gnosis92

There are several instances in which when Luke/Acts does talk about Paul wher Paul talks about Paul in his authentic corpos, he gets the details wrong, for example, his conversion, and whether pagans are excused for not believing in God.

Which leads me to wonder:

Is there any evidence that the author of Luke/Acts knew or read the Pauline letters? If not, then there would be strong evidence Mark did not know Paul's letters, which implies that Mark and Paul independently attest to the historicity of Jesus.

Cege

Evidence as in direct quotations and/or direct reference to the letters of Paul? I don't think there is either of those.

The Pauline letters are believed to have been written before the gospels or Acts were written, so it seems entirely possible that Paul's letters or at least some of them might have been seen by the author of Acts, or at least parts of them heard about.

Are the "details wrong" you mention in the 'uncontested' letters or in the doubtful letters?

Malachi151

#1) I don't know about the first part of this

#2) How would showing that the author of Luke did not know the letters of Paul tell us anything about Mark's knowledge of the letters of Paul?

#3) Why would one need the letters of Paul by 70 CE to write a story about Jesus, especially if one is making most of it up?

There are a few aspects of Mark that lead me to think that the author of Mark was familiar with Pauline Christianity, but this doesn't mean that he had actually read any of the Pauline letters.

gnosis92

Only in the uncontested letters. I recall that Acts spoke of being put in a jar and carried off that differs in material detail to his own letter, ditto for his conversion.

gnosis92

If Mark and Paul wrote independently of one another that that represents 2 sources that say Jesus existed as a figure of history.

If Luke did not read the Pauline letters, but wrote 3-4 decades after Mark, this fact would be consistent with the fact that Mark did not read the Pauline letters either. That includes the Lord's supper.

Solo

I suppose the "made up" stuff is meant as assurance that Mark did not have some source(s) or oral tradition to rely on.

But even if you assume Mark was writing from scratch, knowing Paul would have certainly been helpful: a) if he was "faking history" in establishing timelines and parameters, so it looked believable, and b) if allegorizing, Paul's letters would have been a gold mine for themes and images to play with.

I don't disagree with that. The poetic metaphors of Paul likely entered into oral traditions and there, with other wisdom adages and metaphors, fairly fast became attributed to, and intermingled with, Jesus' own output in sourcing the gospel stories.

Jiri

Malachi151

I don't see how the author of Luke has anything to do with the author of Mark, other than Luke using Mark.

As for the "Lord's supper", there are several possibilities:

1) Paul wrote 1 Cor 11:23-26 and the author of Mark read 1 Corinthians and got it from there.

2) Paul wrote 1 Cor 11:23-26 and this became a well known tradition which the author of Mark was aware of, though he didn't directly read the letters of Paul.

3) 1 Cor 11:23-26 is a later interpolation into the text that came after the author of Mark invented the scene.

4) Jesus said what Paul and Mark say that he said and they are both independent witnesses to the same tradition that passed down from the mouth of Jesus.

I don't see how Luke having read or not read the letters of Paul advances option #4 one way or another.

Toto

There is a thread from about 3 years ago on the question of whether the author of Luke had read Paul's letters. I'll try to find it or my notes from it.

Ben C Smith

:notworthy:

Ben.

Cege

Acts 9 describes the recently converted Paul smuggled out of Damascus in a basket by his local followers. The story then jumps to "When he (Paul) came to Jerusalem..."

Acts 22 and 26 quote Paul's own words in 2 different situations, and the words he speaks are different in each chapter, but relate the same basic story.

In Galations 1, Paul describes going to Arabia immediately following his conversion, then to Damascus, then after 3 years to Jerusalem where he spends 2 weeks with Peter and James.

Are these the references you refer to?

An apologist will make the argument that these accounts aren't contradictory but only contain different details. Either way, I don't think they make a case for the author of Acts being familiar with--or not--the letters of Paul.