Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Another insult!

You are not making yourself look very good.

Let's elevate this conversation.

What is the best evidence INTERNAL to the book of Acts of the Apostles that make you believe it was written after the Jewish revolt?

MrMacSon wrote: I & this raises at least two questions:

* Firstly, whether it happened mostly by the activities of a mid 1st century Paul(?), as the Pauline texts are understood.
* Secondly, whether a Christian church, as we know it today, or in relation to what or how a 4th C Christian church would be, could have developed without the canonical gospels.

The issue of how long it took is kind-of a separate one: the Christian church seems to have taken several centuries to develop 7 evolve, as summarized in the Catholic encyclopedia -

The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council ...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

i just don't see how any of this relates to my question, which doesn't presume anything and is straightforward: why couldn't the churches that Paul wrote to have been established in a few short years? This question makes no assumptions about a canon or the gospels. As has been pointed out, Pauls writings don't reference many 'gospel' issues, so there is no need to establish an existing body of written material at that point.

steve43 wrote:Another insult!

You are not making yourself look very good.

Let's elevate this conversation.

What is the best evidence INTERNAL to the book of Acts of the Apostles that make you believe it was written after the Jewish revolt?

You sure don't sound like a historian. You have avoided every comment (as far as I have seen) challenging your views and want to press one point as if there is nothing else to consider. Inductive reasoning gone mad. Where is your Popper?

What do you know about historical methods and how historians (not theologians) go about dating texts? What do you know about how documents unrelated to the Bible are dated?

As for insults, will you retract your ad hominem slur that anyone who dates Acts late is on some sort of agenda against Christianity?

Pst.... you're not reading what we say. I did not say I "believe" anything about the date of Acts. I'm not a closed minded dogmatist like you. I said I accept tentatively a late date pending further understanding.

TedM wrote: ... why couldn't the churches that Paul wrote to have been established in a few short years? This question makes no assumptions about a canon or the gospels. As has been pointed out, Paul's writings don't reference many 'gospel' issues, so there is no need to establish an existing body of written material at that point.

ok. That "Paul's writings don't reference many 'gospel' issues" is relevant to my point - I am contending that, if Paul was establishing churches in the mid-first-century, they were not churches centered on Jesus of Nazareth.

ok, mac. i don't see any basis for that conclusion -- ie (why wouldn't oral tradition of a historical figure be enough?) but its beside the point i was making with the op.

There's no evidence Jesus of Nazareth was a figure at that time: a historical one or a character in a narrative. Appeal to oral tradition is wishful-thinking.

The Pauline narrative being more of a spiritual Christ, essentially an apparition, is consistent with the Gnostic theologies/belief-systems, such as Docetism.

Therefore, it seems a 'leap-of-faith' to say Paul was establishing churches based on 'Christianity' as it was developed or understood after the 2nd C,or the 4th C (after the council of Nicea)

agree we don't have writings pre-30-50 AD that clearly confirm Jesus of Nazareth, though I think it is more likely Paul was preaching about a historical Jesus than not based on his own writings, so I see no more of a leap-of-faith to say he was establishing churches based on a historical figure than it is to say he wasn't, which is against all the evidence we have about Jesus. But I could be wrong and we can always appeal to other interpretations, suppression of the 'real' beginnings, etc..

I think it is likely that Paul, based on writings attributed to him, would have been preaching about a more generic Christ or a more generic Jesus: I think there were lots of variations of sacrifice stories, salvation stories, and sacrifice & salvation stories in that messianic age.

steve43 wrote:
What is the best evidence INTERNAL to the book of Acts of the Apostles that make you believe it was written after the Jewish revolt?

Still waiting, Neil.

Regarding Paul and Jesus and the church, there was a TREMENDOUS amount of political turmoil going on in the Jewish lands. And religion and politics were the same thing back then. Read WARS and the pertinent chapters in Antiquities (and Josephus' autobiography) for the details.

Christianity emerged from a real cauldron of unrest. It did not arise out of a vacuum.

Of course, if you think Josephus made up his works- like Tolkien made up his "Lord of the Ring" trilogy- then this is all very amusing.

steve43 wrote:

steve43 wrote:
What is the best evidence INTERNAL to the book of Acts of the Apostles that make you believe it was written after the Jewish revolt?

Still waiting, Neil.

Regarding Paul and Jesus and the church, there was a TREMENDOUS amount of political turmoil going on in the Jewish lands. And religion and politics were the same thing back then. Read WARS and the pertinent chapters in Antiquities (and Josephus' autobiography) for the details.

Christianity emerged from a real cauldron of unrest. It did not arise out of a vacuum.

Of course, if you think Josephus made up his works- like Tolkien made up his "Lord of the Ring" trilogy- then this is all very amusing.

Still waiting? Gosh, why so obsessed? I gave up waiting for you to answer any of my questions in a number of threads till now.

Why on earth would you bother with someone you are convinced is not serious but only on some anti-Christian agenda? When you are prepared to let down all your silly assumptions about what you believe are my motives and my arguments then we can have a serious discussion, but unlike you I'm not waiting. After you read and take on board Fischer's first two chapters of "Historians' Fallacies" then maybe you can try again.

(I've actually discussed the "internal evidence" of Acts in much detail in many places, by the way. But I apply -- and cite -- the normative methods of historians, a topic you appear to wish to avoid.)