Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul's Galatians was not anonymous, but it was catnip for various heretical groups. Luke would have every reason to mute its witness.

Those are excellent reasons for Luke to have changed what s/he found in the epistles.

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Paul's Galatians was not anonymous, but it was catnip for various heretical groups. Luke would have every reason to mute its witness.

Not yet for later to come Gnostics. I date the gospel 85-90 AD.

Those are excellent reasons for Luke to have changed what s/he found in the epistles.

Except, if the epistle was known by Luke & her community, "Luke" could not have changed much on what Paul wrote.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

toejam wrote:Related quick question - what is the first reference to or quotation of Acts?

I think the first explicit quotation is from Irenaeus. There are, of course, hotly contested allusions all over the place before Irenaeus (epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, et cetera).

31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected (healed: other Eth. MSS. with spittle by your hands shall his eyes, &c.). Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven. He shall obtain power among the people and shall preach and instruct; and many that hear him shall obtain glory and be redeemed. But thereafter shall men be wroth with him and deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and he shall bear witness before kings that are mortal, and his end shall be that he shall turn unto me, whereas he persecuted me at the first. He shall preach and teach and abide with the elect, as a chosen vessel and a wall that shall not be overthrown, yea, the last of the last shall become a preacher unto the Gentiles, made perfect by the will of my Father. Like as ye have learned from the Scripture that your fathers the prophets spake of me, and in me it is indeed fulfilled.

andrewcriddle wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

toejam wrote:Related quick question - what is the first reference to or quotation of Acts?

I think the first explicit quotation is from Irenaeus. There are, of course, hotly contested allusions all over the place before Irenaeus (epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, et cetera).

The epistula apostolorum probably c 150 CE probably knows Acts
text

31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected (healed: other Eth. MSS. with spittle by your hands shall his eyes, &c.). Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven. He shall obtain power among the people and shall preach and instruct; and many that hear him shall obtain glory and be redeemed. But thereafter shall men be wroth with him and deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and he shall bear witness before kings that are mortal, and his end shall be that he shall turn unto me, whereas he persecuted me at the first. He shall preach and teach and abide with the elect, as a chosen vessel and a wall that shall not be overthrown, yea, the last of the last shall become a preacher unto the Gentiles, made perfect by the will of my Father. Like as ye have learned from the Scripture that your fathers the prophets spake of me, and in me it is indeed fulfilled.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks for this notice, Andrew! I hadn't ever thought about that.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Thanks for this notice, Andrew! I hadn't ever thought about that.

I thought about that long ago: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html

andrewcriddle wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

toejam wrote:Related quick question - what is the first reference to or quotation of Acts?

I think the first explicit quotation is from Irenaeus. There are, of course, hotly contested allusions all over the place before Irenaeus (epistle of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, et cetera).

The epistula apostolorum probably c 150 CE probably knows Acts
text

31 And behold a man shall meet you, whose name is Saul, which being interpreted is Paul: he is a Jew, circumcised according to the law, and he shall receive my voice from heaven with fear and terror and trembling. And his eyes shall be blinded, and by your hands by the sign of the cross shall they be protected (healed: other Eth. MSS. with spittle by your hands shall his eyes, &c.). Do ye unto him all that I have done unto you. Deliver it (? the word of God) unto the other. And at the same time that man shall open his eyes and praise the Lord, even my Father which is in heaven. He shall obtain power among the people and shall preach and instruct; and many that hear him shall obtain glory and be redeemed. But thereafter shall men be wroth with him and deliver him into the hands of his enemies, and he shall bear witness before kings that are mortal, and his end shall be that he shall turn unto me, whereas he persecuted me at the first. He shall preach and teach and abide with the elect, as a chosen vessel and a wall that shall not be overthrown, yea, the last of the last shall become a preacher unto the Gentiles, made perfect by the will of my Father. Like as ye have learned from the Scripture that your fathers the prophets spake of me, and in me it is indeed fulfilled.

Andrew Criddle

These are decent arguments if you assume Luke was written in century I. Do you have some arguments that do not depend on this dating?

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

These are decent arguments if you assume Luke was written in century I. Do you have some arguments that do not depend on this dating?

About the dating of Acts, I made a case Acts could not have been written during the Gnostic era (120-?) (explaining why "Luke" would hide Paul's letters (but still know about them).), more so 120 to 200 AD, because Christian authors (Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, even if he acknowledged Acts ) and texts then came up with Jesus' disciples, right after the resurrection, went all over the known world in order to make converts. Of course, that was the very ideal way to start Christianity everywhere, by people who actually knew Jesus in the flesh. But the propagation of Christianity outside Palestine is very different in Acts, despite the efforts of the author to show otherwise. And that would explain why, among other things, Acts and Paul were not popular then (see Tertullian).
All of that, with the evidence, is explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

That might not be a direct answer to your question....