mark is aligned with the beginning of "we narrative" in Acts.
Acts 16:11-15, they go to Lydia's house. In Mark they go to Peter's house.
Acts 16:16-19: Casting out the spirit from the slave girl. Mark 5:6-16: Casting out the unclean spirit. In both cases, Jesus/Paul are said to be agents of "the Most High God". The only places in the NT where this term is used. This scene does also exist in Luke, so we can't conclude that the writer wasn't working from Luke here. Yet I propose that the writer of Mark was working from the "we narrative". The Gospel scene is far more dramatic than the scene from Acts.
In the Gospel narrative, Jesus sails back and fourth across the "Sea of Galilee" six times. This is obviously gratuitous. In Acts, all within the "we passages", Paul sails back and fourth across the Aegean Sea in a way that makes much more sense.
Mark 10:32-34: Jesus will be "handed over to the Gentiles", to be killed.
Acts 21:10-13: Paul will be "handed over to the Gentiles", (to be saved). (we passage).
(Yes, this scene also exists in Luke)
Now, in Acts 21 it doesn't say that Paul will be saved, but it also doesn't say that he will be killed and indeed Paul is ultimately saved by the Gentiles.
I argue that anyone following the Gospels here wouldn't have had Paul saved by the Gentiles. Yet we can understand why a Gospel writer would not have had Jesus saved by the Gentiles (obviously).
Note that the saving of Paul by the Gentiles also exists in the "we passages", where he sails to Rome and lives out a happy life preaching the gospel.
Following the prediction that Paul would be handed to the Gentiles, he meets with James. The meeting begins in first person, but the narration changes to third-person mid-way into the scene.
In Mark, following the prediction of his death, Jesus meets with James, whom he denounces, with a reference to Paul.
Mark:
32 Now they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, 33 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. 34 And they will mock Him and spit on Him, and flog Him and kill Him; and three days later He will rise from the dead.”
35 James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying to Him, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37 They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” ...
... 43 But it is not this way among you; rather, whoever wants to become prominent among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wants to be first among you shall be slave of all.
Acts (first-person narration is highlighted)
11 And he came to us and took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, “This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and hand him over to the Gentiles.’” 12 When we had heard this, we as well as the local residents began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul replied, “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be bound, but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 And since he would not be persuaded, we became quiet, remarking, “The will of the Lord be done!”
15 After these days we got ready and started on our way up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came with us, taking us to Mnason of Cyprus, a disciple of long standing with whom we were to stay.
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us gladly. 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard about them, they began glorifying God; and they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
22 So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; 24 take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. 25 But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took along the men, and the next day, after purifying himself together with them, he went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.
What I propose here is that the writer of Acts was using the "we narrative", but then abandoned it when it came to the content of the meeting with James, because the writer of Acts was presenting Paul as subordinate to James and as a follower of the Law. However, in Mark, the writer of Mark was following the "we narrative", in which Paul actually subordinated James. In Mark, Jesus subordinates James in the name of Paul using the reference to 1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.” Note that no Judaizing statements are made in all of the first-person narration, but often the break from first to third person coincides with an introduction of Judaizing.
Acts 22:
12 “A certain Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law and well spoken of by all the Jews living there, 13 came to me; and standing beside me, he said, ‘Brother Saul, regain your sight!’ In that very hour I regained my sight and saw him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors has chosen you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice; 15 for you will be his witness to all the world of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’
Appears to be part of a pre-Gospel narrative. Why would Paul be chosen to "see the Righteous One and to hear his own voice"? He had just been on earth a few years prior and hand chosen twelve disciples according to the Gospels. Aren't THEY the ones that he chose? No, this is part of a pre-Gospel narrative in which ONLY Paul had been chosen to see adn hear the Lord.
Then of course we have Mark 11 and Acts 22. Jesus enters the temple and the priests threaten to seize him. Paul enters the temple and is indeed seized. (not a "we passage")
Then we have the trial Paul in Acts, along with the trial of Jesus in the Gospels.
The trial of Paul in Acts is a butchered mess. The scene is has clearly been redacted from a different source and mutilated in the process. The scene does not follow the Gospel pattern in the least. No charges are presented again Paul, he is just struck for no reason, etc. From the Acts Seminar:
The first subsection is among the most bewildering scenes in the book of Acts. Paul begins to defend himself but is struck on orders of the high priest (Acts 23:1–2). Luke gives the reader no clue as to the reason for Ananias’ action. Paul has not said anything approaching blasphemy, nor has he insulted the high priest. But Paul’s outburst in 23:3 appears to be over the top. In it he accuses the high priest of violating the law, although no law is cited. But these questions pale into insignificance when compared with Paul’s statement in 23:5. When told that he has cursed the high priest, Paul says that he did not know the presiding officer at the Sanhedrin was the high priest. He issues something short of an apology, quoting Scripture to condemn his own actions. It is difficult to accept Paul’s denial about the high priest. We learned in 9:1–2 that he had been commissioned by the high priest to search out Jesus believers, and in just the previous speech he claimed that the high priest, and indeed the entire Jewish council, could support the fact that he once persecuted these believers (see 22:5). Of course some time has passed between the persecuting activity of Paul and the present hearing, and it is possible that Luke understands that the present occupant of this office is a different one. But this is not noted in the text (see also 4:6, where the high priest is given a similar name—Annas). There have been numerous attempts to illuminate this passage, but the problems remain.
My contention is that this scene is a severe redaction from the "we narrative", in which the original charges laid out against Paul were removed by the writer of Luke. This is because the charges were the very things that were addressed in meeting with James in Acts 21. The writer of Luke took the actual narrative about Paul and turned it around. He had the charges against him "dropped" but still had to go through with the trial. The result is a mess. But Mark was following the original and in Mark charges are presented against Jesus. Of course, they aren't the same charges that were presented against Paul.
Then, of course Paul is handed over to the Gentiles, but Paul is saved by the Gentiles. The prediction that Paul would handed to the Gentiles occurred in the "we passages" and as well, Paul's escape under the custody of the Gentiles is also a part of the "we passages". Then we get to the end. Interestingly, we again are met with the phenomenon that the first-person passages contain no Judaizing statements, and the transition from first-person to third-person narration coincides with a transition to the use of Judaizing statements. In the first-person account of the voyage to Rome there are plenty of opportunities for references to the Torah or other Jewish references, but none are made. Indeed, no references to Judaism are made in any way from Acts 27:1 to Acts 28:16. Then, immediately upon the change in narration at Acts 28:17, Jews are introduced and we hear Paul talking about the Law and Prophets, with quotes from scripture. It again appears that the first-person passages come from a separate source, with specifically anti-Marcionite material being added by the third-person narrator.
From the section about this in the current draft of the book I'm working:
"What the ending of Acts reflects, rather, is a conception of Paul’s ministry that fits into a pre-Gospel context. Prior to the writing of the Gospels, which promoted the idea that Christians were persecuted merely for being Christians, the persecution of Paul was tied to the Jews because Paul opposed circumcision. The Gentiles were seen as favorable welcomers of Paul a safe harbor for him. So, it may well be that the writer of Acts of the Apostles ended his story with Paul happily preaching in Rome because that’s the ending that existed in the source he was following. Paul’s life was threatened by the Jews, but Paul was saved by the Gentiles. The idea that Paul would have been killed by the emperor of Rome simply for being a Christian is nothing more than a later Christian fantasy.
Regardless, there are multiple features of the Pauline section of Acts of the Apostles that seem best explained as a product of the writer having used a prior legendary narrative about Paul, in which Paul travels from Troas to Macedonia to Ephesus to Jerusalem. In this narrative Paul’s potential death in Jerusalem and rescue by the Gentiles is foretold. Paul stands trial before the Sanhedrin for his preaching against circumcision and the law (not for being a follower of Jesus). The trial of Paul seems short and disjointed, likely because the part of the trial that dealt with Paul’s preaching against circumcision was removed. Instead, the writer of Acts addresses that issue by having Paul “correct” this misunderstanding by subordinating himself to James. Under threat of eminent death at the hands of the Jews, Paul is then whisked away by the Romans and transported safely to Rome, where he spreads his gospel to the world. Given the fact that Paul’s letter to the Romans is likely the last authentic writing produced by him. I suspect that Paul actually met some untimely end in Jerusalem. That Paul was saved by the Gentiles or ever went to Rome was itself a fantasy."
It is my contention that, regardless of whether the writer of Mark used a specific written narrative about Paul that corresponds to the "we narrative" in Acts, the fact is that prior to the writing of any Gospel account of Jesus, there would have been a known narrative about Paul, which, if nothing else, could have been pieced together from the Pauline letters. That narrative would have been that Paul was an itinerant preacher whose ministry began "among the nations". Paul faced persecution and doubt. Paul had contentious interactions with Peter, James and John. Paul knew he faced peril in going to Jerusalem, yet Paul set himself on a path to Jerusalem anyway. Paul faced trials brought against him by Jews.
We do not really know Paul's ultimate fate, but if we can go by the Pauline letters at all, it would seem that Paul's last known writing indicated that he was going to go to Jerusalem (Romans 15:26), but we never hear from him after that. It is entirely possible that Paul stood trial and was killed in Jerusalem. Clearly Paul never made it to Rome, as we have no writings from him in Rome. It is also possible that Paul never even existed, but even if that is the case, one could piece together the outline above from the letters in his name. (Prior, of course, to the fabrication of the Pastorals).