Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I know its an old argument that no one pays much attention to any more but isn't it odd that Acts doesn't know anything about Paul's letters even though Paul is chiefly remembered for writing letters. It would be like writing a book about Jackie Robinson and failing to mention baseball.

After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

5 When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. 6 But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

7 Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. 8 Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. 10 For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” 11 So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews of Corinth made a united attack on Paul and brought him to the place of judgment. 13 “This man,” they charged, “is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law.”

14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to them, “If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15 But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law—settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things.” 16 So he drove them off. 17 Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes the synagogue leader and beat him in front of the proconsul; and Gallio showed no concern whatever.

Priscilla, Aquila and Apollos
18 Paul stayed on in Corinth for some time. Then he left the brothers and sisters and sailed for Syria, accompanied by Priscilla and Aquila.

It's hard to know what to conclude from this. But I would say that it is difficult to believe the author of Acts knew anything about the Epistle to the Corinthians while writing about Paul's exploits in Corinth.

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.

Secret Alias wrote:I know its an old argument that no one pays much attention to any more but isn't it odd that Acts doesn't know anything about Paul's letters even though Paul is chiefly remembered for writing letters. It would be like writing a book about Jackie Robinson and failing to mention baseball.

What Paul was remembered for first and foremost, I think, was as 'the apostle to the gentiles' whose primary distinctive teaching was that one didn't have to become a Jew in order to participate in the saving grace of Jesus' death and resurrection. This is what Acts wants to stress about Paul. David Trobisch's view (which I recently finished reading so still have fresh on the brain) is that only Romans, Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians made up the original Pauline canon (possibly compiled as his last will and testament just before or just after making his final journey to Jerusalem). It was potentially much later after all this that the idea of collecting and/or fabricating other Pauline letters became a Christian pastime, thus the growing reputation as Paul 'the letter writer'. Perhaps at the time of the authorship of Acts (which I date to early 2nd C), his initial reputation was still the dominant one.

Or it could be that Acts was written with the intent of being placed alongside a collection of Paul's letters, thus the lack of necessity to mention "Oh, and while Paul was there he wrote a letter..."

But yeah, it's hard to know which letters of Paul (if any) the author of Acts knew of or had access to.

But this is what I despise about New Testament scholarship. The problem of why Paul isn't mentioned as having letters in Acts is a separate problem from all the other problems in early Christianity. It has a finite number of explanations. Instead of actually tackling this small but very interesting problem it's pushed to the side in favor of the party line that Paul 'must have' written the letters of our canon. I am not so sure. Paul wrote something or at least 'the apostle' wrote something. I always go for a minimalist explanation of things in earliest Christianity. The man who is called Paul in our tradition must have written something which was very influential in the formation of the Church, both for those who accepted his teachings and those who did not. But Acts doesn't seem to mention him specifically writing letters to the churches preserved in our canon. That's a fact that not even Bernard can wiggle his way out of.

So what is the explanation for this? I disagree with toejam that Paul was remembered chiefly as the apostle to the Gentiles. This does not seem to have been important to the pseudo-Clementines in their remembrance of 'Simon Magus' who is clearly a sublimated recollection of Paul. He was 'the apostle' - the only apostle - as the Marcionites remember him too. He had a vision 'in' or 'of' Christ (I prefer 'in') and was taken to be a 'second Christ' (as Origen says the heretics - viz. Marcionites and the 'orthodox' Church of Osroene i.e. the Marcionite stronghold of Osroene in Act. Archel. - say he was the Paraclete). These are common recollections in three different sources all saying the same basic thing. This was transformed into 'apostle to the Gentiles' by the organizer/editor of our canon. Why? I think it has something to do with limiting his power and influence which originally was NOT limited - i.e. the Marcionite tradition is VERY Jewish so Paul must have been, Simon Magus spoke of Father to the Samaritans, Son to the Jews and Holy Spirit to the Gentiles etc.

The reason Acts does not know about letters to Corinth from Paul must have something to do with their invention or creation AFTER Acts was laid down. I see no better explanation. 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 vision(s) he had are laid out in the gospel he wrote (cf. the Marcionite statements/intimations in this regard, Origen's allusions and Simon Magus's knowledge of gospel material) and another text, a kind of midrash on the gospel. I think the material in the letters was pre-Acts but the specific division of that antithetical material into a certain number of letters as we have now was post-Acts. Acts knows of the apostle's claim to have had a 'vision' (cf his speech to Agrippa and many others), tries to pretend it was compatible with 'normative' Judaism at the time it was written but knows nothing of epistles to Corinth, Rome etc.

The same way his midrash was divided into multiple (fourteen or fifteen) texts we see paralleled in his gospel being divided into four. In other words, IMO the likelihood is that Acts was given shape before Irenaeus who is the first witness to the separated gospel (the term given to the text by the Syriac tradition because of their pre-existent acceptance of a solitary text) and separated letters. Is there a better explanation out there? Love to hear it.

And this 'it has to be argument' - i.e. that there are a serious of truths that 'have to be true' simply because mommy and daddy told these otherwise intelligent and learned scholars (Hurtado) a bunch of fables is exactly what is wrong about Biblical scholarship. As is noted in another thread - these Church Fathers readily accepted the existences of fabulous creations (unicorns, the phoenix bird) so the fact that they accepted Acts or the division of the canon in a certain way or the gospels in another way is not much of an argument for the authenticity of the claim that things were always like this - unless of course people really believe there was a single-horned deer or a bird that was witnessed to die and be reborn in fire every day but has since become extinct. These people were capable of rebaptizing gossip, heresay and innuendo as fact. Indeed they were quite good at it. Acts is only an argument for the limits of knowledge of the people who wrote or whom it was written for.

Secret Alias wrote:But this is what I despise about New Testament scholarship. The problem of why Paul isn't mentioned as having letters in Acts is a separate problem from all the other problems in early Christianity. It has a finite number of explanations. Instead of actually tackling this small but very interesting problem it's pushed to the side in favor of the party line that Paul 'must have' written the letters of our canon. I am not so sure.

Why is this a small problem? It's a rather large problem, and it doesn't have a good solution, otherwise the rather lame "Acts didn't need to repeat anything that everyone knew anyway" wouldn't have taken hold. When you stress the Jewishness of Paul, you are ironically pretty much in line with how Acts depicts him.

Yeah but monarchian Judaism not two powers Judaism

This seems to be a reasonable argument -

Secret Alias wrote: ... the party line that Paul 'must have' written the letters of our canon. I am not so sure. Paul wrote something or at least 'the apostle' wrote something. I always go for a minimalist explanation of things in earliest Christianity. The man who is called Paul in our tradition must have written something which was very influential in the formation of the Church, both for those who accepted his teachings and those who did not. But Acts doesn't seem to mention him specifically writing letters to the churches preserved in our canon. That's a fact ...

So what is the explanation for this? I disagree with toejam that Paul was remembered chiefly as the apostle to the Gentiles. This does not seem to have been important to the pseudo-Clementines in their remembrance of 'Simon Magus' who is clearly a sublimated recollection of Paul. He was 'the apostle' - the only apostle - as the Marcionites remember him too. He had a vision 'in' or 'of' Christ (I prefer 'in') and was taken to be a 'second Christ' (as Origen says the heretics - viz. Marcionites and the 'orthodox' Church of Osroene i.e. the Marcionite stronghold of Osroene in Act. Archel. - say he was the Paraclete). These are common recollections in three different sources all saying the same basic thing. This was transformed into 'apostle to the Gentiles' by the organizer/editor of our canon. Why? I think it has something to do with limiting his power and influence which originally was NOT limited - i.e. the Marcionite tradition is VERY Jewish so Paul must have been, Simon Magus spoke of Father to the Samaritans, Son to the Jews and Holy Spirit to the Gentiles etc. ....

Can you clarify this =

• "He had a vision 'in' or 'of' Christ (I prefer 'in') and was taken to be a 'second Christ' (as Origen says the heretics - viz. Marcionites and the 'orthodox' Church of Osroene i.e. the Marcionite stronghold of Osroene in Act. Archel. - say he was the Paraclete)"

Do you mean -

• 'as Origen says [by] the heretics' ??

What is "Act. Archel" ??

The opinions cited as belonging to 'some' in Origen Homilies on Luke 25 (= heretics, Marcionites) are the same as the 'orthodox' in known strongholds of Marcionitism after 140 CE = Osroene, Harran, Edessa, Persia etc. The Marcionites seem to have fled Roman territory in the manner closely paralleled by the (surviving) Mandaean sect.

Cheers.

What is "Act. Archel" ??