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

[Ben C. Smith]

So if chapters 1 and 2 were later interpolations could they have come after Acts? Sure why not. But it seems less likely than the alternative possibility.

It sure does.

[Secret Alias]

But here's is another bit of my demented reasoning. Let's take what the Pseudo-Clementines know about this same text - "I opposed him (Cephas) to his face, because he stood condemned." Does knowing this much necessarily mean knowing the source was a letter? No not necessarily. And why do the Pseudo-Clementines associate the statement with Simon Magus? Simon Magus was a 'pseudonym' of Paul. Ok. But do the Pseudo-Clementines know or betray the context of what Paul was condemning Peter about? I don't remember. It is possible that both go back to some older source and that source could well have been authored by Paul but not in the form of an epistle (i.e. as an 'antitheses').

The reason I bring this up is that it is curious that Acts knows 'things' from the Apostle or Apostolikon but nothing (or apparently nothing) about Paul actively writing letters to the communities. Look at the Martyrdom of Ignatius. It tells the (alleged) story of his death with him actively writing letters to various communities in the manner described in the Ignatian corpus (which clearly preceded it). What about the Acts of Paul? Is Paul a letter writer there? I bring all this up for a number of technical reasons related to Adversus Marcionem and the fact that knowledge of Galatians 2.11 doesn't help explain why knowledge of Paul having sent letters to the churches is not mentioned in a text which (apparently) demonstrates knowledge of these letters. You would have thought that Acts would look more like the Ignatian martyrdom narrative.

[Secret Alias]

The Acts of Paul bear some sort of knowledge or relationship with 3 Corinthians which was included in various canons of Eastern Orthodox Churches.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2uMFa ... 22&f=false

That's a broadside right out of left field!

[Ben C. Smith]

What about the Acts of Paul? Is Paul a letter writer there?

Do you read other people's posts? Do you even see them? Peter already answered this question on this very thread.

[Secret Alias]

What? This? "Not to ruin a good discussion, but the Acts of Paul feature both exploits and letters." I think I advanced the discussion by noting that there were other letters beyond the scope of our (familiar) canon. Yes I saw that earlier and had a vague reminiscence of it but was asking my question in the specific context of 'other letters' or 'other forms of expression' associated with Paul. As a rule though I don't read threads from beginning to end.

[Ben C. Smith]

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

Yes, that. My comment was unfairly broad. However, this sort of thing seems to happen quite a bit.

[Secret Alias]

No offense taken. I deserve it. I really am too much most of the time and you're such a mensch. You do a lot of work at the forum which has improved the quality of this place immensely. So let's move on and ask - would this count as proof that the author of the Pseudo-Clementines knew of the collection of Paul's letters or just that there was some general conflict between Peter and Paul:

If, then, our Jesus appeared to you in a vision, made Himself known to you, and spoke to you, it was as one who is enraged with an adversary; and this is the reason why it was through visions and dreams, or through revelations that were from without, that He spoke to you. But can any one be rendered fit for instruction through apparitions? And if you will say, ‘It is possible,’ then I ask, ‘Why did our teacher abide and discourse a whole year to those who were awake?’ And how are we to believe your word, when you tell us that He appeared to you? And how did He appear to you, when you entertain opinions contrary to His teaching? But if you were seen and taught by Him, and became His apostle for a single hour, proclaim His utterances, interpret His sayings, love His apostles, contend not with me who companied with Him. For in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church, you now stand. If you were not opposed to me, you would not accuse me, and revile the truth proclaimed by me, in order that I may not be believed when I state what I myself have heard with my own ears from the Lord, as if I were evidently a person that was condemned and in bad repute. But if you say that I am condemned, you bring an accusation against God, who revealed the Christ to me, and you inveigh against Him who pronounced me blessed on account of the revelation.

I think there are specific phrases here that confirm knowledge of some written text associated with Paul. But in fairness the context of the statement in Galatians (that it happened in Antioch that the condemnation was specifically related to 'Jewish doctrines' doesn't seem to be referenced).

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Clear-cut contradictions and huge differences ought also to prove that Luke was not aware of the gospel of Mark, either, then.

There is a difference:
gMark's was probably not considered very reliable by Luke's community. After all, it was anonymous, with the author not even pretending to be a witness, not having heard from witnesses (that's among the things "Luke" "corrected" in the introduction: Lk 1:1-4). But Paul's Galatians was not anonymous and would be considered as a solid & true reference (if known by "Luke" and his/her community).

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

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

This assumes 'Luke' knew about Galatians and exactly what was in it. Lots of unsubstantiated assumptions flying around here. In any case, the main point agrees between Luke and Galations: Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders to discuss circumcision and the leaders decided that Gentiles need not get circumcised. That was far above all other issues.

[Ben C. Smith]

Clear-cut contradictions and huge differences ought also to prove that Luke was not aware of the gospel of Mark, either, then.

There is a difference:
gMark's was probably not considered very reliable by Luke's community. After all, it was anonymous, with the author not even pretending to be a witness, not having heard from witnesses (that's among the things "Luke" "corrected" in the introduction: Lk 1:1-4). But Paul's Galatians was not anonymous and would be considered as a solid & true reference (if known by "Luke" and his/her community).

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

You even provide the reason for some of the changes yourself. To wit: "Paul said he was unable to see the disciples/apostles (except two) but 'Acts' has Paul mingling with all of them in Jerusalem. 'Luke' wanted Paul to have good relation with the church of Jerusalem and apostles before him." Or: "According to Paul, the ethnarch of king Aretas is after him, but not to kill Paul, just to make an arrest. However, in 'Acts', the Jews are watching the gates and want to kill Paul (the Jews are the arch enemy of Paul all over 'Acts')." Those are excellent reasons for Luke to have changed what s/he found in the epistles.

Ben.