DCHindley

Hi Dave,

You are right. That was the gist of David Trobisch in Paul's Letter Collection. The Epistle to the Romans, however, circulated in 14, 15 & 16 chapter versions, so this one might have circulated independently at some point. However, with way the letters are usually ordered, based on relative length, shows that Rom-Gal was one set, and because Eph is longer than Gal, Eph-2 Thes forms a second group, and the pastorals (written to individuals rather than churches) again descend in relative size, showing that they too were a third group. Grouping suggests collection, but from where the collections were drawn is an unknown question. IMHO, the grouping phenomenon argues against fabrication.

It also starts out with the expansion of believers into surrounding regions as the original apostles dispersed from Jerusalem after the lynching of the Hellenized Jew Stephen, and the beginnings of the recruitment of gentiles by Peter in lower Syria. Then, through the mediation of Barnabas, the narrative picks up on the Paul story. It is a butt weld of two distinct storylines.

Within the 1st section of Acts, the speech of Stephen is self contained, and seems to me to draw from a Jewish anti-Herodian temple tract, in spite of the fact that the apostles and disciples are portrayed as constantly praying in the temple. The Paul half of the narrative includes the sea voyage section that is written in a conventional style, and may represent another source merged with the tradition being passed on in this 2nd section of Acts. There is up to four writers involved.

Acts' storyline starts after Jesus' resurrection, so perhaps that is why it has nothing to say about Jesus the man.

1) Luke is an apology to explain Jesus' shameful execution. (Jesus movement as a messianic movement)

2) Acts sect 1, seeks to explain the change in membership to favor gentiles. (The resurrected Jesus who will come soon to usher in the messianic age, attracting gentiles anxious to participate)

3) Acts section 2 describes Paul and his efforts. (Integration of the Paul Movement)

What I find interesting is that there is no segment of Acts that explains how or when the Jesus Movement began to understand Jesus as a universal savior. It is assumed in the final editor's POV. He would have it, and may actually have believed, that the Christians believed the same thing from the time of the resurrection onwards. It is hard to perceive incremental changes when you are in the midst of it. It becomes apparent to the outside observer.

Then again, as Acts leaves off immediately before the start of the Jewish rebellion, the War is not dealt with as it related to the nascent Jesus movement. As Acts appears to be aware of Josephus' Antiquities, the author must have been aware of the War as well. How could the Jewish rebellion NOT have affected a Jewish messianic movement?

DCH

Duvduv

No one claiming to have been a Corinthian, Thessalonian, etc. ever stated that they received any epistles from Paul. When the epistles are discussed no one ever says how they were obtained, where or from whom.
No one ever argues over the number of epistles from Paul, I.e. that there were three or six or twenty.
Thus they were never actually written to the individual locales and were not produced individually. At best they were written for didactic purposes.

sotto voce

Discussed by whom?

Duvduv

By heresiologists, historians, etc. "The epistles....."

sotto voce

Did these people have names?

Toto

sv - you have chopped this up to destroy the train of thought. Please stop.

The idea that the Pauline letters only existed as part of a collection is a commonplace.

If you think that anyone has ever identified a single Pauline epistle that existed outside of a collection, you should identify that person.

aa5874

DCHindley's post is a PERFECT example of an invention. DCHindley has ZERO credible non-apologetic evidence for his story of the Jesus movement. No credible source of antiquity supports his invention.

DCHindley's post highlights the disturbing trend by people to BELIEVE what they imagine as history.

The book of Acts, by its own contents, cannot be treated as historical accounts unless it is corroborated.

Acts of the Apostles Begin with a Fictitious account of an Ascension and is riddled with implausible events.

The very acts of the Apostles in Acts, the acts of the "Jesus movement", was initiated and propelled by the Holy Ghost that was promised by the Resurrected Jesus.

No such event could have occurred--the acts of the apostles are Fiction.

There is simply NO credible evidence from antiquity to support a Jesus movement of Jews as described in Acts of the Apostles or by DC Hindley.

Even Apologetic sources, outside the Canon, do NOT associate Jews with the Jesus cult.

In Acts, Jews were supposedly converting by the Thousands and sometimes on a daily basis, [ 2000 men i n Jerusalem converted on the day of Pentecost in Acts] but outside the Canon, NOT one source, apologetic or non-apologetic, mentioned any Jewish person in the Jesus cult that was NOT mentioned in the Canon.

Non-apologetic sources do NOT account for a Jesus cult until the 2nd century and the cult is NOT associated with Jews.


This is NOT imagination. This is EVIDENCE from antiquity.

Examine "Death of Peregrine" attributed to Lucian of the 2nd century.

Lucian's "Death of Peredrine" Even Apologetic sources, like Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho" and Origen's "Against Celsus" do NOT name any known Jew that was a member of the Jesus cult outside of the Canon.

There are ZERO credible sources that there was a 1st century Jewish Jesus movement where Jews worshiped a man or a resurrected Jesus as found in Acts of the Apostles.

Duvduv

Nobody has, that is exactly my point by way of summary. Maybe you misunderstood my posting or part of it.

aa5874

We know that writers who mentioned Paul in any substantial way always tend to claim he wrote letters to Churches EXCEPT for the author of Acts.

The author of Acts mentioned Saul/Paul over 140 times in Acts and did Not writer that Paul wrote any Epistles to Churches.

But, there is another clue that Acts of the Apostles was BEFORE the Pauline writings.

In Galatians 1.19 it claimed that there was an Apostle called James the Lord's brother.

Let us see if any Gospel writer or author of Acts claimed there was an Apotles called James the Lord's brother.

Acts 1:13 KJV Not one Gospel writer claimed James the Apostle was the human brother of Jesus.
Matthew 10
Acts of the Apostles was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters to the Churches since James the apostle the Lord's Brother was NOT known in the Gospels and Acts.

Duvduv

It is worth noting that the view that the author of GLuke knew about the Paul in Acts who he believed wrote the epistles leaves one wondering why the author of Acts didn't ensure that the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the epistles had the same story and teachings.

On the other hand, whether Acts was or was not written by the author of GLuke without knowledge of the epistles would suggest that he had a different "oral tradition" about Paul and felt compelled to write an entire story about someone that no one ever heard of before, at least in written form, and was not an apostle of the HJ of the gospel(s) while the HJ was alive in this world.

The only rationale for such a thing was some kind of "tradition" about an "apostle" who did not know the historical Jesus of GLuke and the need for the existence of such an apostle in the sect's belief system to complete the panorama of followers, whereby stories about the followers of the HJ was totally insufficient.

So why was the story of an "apostle" who did not know what was believed to be an historical Jesus so necessary? Why wasn't it enough to write stories about Peter, and about people like Andrew and James?!