Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

We all know the Acts of Paul was a second century fiction. But how different was this fictitous Acts from the canonical Acts of the Apostles? The same kinds of stupid arguments for authenticity are used for both - namely "real historical people" are referenced - for both. Can't we stop using stupid arguments like this?
https://books.google.com/books?id=tj5AA ... 22&f=false

If they had good arguments, they would use them instead.

FWIW, the Acts of Paul has this interesting bit. . .

Secret Alias wrote:We all know the Acts of Paul was a second century fiction. But how different was this fictitous Acts from the canonical Acts of the Apostles? The same kinds of stupid arguments for authenticity are used for both - namely "real historical people" are referenced - for both. Can't we stop using stupid arguments like this?
https://books.google.com/books?id=tj5AA ... 22&f=false

And yet you try to identify real historical people in the gospels

Well clearly the gospel had a historical author. This is different. This is saying "there might be some truth to X because historical names are referenced."

Secret Alias wrote:Well clearly the gospel had a historical author. This is different. This is saying "there might be some truth to X because historical names are referenced."

Your subtle sarcasm is much appreciated

I wasn't being sarcastic. There is a difference between claiming and investigating who the historical author of a document was and claiming that because a document made reference to historical figures it itself is reliable historical testament. Would love to be recognized as clever but in this case wasn't trying to be clever.

Secret Alias wrote:I wasn't being sarcastic. There is a difference between claiming and investigating who the historical author of a document was and claiming that because a document made reference to historical figures it itself is reliable historical testament. Would love to be recognized as clever but in this case wasn't trying to be clever.

Too bad. I agreed with the unintended tongue in cheek remark. Not this. You are definitely being selective in methodology and source, to suite your bias. I gave up on my bias (similar to yours now) a bit over a decade ago. I think all good minds eventually do that, if one lives long enough.

I have long thought the Gospels are period pieces. Written in the mid-2nd century. Marcion (or rather the writer of the gospel associated with the Marcionite gospel) introduced the phrase "in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" to replace "In those Days" of the proto-Gospel, effectively fixing in time the events portrayed. This trend toward specificity was continued by all. The portrayals are all given the vocabulary and debates of the 2nd century, but in the setting of the first century. The dialogue is completely non historical and so are the events. Where they intersect with actual history it is the author pulling up famous incidents to give color to his presentation. Nothing different than you see in Red Badge of Courage. Almost every line in the Gospels can be explained in the partisan ecclesiastical conflicts internal to Christianity, often drawing from OT stories to compare and sometimes contrast behavior. The theology is well defined for each writer before pen to papyri, and it colors the text. (Yes, holes in theology and inconsistencies abound, but that is true of almost any platform, so these evolve in polemic debate).

This view works much better for me. All the 1st century "naive" doppelganger communities vanish and the focus is squarely on the literature and the known communities and debates of the mid-2nd to early 3rd century. The trigger event is obvious, the Marcionite rupture. A race to evangelize the empire (οἰκουμένη) to beat the sect across the street, requiring literature - a religious play (which is what I think the gospel started as; making Christianity similar to the pagan cults). So a mad rush to produce material and counter material. And what is easier than to talk about then issues of today in the setting of one hundred plus years prior, much as Chinese do today with period pieces of the 1920s and 1930s, or Americans do with the Western, or the space opera.

The problem I have with hunting for historical (or mythical) links, which I do find amusing to read - some present fine romps -, is that people undertake the task without having sifted the later layers and the polemics, often disregarding them as insignificant. Until these 2nd and 3rd century polemics and debates impact on the material is more fully accounted for the foundation of such quests is set in quicksand.

Consider when looking for historical figures: Is Sherlock Holmes based on a real character?
https://audioboom.com/boos/4566549-the- ... uglasstarr

If nothing else you might enjoy the broadcast

Ok great. Thanks