Is Acts the 1st Entirely Spurious Historical Pseudepigrapha?

[Secret Alias]

But that would make Acts the original pseudo-history. That's not comforting. Surely there are others in antiquity?

[Ulan]

You want old? What about the antediluvian rulers of the Sumerian King List?

[Secret Alias]

I guess that's a start. But the detail in Acts is what is so unusual I think. The fact that it seems to reference Galatians too (and reshape it) is what is really interesting. I think the part about the apostle (whatever his name was) opposing Peter to his face is 'historical' insofar as it was written in the Apostl(icon). There must have been similar references to literary statements in the work. But how 'real' is any of the contact? How 'deep' does it go?

Was there a 'Jerusalem church' before Paul? That would imply at least independent witnesses to the existence of Jesus or at least the Passion/crucifixion and a historical basis to Christianity beyond the imagination of Paul, right? Unless I guess if we think that Christianity was filled with delusional writers who seized upon Paul's made up history and successive expanded and modified an original lie until we arrive at Acts the final revision. But then we would have to ask ourselves - is there any precedent for a massive school of delusional pseudo-historical writing like this? It would seem to be unprecedented in the history of humanity unless we imagine a series of hippy communes all getting high and 'making up shit' together. Seems unlikely to me unless we find some evidence to support that proposition or some precedent.

[Secret Alias]

I guess my question in the last post can be summarized as - is there any historical basis to an entirely pseudo-historical origin to a movement or tradition? The only hope I see is my work in the last series of posts to a Marcionite 'history' of Christianity developing solely from Paul's out of body experience in the third heaven/Paradise. While the idea of a mystical origin to Christianity might not be comforting to Christian believers it at least fills the hole left when you assume that Acts is completely fictitious. It is also believable insofar as it fits within the scope of a believable origin for the movement. But does that in itself suggest that subsequent believers were ascending in out of body experiences 'meeting their Lord in the air' and coming back with new pseudo-historical 'experiences'? I think so.

[Secret Alias]

What I am also struck by is the manner in which the rabbinic four in Paradise story becomes a similar attempt to "historicize" mystical ascent:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... sgu0232-Nw

In other words the Jewish tradition says not only that "only four" did essentially what Paul did but at the same time that ascents aren't inner "personal" experiences but objective historical "events."

Of course this is madness but it does point to the possibility that Christians could similarly accept history developed from spiritual meditation.

[Charles Wilson]

1. Acts 1:1 "Theophilus" ? Uncertain

Possible solution: "Friend-of-God". The Greek Court was ordered on 4 Groupings - "Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm", "Kinsmen". You can find references to these groups in various places in the NT.

2. Acts 1:1 Jesus ? Uncertain

Yes, but for Acts, the Construct is accepted and is given in a purely Technical Sense. If, for example, you accept George Washington and the Cherry Tree Story, you mention "George Washington" and you think, "Honest guy, first President of the United States. An American Saint".

3. Acts 1:2 the apostles ? Uncertain

As you will see, "The Apostles" will be DEFINED for you but there will be evidence left in the Data that the "Apostles" represent the Legions, especially the Ill-Fated 12th Legion, commanded by Cestius. They get mauled at Beth-Horon, where they lose their baggage, having NOT carried it in the middle of the traveling Group (Judas' guts spill out). They raze Lydda as the populace goes to Jerusalem for the Passover ("Desolate be his abode"). Cestius is replaced ("Let another his office take"). They were mauled and lost their Standard (Annals, with Corbulo looking on with tears in his eyes) and are represented in Acts as a Cripple, even giving the years since the event happened.

4. Acts 1:4 the (Holy) Spirit ? Fictitious

You may not accept this but it makes things a great deal easier to understand if you see that "The Holy Spirit" is the Damnatio'd and disembodied, featureless Domitian.

5. Acts 1:5 John (the Baptist) ? Uncertain

More evidence of Domitian. "The Baptism of John" barely gets started and it is replaced with "The Baptism of the Holy Spirit". "We didn't even know there WAS a Baptism of the Holy Spirit", we read later. Domitian.

6. Acts 1:9 a cloud ? Fictitious

Acts 1: 9 - 11 (RSV):
[9] And when he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
[10] And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
[11] and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

All of this is for effect. Look at what is stated: "He was lifted up". Consistent with, "He was lifted by servants and placed in a wagon".
"A cloud took him out of their sight". Consistent with, "It was a dry, dusty day". The train carrying Caesar is leaving and the support group kicks up a lot of dust. Consider: The (very cynical) authors WANT you to desperately see that "Jesus" took the elevator up above the clouds. Perhaps he's still in that elevator, now moving past Alpha Centauri and the planet Rann. Maybe he got out at the first cloud. Why he needed to perform this trick is not apparent. He appeared without the trick often enough. Why now?

7. Acts 1:10 two men in white ? Fictitious

Maybe, maybe not. Why not have two men in white? Makes it so much more Official. "OH!! I know! Maybe one of these two was the Angel at the Tomb!!! Yeah, that's it!!!"

8. Acts 1:11 men of Galilee ? Uncertain

The authors know something they are not telling and it's about the Story of the Priesthood being given Settlements in which to live in Galilee. They know, they know, they know. It doesn't matter much now but it did then!

The entire opening "historical" narrative = the Ascension is certainly fictitious. None of this ever occurred in real space/time

From the fact that "Jesus Stories" were written from a Source, it does not follow that the Source was about Jesus.

CW

[Ulan]

Was there a 'Jerusalem church' before Paul? That would imply at least independent witnesses to the existence of Jesus or at least the Passion/crucifixion and a historical basis to Christianity beyond the imagination of Paul, right? Unless I guess if we think that Christianity was filled with delusional writers who seized upon Paul's made up history and successive expanded and modified an original lie until we arrive at Acts the final revision.

Sometimes, half-truths may be a the bottom of things. There may have been some kind of Jewish sect in Jerusalem to which Paul had occasional contact. Maybe, they also had spiritual experiences like Paul and, let's not forget this snippet, all the communities Paul wrote to (all community members channeled spirits). They probably really had some theological differences. And they may finally have vanished in the war without trace, ready to be forged into whatever the faint memories allowed.

Regarding the detail, let's not forget the community may have been modeled after Plato's Republic. In one sense, it's a similar text even, as it depicts what should have been, at least according to the mind of the forger.

[Secret Alias]

Well Ulan I think that you certainly might have the right answer. To that end I think it is imperative we uncover what might be history in Acts. On to the next section:

Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”

18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:

“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,

“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

1. the apostles ? Uncertain
2. Peter ? Probable but still problematic - is his real name Simon or Cephas?
3. John ? Uncertain
4. James ? Probable but still problematic
5. Andrew ? Uncertain - is Andrew even a name at this date?
6. Philip ? Uncerain
7. Thomas ? Uncertain. False name = Judas
8. Bartholomew ? Uncertain Why no given name?
9. Matthew ? Uncertain is he Zacchaeus or Mattai or someone else?
10. James son of Alphaeus ? Fictitious Alphaeus is likely a corruption of Aramaic 'teacher'
11. Simon the Zealot ? Probable but may have something to do with Peter. Zealot = Canaanite in the gospels
12. Judas son of James ? Fictitious
13. the women ? Uncertain
14. Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers ? Fictitious. This seems to have been directed against the well-known Marcionite interpretation of Mark 3:31- 35. Now the humanity of Jesus is confirmed by Luke's 'historical witness' to Jesus's having a mother and brothers.
15. David speaking in the Holy Spirit concerning Judas ? Fictitious
16. Judas ? Uncertain but may have been an allegorical or symbolic representation of the Jewish people and their rejection of Jesus as Judah = Jew.
17. Judas bought a field (with payment for betraying Jesus) ? Fictitious
18. Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood ? Probable but still problematic
19 Peter reading from the Book of Psalms (to justify selecting a replacement for the fallen Judas) ? Fictitious
20. (choosing) one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us ? Fictitious. Seems to have been developed to counter the claim that Paul was an authority based on a vision never having seen Jesus.
21. they nominated two men ? Fictitious
22. Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) ? Possible but seems to be an amalgamation of various early (lost) personalities.
23. Matthias ? Possible but seems to be a recasting of Matthew

The story seems to be a carefully crafted attempt at showing:

a) there was an ecclesiastical organization (and thus 'historical movement') from day 1
b) that they were all witnesses to the historical Jesus
c) that Jesus not only existed but had a historical mother and brothers known to the world
d) that the community was Sabbath observant
e) that it followed authority (and was not a collection of delusional visionaries)

The story is clearly ahistorical and attempts to produce 'idealized history' rather than anything close to actual reporting of historical facts.

[Secret Alias]

If Acts can't be certain about the names of people it reports on and instead seems to be a rehashing of misunderstood, misreported figures from a long time ago so too must the purported history have been written a long time after the purported dates. For instance why isn't Peter 'Simon' or 'Cephas,' 'Thomas' Judas, Alphaeus is mistaken as a name when Akeldama is translated etc. אלפ֗ = to teach. Let's suppose there was a 'Jewish Christian' Acts as Epiphanius reports. This was a reworking of that text at a much later date.

[Charles Wilson]

If Acts can't be certain about the names of people it reports on and instead seems to be a rehashing of misunderstood, misreported figures from a long time ago so too must the purported history have been written a long time after the purported dates.

Acts 1: 15, in part (RSV):

[15] In those days Peter...