Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Do you think that Yahia-Yuhana is John the Baptist

Ummm. What name would you expect to find here? The Roman letters JOHN THE BAPTIST splashed across an Aramaic manuscript? Also Sura 19:7. It is unfortunate that the pertinent documents here weren't originally written in English.

And that the Arabic form of John might argue for the lateness of the Mandaean relationship with John https://books.google.com/books?id=FmSvC ... ta&f=false

The John Book's nativity narrative is likely only "inverted Luke"

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:52 pm From a Westar Acts Seminar release in 2013:

"This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:38 am
... That whole phrase, that you quote^, is on the same page I [previously] cited -

• https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

The only 2013 Westar webpage I could find was http://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/whe ... t-century/ which says, among other things, -

The Acts Seminar concluded that Acts was written around 115 CE and used literary models like Homer for inspiration, even exact words and phrases from popular stories...

The Acts Seminar demonstrated that the author of Acts used a collection of Paul’s letters to create a believable itinerary for Paul’s journeys throughout the Mediterranean. Previously, scholars saw the correspondence between Paul’s letters and Acts as proof that they were written in the same era. In fact, the reverse is true. Acts used Paul’s letters as a source while shying away from Pauline theology ...

http://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/whe ... t-century/

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:54 am
Still helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings!
BTW, I agree with all that.

Yes, the Westar summary says that -

"The Mandaeans of Iraq and Iran still call John Yuhana or Yahya Yuhana, but it seems likely that the Yahya, like their form of Zakaria, has been influenced by Arabic." [Parrinder Jesus in the Qur'ān Page 55] Yaḥyā ibn Zakarīyā (Arabic ايركز نب ىيحي​). The Mandaeans do not represent a separate source of information about this 'John the Baptist'). The only source of information about him are books with special interest and passed through the hands of Christians (the New Testament, Patristic literature and Josephus). Only the Christians knew or know John.

to MrMacSon,

Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

Sure, each early christian text is a primary historical source for Christianity at the time of its writing. But also, according to the Acts seminar, Acts is also a secondary source for some (not all) the events described in the book, which would make it not totally unhistorical.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:02 pm
... each early christian text is a primary historical source for Christianity at the time of its writing.

A significant problem is we do not know when many of the Christian texts were finalised or when they were started. So all we can do is talk about then as records of when they were identified, either as extant hard copies - as with P46 or P52, or as versions or accounts in other texts as with Luke in Tertualian's Adv Marcion.

We need to consider each text on its own.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:02 pm But also, according to the Acts seminar, Acts is also a secondary source for some (not all) the events described in the book, which would make it not totally unhistorical.

That's a bit back to front. Also, each event would need to be considered on it's own.

Acts may only be a secondary source for events that are in common with events portrayed in the texts of Josephus, unless you are implying events in Acts that are also in the Pauline texts is verification those events in the Pauline texts were real (b/c they were in Acts).

The Pauline epistles and Acts are literature: theological literature. They may or may not be true, and they may not always portray events in the early to mid 1st century (they may include events or interactions that were later).

to MrMacSon,

Acts may only be a secondary source for events that are in common with events portrayed in the texts of Josephus, unless you are implying events in Acts that are also in the Pauline texts is verification those events in the Pauline texts were real (b/c they were in Acts).

Actually there are corroborations between Acts and the Pauline texts. I listed the main ones here: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html. See also http://historical-jesus.info/76.html.
Generally speaking, Acts greatly embellishes the events as told by Paul, from which I concluded the author of Acts, and her community, did not know the main epistles of Paul.
In some area, Acts complemented data from the Pauline epistles, more so on matter of timing for Paul's journeys, which is what I was most interested in Acts. And I was able to reconstruct, year by year, the main events in these trips. That is explained here with a recap at the end of the page: http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html

The Pauline epistles and Acts are literature: theological literature. They may or may not be true, and they may not always portray events in the early to mid 1st century (they may include events or interactions that were later).

The epistles of Paul, when uncombined, make a lot of sense with some elements of Acts, regarding the travels. Of course, these texts have to be studied critically, and filtered out, taking in account motives and biases among other things.
So there are some truths in Acts, but not for the most part, either I did not care, or it is plainly what you call theological literature. Anyway, the front end of Acts, about the resurrection, of course, Pentecost and the Galileans becoming Christians and founding the Church of Jerusalem is just lies.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:53 pm to MrMacSon,

Acts may only be a secondary source for events that are in common with events portrayed in the texts of Josephus, unless you are implying events in Acts that are also in the Pauline texts is verification those events in the Pauline texts were real (b/c they were in Acts).

Actually there are 'corroborations' between Acts and the Pauline texts. I listed the main ones here: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html. See also http://historical-jesus.info/76.html.

Generally speaking, Acts greatly embellishes the events as told by Paul, from which I concluded the author of Acts, and her community, did not know the main epistles of Paul.

Yes, Acts generally embellishes events narrated in the Pauline epistles, but that doesn't mean they 'corroborate' them [and See below*].

---

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:53 pm
In some areas Acts 'complemented' 'data' from the Pauline epistles, more so on matter of timing for Paul's journeys ...

The epistles of Paul, when uncombined, make a lot of sense with some elements of Acts regarding the travels.

Yes, Westar's Acts seminar says -

---

*

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:53 pm
Actually there are corroborations between Acts and the Pauline texts. I listed the main ones here: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html.

You quote a Westar 2009 Acts Seminar discussion -

Matthews argues.. that Marcionite ideas could very easily have been in circulation in the early second century in Asia Minor, which was Marcion’s homeland and the place where Acts was probably written. This argument is buttressed by the strong evidence that an anti-Marcionite program can be identified not only in Acts but also in the first two chapters of canonical Luke. Fellows and Associates confirmed Matthews’ arguments with strong red votes."

http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

and, You also note -

2) Paul's escape from Damascus:

a) According to Paul:

2Cr 11:33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped his hands.


b) According to 'Acts':

Act 9:22 But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who livedin Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.
Act 9:23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him,
Act 9:24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night, to kill him;
Act 9:25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down over the wall, lowering him in a basket.

interestingly, similar to the event with Paul in 2Cor 11:33 and Acts 9:25 -

Gday all

Well, this thread has headed off in an unexpected, but intriguing, direction. Looks like I have some reading to do about the pernicious problem of 'Paul', and Marcion the Mysterious. Thanks to all for their input

Meanwhile, here is a better list after recent discussions :

John the Baptist. ~66%
Probably existed in Jerusalem early-mid 1st C. Secondary evidence only.

'Paul'. 50-50
Possibly existed and wrote letters in mid first C. around the NE Med.
While the evidence has characteristics of primary documents from Paul's hand, it could be a composite collection from as late as mid 2nd C.

Justin Martyr. ~95%
Wrote about several 'memoirs' or gospels mid 2nd century, in Rome. Primary evidence of his own writing. Mentions contemporary Marcion.

Marcion the Mysterious. ~95%
Very probably published a gospel (and possibly 'Paul' too) in Sinope in early-mid 2nd century. No primary evidence, but much secondary. First to form a canon, (possibly an influential early use of the more useful codex.)

Tatian. ~98%
Travelled then wrote in Syria mid 2nd century. Primary evidence in his Address, in which he names and describes himself. May have published the DiaTessaron.

Irenaeus. ~98%
Collected, named, and numbered four Gospels in Lyons in late 2nd century. Primary evidence from his own writing. Mentions contemporary Marcion.

Hippolytus. ~98%
Mentions Marcion inter alia in primary evidence around the end of 2nd C.

Tertullian. ~99%
Much primary Latin evidence around the end of 2nd C. Mentions Marcion.


Kapyong