Bernard's website: my answer to comments

[outhouse]

many 'scholars'? 'still claim'??

Wiki still claims no connection.


There is a good case for no connection.


[thanks for the links]

[Ulan]

I don't know the percentage here, but I do know many still claim the epistles were [not] a source.

many 'scholars'? 'still claim'?? the Pauline epistles were not a source for...? (for Acts?)

Yup, many scholars claim that. I don't find the arguments that there is no connection convincing, but they are not that bad, either.

Anyway, in the context of the discussion, that's the reason why I only said that some claims by the Acts Seminar are more widely accepted.

Acts to me looks like a very deliberate construct, starting with the reversal of roles and characters of Peter and Paul between Paul's letters and Acts. The story about Stephanos also gets a certain twist if you remember that it starts with a conflict within the Jerusalem community and connect this with the role of James as sort of a high priest.

Also, the "Council of Jerusalem" is certainly fiction, unless you assume that the Jerusalem community had Greek as its main language, which doesn't add up with the rest of the stories. In principle, the whole story at the beginning of Acts doesn't add up with the gospel stories.

[outhouse]

Also, the "Council of Jerusalem" is certainly fiction, unless you assume that the Jerusalem community had Greek as its main language, which doesn't add up with the rest of the stories.

.

I agree.

But details I follow, is that there was a Hellenistic assembly in Jerusalem that were adhering to laws much more then the Diaspora due to their geographic location.


I think Paul actually debated law/tradition with this pater familias

[TedM]

I don't like what I'm reading so on an emotional basis I'm bowing out. When I get time maybe I'll come back and review some of the stuff being said here, as I'm not saying it is wrong. I don't know. I just don't like it because I don't believe there was no Council and I don't believe that if there was a Council it was not made up of Christian or semi-Christian leaders. But I don't have the time or motivation to see how wrong I might be. Just being honest here. Thanks for the responses.

[Bernard Muller]

outhouse wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:
.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.

How much support do you think they're getting on this?

I don't know - it would be interesting to know how the Westar Acts Seminar findings have been received
(I suspect a lot of traditionalists are "burying their heads in the sand").

I answered that here:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html Did the author of 'Acts' knew about Paul's epistles, as the Westar Acts Seminar contends?
And here:
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html Arguments against "Luke" knowing Paul's epistles and a late dating of 'Acts'

Also relevant:
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html Dating of 'the Acts of the Apostles'

I did not bury my head in the sand.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

I answered that here:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html Did the author of 'Acts' knew about Paul's epistles, as the Westar Acts Seminar contends?
And here:
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html Arguments against "Luke" knowing Paul's epistles and a late dating of 'Acts'

Also relevant:
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html Dating of 'the Acts of the Apostles'

I did not bury my head in the sand.

Cordially, Bernard

Your overall conclusion simply hand waves off the possibility after showing differences in texts.

It in no way addresses the context of my question, on how the seminars conclusions are being accepted by modern scholars.


In this case knowing their work and yours, I would go with theirs if I only had the two sources to choose between.

[MrMacSon]

- it would be interesting to know how the Westar Acts Seminar findings have been received
(I suspect a lot of traditionalists are "burying their heads in the sand").

I answered that here:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html Did the author of 'Acts' knew about Paul's epistles, as the Westar Acts Seminar contends?

You make this statement -

My main points here are the author of gLuke/'Acts' not being aware of Josephus' Antiquities (93) (but knew about 'Wars'), and potential external evidence in gJohn (95-105) and Barnabas' epistle (97).

On what basis do you make it?

You also point out some differences between the Paul texts and Acts on various issues, which is interesting.

We still don't really know who wrote Acts, though

[MrMacSon]

Also relevant:
http://historical-jesus.info/63.html Dating of 'the Acts of the Apostles'

I did not bury my head in the sand.

Cordially, Bernard

The problem is that page links to 58 & 64, and you cite various passages or texts that you date specifically

• eg. the epistle of Barnabas (dated 97 CE):

You say in http://historical-jesus.info/58.html that

• "This is a very strong piece of evidence advocating the author of 'Acts' knew about 'Wars' but did not read 'Antiquities'."

There are other possibilities - they just cited Wars, but wrote after Antiquities.

Not using Antiquities does not mean a passage or text was writen before antiquities was 'published'.

[MrMacSon]

according to John Chrysostom in his 'Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles', Homily I:

• "To many persons this Book ['Acts'] is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence."

http://historical-jesus.info/64.html

[outhouse]

I just don't like it because I don't believe there was no Council and I don't believe that if there was a Council it was not made up of Christian or semi-Christian leaders. But I don't have the time or motivation to see how wrong I might be. Just being honest here. Thanks for the responses.

I see a pater familias there, an assembly as that is the word used.

This assembly is just exaggerated for Pauls personal agenda, and Acts so far removed from any such information provided .


Council is just a word used to describe Paul discussing theology and laws with them.