Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:The idea that Acts was 'ignorant' of these letters is a worse explanation. As I said, the letters are what defined Paul in the ancient world.

The letters may well have not been a factor all all in how the author of Acts defined Paul.

Peter's explanation makes a hell of a lot of sense if you let it. If 'Luke' knew Paul and traveled with him, and was aware of many of the issues, what use would he have for the letters? To 'fact check' his own recollections? I think the very fact that so much 'checks out' and yet there are some inconsistencies (or seemingly), is BETTER explained not by the idea that the author was 'ignorant' of the letters but that the author didn't need to reference them to tell his story.



My 2 cents, but don't expect a further discussion..too busy.

Peter's explanation makes a hell of a lot of sense if you let it

Acts makes sense because it is familiar. It's like opposite same marriage. It's makes sense because 'that's the way it has always been.' But it makes sense the other way too. It's just a matter of getting rid of rigidity and old-thinking.

Hell, thinking about it, why didn't Ammianus Marcellinus say anything about Julian's orations? Didn't he know about them?? Maybe they're apocryphal!

Spin is back.

why didn't Ammianus Marcellinus say anything about Julian's orations

There was more to Julian than letters.

Secret Alias wrote:

why didn't Ammianus Marcellinus say anything about Julian's orations

There was more to Julian than letters.

Acts indicates something analogous regarding Paul.

---

If I don't explain what you ought to know
You can tell me all about it on the next bardo...

But there is no evidence - and actual evidence against the proposition - that Paul's exploits were known outside of Acts. Acts is the beginning and end of any knowledge of Paul's exploits.

Adversus Marcionem makes clear that the Marcionites had no stories or 'acts' associated with Paul that were publicly disseminated. Very public apostle vs very secret apostle.

Not to ruin a good discussion, but the Acts of Paul feature both exploits and letters.

Some late second century sources feature the letters (inscription of Abercius, martyrdoms).

Ignatius and 1 Clement (forged or not) mention life and letters.

Revelation has letters to seven churches.

The gospel known to us as "Mark" may or may not stink of Pauline theology, depending on who you ask I guess.

The ending of Hebrews (which may have been added later) betrays dependence on Paul's letters (in an effort to look like them?).

The Pastoral epistles are a forged epistolary novella attributed to Paul (after Marcion). Private of course, explaining their absence from the canon. [Or so I would guess.]

Paul's sayings are sometimes word for word sayings of Jesus, attributed or not.

I don't know. Someone started a rumor about the limited impact of these letters of Paul once, and it doesn't really stand up.

The best explanation of Acts here, IMO--

Given the fact that Acts is post-Marcionite and anti-Marcionite, it deliberately avoids the subject of the letters in order to "rob Paul" from the Marcionites (giving him an orthodox story) without giving any credit to the letters they loved.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Secret Alias wrote:It's hard to know what to conclude from this.

One possible take on this, in the history of interpretation, is to say that Acts was relatively close to the life of Paul (ca. 70-100) and that it was written before his letters acquired the stature that began sometime in the second century.

I don't actually support this, BTW.

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