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

[Secret Alias]

There was a primitive canon which didn't have Acts and had some 'writing' associated with the apostle. This is the starting point of any minimum historical position on this apostle. All the other things that Acts says only goes as far as being in the subset of 'things said in the Acts of the Apostles.' The opening words of Adversus Marcionem Book Five open our eyes to the world outside of this 'Catholic tradition.' For some reason people want to give the Catholic canon universal acceptance. It wasn't so in antiquity.

[Secret Alias]

The minimum historical position on Paul in The Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs

Saturninus the proconsul said: What are the things in your chest?

Speratus said: Books and epistles of Paul, a just man.

Notice no Acts of the Apostles. What was it I said about Paul's letters being the only thing which defined him in antiquity?

[Secret Alias]

The Marcionite Paul

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher ... [after a length digression] ... If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul, nor can you deny it. From them I prove that the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man: from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of you when you ask, And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle? I speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the
facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? [Adversus Marcionem 5.1.1]

I could go on and on but the situation is clearly that the Marcionites venerated an apostle whom they said little or nothing about.

[toejam]

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).

Thanks

[TedM]

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.

Why do we need to find a reason why the letters weren't mentioned when the author of Acts also didn't mention letters by Peter, John, brother James, John Mark, or Barnabas -- all of whom are found in Acts? It seems ad hoc to me.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Why do we need to find a reason why the letters weren't mentioned when the author of Acts also didn't mention letters by Peter, John, brother James, John Mark, or Barnabas -- all of whom are found in Acts? It seems ad hoc to me.

You may have misread the emphasis of what I wrote.

You are welcome to have different opinions.

I'm sure that there would be ways to argue against your opinions, but I'm not interested in that at the moment.

[Ulan]

Why do we need to find a reason why the letters weren't mentioned when the author of Acts also didn't mention letters by Peter, John, brother James, John Mark, or Barnabas -- all of whom are found in Acts? It seems ad hoc to me.

According to David Trobisch, Acts and the Catholic letters were one publication unit, the Praxapostolos. Paul's letters were not part of that. Of course, if you then also look at the thesis, that this whole package of Acts and Catholic Letters was written to glue the rest together, it makes some sense to not mention any letters at all, as Acts wouldn't exist without the rest.

[TedM]

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.

Why do we need to find a reason why the letters weren't mentioned when the author of Acts also didn't mention letters by Peter, John, brother James, John Mark, or Barnabas -- all of whom are found in Acts? It seems ad hoc to me.

You may have misread the emphasis of what I wrote.

You are welcome to have different opinions.

I'm sure that there would be ways to argue against your opinions, but I'm not interested in that at the moment.

I just think the OP has suggested a 'problem' that there is no real good reason to assume exists.

[Secret Alias]

But a gospel without a resurrection is often (James Snapp) seen as a "problem." I guess it comes down to semantics. Perhaps "surprising" might have been a better choice of words

[perseusomega9]

I just think the OP has suggested a 'problem' that there is no real good reason to assume exists.

Galatians and the Council of Jersusalem in Acts is kind of hard to reconcile with the idea that 'Luke' just didn't feel the need to mention Paul's epistolary exploits. One of those two books really seems to be trying to rewrite the story of the other