PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Denying that he has broken any Jewish laws, at Acts 24:21, Paul says, "‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today."

At Acts 25:13, Festus gives this summary of the case against Paul to King Agrippa and his wife Bernice:

This seems to represent the author's point of view that ultimately the story is about whether a dead man became alive, thus proving that the dead may be resurrected.

The author insists that the early Christians made no significant changes to Jewish practices. He even points to the fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised to keep the Jews happy (see16:3). Likewise, James and the Apostles even sent a letter to Antioch urging new converts to follow Mosaic law (15:29): that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell.”

It seems to me that the writer of Acts is insisting that Paul and the early Christians followed Jewish practices and believed that Jesus was a man until his death.

Even the very first speech by Paul Acts 13:30 suggests that Jesus was a man who became a son of God only after his death.
This suggests that the author had an adoptionist point of view about Jesus when he wrote Acts. Jesus became God's son when God raised him after death. This obviously contradicts the point of view professed in the Gospel of Luke that Jesus was born God's son.

If we want to maintain that the same author wrote Acts and the Gospel of Luke, we have to recognize that Acts was written first and that the author changed his position on how Jesus became God's son between the two writings.

Here is the wikipedia article on Adoptionism.

Am I missing anything in Acts that suggests Jesus was God before being born (the position of the writer of the Gospel of John), or that Jesus was born God's son (the position of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew)?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Okay, we have suggested that the author has an Adoptionist position towards Jesus, that he became a God after his death. This would suggest that the author/editor (traditionally known as Luke) was comparing him with the Roman emperors who became Gods after their deaths. We may presume that the author was originally a Roman citizen who converted to Christianity.

What else can we tell about him? In Acts, there are an extraordinary number of trials.

1. 4.5-23 Peter on trial before the Jewish Council
2. 5.27-42 Peter on trial again before the Jewish Council
3. 6.8 – 7.60 Stephan on trial before the Jewish Council
4. 12.1-24 Peter arrested, Herod dies before he can put him on trial
5. 15.6-29 Barnabas and Paul before the Council of Apostles and Elders
6. 16.19-40 Paul and Silas on trial before the Chief magistrates of Philippi
7. 17.5-9 Jason and some brethren before city authorities in Thessalonika
8. 18.12-17 Paul before Proconsul Gallo in Corinth
9. 19. 28-41. Gaius and Alexander (Paul’s traveling companions) before Assembly in Ephesus
10. 21.37-22.29 Paul before Jerusalem Barrack’s Commander and Jews.
11. 23.1-6 Paul before the Jewish council
12. 24:1-22. Paul before Proconsul Felix
13. 25.6-12, Paul before Proconsul Festus
14. 25.13-27. Paul before King Agrippa
15. 28.17-28 Paul, prior to going on Trial before Caesar (Nero) presents his case to the Jews of Rome.

There are 13 full trials and twice we have an arrested person, who should have a trial, but the trial does not take place.

This would suggest a great deal of legal knowledge on the part of the author. He feels comfortable describing trials. This would suggest that he was a lawyer or read a great deal about trials. How many people at this time would feel confident enough to describe 13-15 different trials in a relatively short work (about 50 pages) who was not in the legal profession? If we assume that the answer to that question today would be virtually nobody, the answer in the First and Second Centuries would be even less.

We may also note that in the Gospel of Luke, the author adds an extra trial before Herod that is unknown in the other canonical gospels. Again, this indicates a passion for trials and the law.

The fact that he makes sure that Paul does not break any Jewish law, (he even circumcises Timothy), would indicate a great respect for law. Even the eating together of the Jew Peter and the Centurian Cornelius, only happens because God directly commands both of them to do it. The author is presenting a very detailed case that the early Christians did not break any Jewish laws and did not introduce any new customs. This would again suggests a legal mind, clearly concerned about defending clients on a technically legal basis.

So, we may suggest that the author was a Roman lawyer or intricately involved with laws. His interest in trials and laws may be contrasted with his lack of interest in religious ceremonies. Virtually none are described to any significant degree. It is apparent that he is not a rabbi or Jew.

We may also point out that the author is describing Christians being persecuted across the Eastern half of the Roman Empire from Jerusalem to Rome. It is hard to believe that he is describing any situation that could have been actually happening in the first century. Pliny's letters suggest that Christianity was a small, virtually unknown sect in Bithynia in Asia Minor in 112. However, the author's description would not be out of place in the late Second Century. By then, we are beginning to have reports by people like Lucian and Celsus (circa 180) of somewhat more widespread Christian activity.

So, we may suggest that the internal evidence points towards the author of Acts as being a Roman lawyer convert to Christianity writing in the late 2nd century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

The tradition that Luke was both author of Luke-Acts and a physician prompted early investigators to search for medical terminology and interests in the books, and behold, rather much was found and was regarded as supporting the ancient tradition. But then Cadbury wrote a dissertation that showed that the medical terminology and motifs used in Luke-Acts were common to many ancient educated authors, not just among ancient doctors. (The saying goes that Cadbury earned his own doctorate by depriving Luke of his.)

(Not every modern author who writes about laws and lawyers, for example, is himself or herself a lawyer.)

Do you plan, then, to demonstrate that the legal interests and terminology in Luke-Acts are special to the ancient legal profession and not common among educated authors of antiquity in general? I imagine you would have to compare the Greek vocabulary of Luke-Acts with the Greek vocabulary of other ancient texts, both by lawyers and by nonlawyers.

Ben.

show_no_mercy

It might be that "Acts" was written prior to our current version of Luke... giving weight to some sort of proto-Luke that was in existence around the time of Marcion's canon. Acts might have been written to combat Marcion, and subsequently his sole gospel was rewritten to form our current "Luke".

IIRC, other "Acts" type literature is also dated to the 2nd century, like "Acts of Thomas", "Acts of Peter and Paul", "Acts of the Twelve", etc.

Jesus being god himself is only the position of John, and not a position found in the Synoptics. If we assume that the writer of Acts is in line with the Synopticists, then he wouldn't be advocating that Jesus is god either.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

The story about Cadbury was very interesting. We do have to be careful about these types of judgments and the evidence we use to support them.

It is certainly true that writers, especially modern writers often write about things and experiences outside their professions. Stephen Bochco wrote and produced television series about policemen (Hill street Blues and N.Y.P.D. Blue) and Lawyers (L.A. Law) but was never a policeman or lawyer.

However, it is also true that writers often do excellent work when they stay inside their professions. I think one could tell from reading his books that John Grisham was a lawyer before writing his novels, most of which are about lawyers. One could also easily guess by the television series that he has written and produced (like Alley McBeal, The Practice, and Boston Legal) that David E. Kelley was a Boston Lawyer before becoming a television writer/producer.

The type of study that you suggest would be fascinating and I hope somebody will do it. I am not inclined to, as I do not believe we have a sufficient number of works by lawyers from the first and second century to get a vocabulary list that would allow us to identify somebody as a lawyer based on that list. We would have to take into account that the writer is not writing a legal brief, or a speech to be delivered before a judge, but is primarily telling a story or stories to a general audience. So I am not sure if his technical legal vocabulary would be that much greater than in other writers writing works for a general audience.

While language can be broken up into sounds and words, people generally pay more attention to concepts and plot when transmitting a story. Therefore, trying to match words may not offer the best results in understanding story construction. The author may just be using the most understandable language rather than jargon intended for a profession.

For example, the vocabulary of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" would be much closer to Christopher Marlow's "Tamburlaine" then to Plutarch's biographies of Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, and Brutus. Yet Plutarch's biographies are the source material for Shakespeare. In the same way the Act's author's vocabulary may have much in common with non-legal works of his time, but be based on his own legal experiences.

Still, I would love to see the results of such an experiment. Until we get them, we should not be afraid to rely on the evidence at hand to build our hypotheses.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

Hi Show_no_mercy,

Good observations. Thanks.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

But, if Jesus did exist as a supernatural being while physically appearing to be human only if he died and came back to life would people know or believe he was really supernatural.

Those who are not convinced of his so-called supernatural birth or his miracles will realise that he was a God as he said when he resurrect.

The canonisation of Acts is an indication that the author propagated a God/man Jesus or wanted his readers to believe Jesus was both God and Man from his conception.

But, isn't the author simply making reference to 2nd Psalm?

"You are my son; today I have begotten you" does not appear to be a actual chronological report of the resurrection and the divinitty of Jesus.

The Church propagated that Jesus was divine before death and Acts was canonised because it was compatible with such a doctrine.

It cannot be shown that the author of Acts was a heretic or ever denied that Jesus was not divine until he was resurrected.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Thanks for the response.

The reasons for canonization of any of the texts are obscure. Certainly, it does not appear that the Church fathers cared that every book presented the same ideas about Jesus. The Gospel of John's ideas about Jesus are quite different from the Gospels, as are Revelation.We have to separate out what the early Church Fathers proclaimed about Jesus and what the text is actually telling us.

Compare the first speech of Peter in Acts to the first speech of Paul. Like the Paul speech, it says nothing about his birth or life, only about the resurrection of a man:

The author is stating clearly that Jesus was a man, a descendant of David and did miracles through the power of God. The author says that David was promised to be lifted up by God after death and to rule at his right hand. But since we have David's tomb and nobody has said he has risen, then he must have been one of his descendants -- Jesus.

In the second speech of Peter, we get only more of the same:

Again, no mention of Jesus as the son of God, only his servant and mention of God raising him from the dead.

In his speech before the council, it is the same theme:

It is the raising up of Jesus by God that is important. There is nothing at all about Jesus being God's son.

Even in the speech by Stephan, the Jews are offended by the idea of the Son of Man (i.e. a man) standing at the right hand of God.

Apparently only twice in Acts is Jesus referred to as the Son of God:

and from chapter 9:
Note the contradiction in the second paragraph. Supposedly, Paul is proclaiming Jesus as the son of God, but he is proving that Jesus is the Christ. It seems reasonable to suggest that the original text read "He is the Christ" which would match the "proving that this Jesus is the Christ" two sentences later.
The Eunuch's line at 8:37 is not found in the the Majority (Syriac, Byzantine, Traditional) text.

Basically, there is no argument at all that Jesus was the Son of God in Acts, but at least five times it is argued that God raised him to heaven after his death and made him lord and savior.

Warmly,
Philosopher Jay

aa5874

The reason for the canonistation of Acts of the Apostle is self-evident, to provide a supposed post-ascension history of the disciples and Saul/Paul.

Now, it is must be assumed the canonisation of the NT is of the Church. The Church writers are all products of the Church.

If you think that the author of Acts believed Jesus became a God after resurrection, then you are claiming that the author was a heretic but that the Church writers did not realise it.

Acts of the Apostles is a product of the Church. The author of Acts is not an independent witness to any post-ascension history. There was no ascension.

In gMatthew, the author after claiming Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, portrayed this Jesus as the Son of Man, who forbade his disciples from telling any-one that he was the son of God.

Matthew 16.13-20
1. The author of Matthew claimed Jesus was the offspring og the Holy Ghost.
2. Jeus called himself the Son of Man.
3. The people called Jesus a prophet like Elijah.
4. Jesus told his disciples not to tell any one he was the son of God.
5. After Jesus was supposedly dead and buried, he resurrected.
6. In Acts of the Apostles this very Jesus ascended to heaven.

Acts of the Apostles is about the character called Jesus who was claimed to be the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God.

It would appear to me that the authors of the Gospels and Acts just simply wanted to present Jesus as human as possible , even though a God, while on earth to magnify his suffering during crucifixion.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

In the 12th century, Peter Abelard wrote a book called "Sic et Non" in which he demonstrated that the early Church Fathers took different and contradictory positions on virtually every major theological question.

The gospels and Acts, which I suspect were written between circa 150 and 200, were each written under unique circumstances and each reveals different attitudes and positions about virtually every aspect of the Christ story/stories. The positions that crystallized into the orthodox positions in the early fourth century were in no way the popular positions of Christians in the earlier centuries. Tertullian gives a hint of the diversity of positions as late as 210 when he ridicules the position of the Church in Rome for saying that Jesus was actually the father God incarnate and not the son of God, "And so, after all this time, a Father who was born, a Father who suffered, God himself the Lord Almighty, is preached as Jesus Christ." (Against Praxeas, Tertullian, http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...raxeas_eng.htm)

An example of how drastically ideology may change within an association over time is the American Medical Association and abortion. The AMA led the fight in the United States in the 1870's to make abortion illegal except in cases where doctors determined it was necessary. By 1910, all but one state had passed such laws. The virtually all male AMA thought that women were not educated enough to have control over their bodies. They were successful and got all states to pass anti-abortion laws. By the 1960's, women had joined the AMA in sufficient numbers that the group changed its mind about abortion and led the fight to make abortions legal and safe.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay