Did the Author of Acts Know About Paul's Letters?

[spin]

We've already seen that people are selective. Amm.Marc. doesn't tells us zip about those lengthy orations and now you're coming back with the Marcionites mediated through Tertullian not telling us zip about Acts.

It is not strange that history frequently leaves us few scraps to digest.

---

'm tethered to the logic
Of Homo Sapien
Can't take my eyes
From the great salvation
Of bullshit faith

[Secret Alias]

But Adversus Marcionem says quite explicitly that the Marcionite canon and the Marcionite tradition gave no clue about the person of Paul. Read Adversus Marcionem Book Five Chapter 1 for yourself. It's all there in plain Latin, English, German, French at Roger's site. There was this collection of writings (however defined) and no clues within the canon itself about who this 'apostle' was. The same situation with the gospel. Not a gospel according to anyone. Just a gospel.

[Ben C. Smith]

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.

I noted in a recent thread the arguments by various scholars that one can detect epistolary language (that of Paul and that of three of the personages represented by the Catholic epistles) in the speeches in Acts.

I personally find the notion of Acts drawing upon the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic) and furnishing a narrative background for them quite attractive.

Arguments based on the silence in Acts regarding the epistles are going to be inherently weak. Paul was more than a writer of epistles; and, as you point out, there may be good reasons not to explicitly refer to the epistles (reasons similar to those often given for Justin to avoid drawing upon Paul).

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

Spin,

As I have noted before the situation is paralleled by that of Clement's reference to a secret gospel whose link to Mark is explicitly denied by members of the tradition. With Acts you have a 180 turn - a very public apostle but no knowledge of any writings. It's very odd.

[Secret Alias]

Paul was more than a writer of epistles

Only if you accept a priori the authenticity of the Catholic/orthodox canon. I am learning patience through this forum.

[Secret Alias]

For some reason the Marcionite rejection of Acts as a 'spurious codex' (De Recta in Deum Fide) and the tradition's obviously (more) primitive canon aren't considered as arguments of another tradition about Paul at this forum. It's as if mommy and daddy have already defined who Paul is for the members. There's nothing left to discuss. Sorry my mommy and daddy never talking about these things to me when I was growing up. Excuse my coming late to the table.

[Ben C. Smith]

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).

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus. Now that's a reliable name. The Lexus of the Church Fathers. When you want reliability and trust look no further than Irenaeus.

[Ben C. Smith]

Paul was more than a writer of epistles

Only if you accept a priori the authenticity of the Catholic/orthodox canon. I am learning patience through this forum.

Nonsense. You have not been paying attention from behind your wall(s) of text.

[Secret Alias]

Really so where do you learn all these wonderful things about Paul? Aside of course from being shaped by mommy and daddy and all their nice friends.