andrewcriddle

In 'Paul and Thecla' the love interest (beautiful late teenage girl jealousy of her spurned lover Paul and Thecla separating and then meeting up again) is prominent in a way characteristic of the romances but not canonical Acts.

There is also a taste for erotocised 'maiden in peril' stuff, Thecla twice facing death in the arena naked or nearly so. Again we find this in the romances but not canonical Acts.

The pseudo-Clementine material (Homilies and Recognitions) is a series of sermons embedded in a story about a separated family being reunited. This story comes right out of the romances although it is, I agree, only a framework for the real concerns of the author.

Andrew Criddle

Layman

I was only representing what you have said in the past, Toto. I am sorry if I misunderstood your claim that skepticism of all of Paul's letters and statement that you were skeptical that there were any Christians in the first century to mean that you did not believe Paul existed.

Toto

The last time you raised this point I said that Paul did not fit the mythic stereotype, and that someone forging letters in his name was some indication that he existed.

Layman

Which Jewish sources did I claim Luke used?


I give many reasons for doubting that Luke used Paul's letters. I do not argue for Luke's dependence on other Jewish sources, though I do note that there were other other Jewish histories available in addition to Josephus' antiquities. The argument is that there is no reason to believe that the points in common were known only by Josephus. Other Jewish historians very well could have written about them. Does this mean Luke used them? It's possible I suppose, but the larger point is that the information was more widely known rather than limited to Josephus' writings.

And since I do not argue for dependence on any specific Jewish source it really is silly to argue that I'm inconsistent in how I attempt to show dependence.

Layman

You are always free to clarify your position, Toto. But its clear that my statement was based on your past statements. I forgot you indicated that Paul might have existed because other people pretended to be him. My apologies.

Sauron

There are only two isolated examples of this phrase? Really? In that case, Layman's response doesn't make much sense. It appears to be a handwave.

The Pharisees *could* have said a LOT of things; that part of Layman's response isn't particularly useful or convincing. But if this was a "flattering presentation that could have been used by the Pharisees themselves", then apparently the Pharisees never chose to do so. Otherwise, the phrase would appear in more than just the two isolated examples of Luke and Josephus.

Which reduces Layman's statement to "well, even though it appears in only two places out of all the candidate texts, please accept my position that this doesn't indicate cross-pollenation." But the issue is one of borrowing or remembering between the two texts. A unique descriptor like the above would be a good indication of such borrowing.

Steven Carr

Surprising that you claim Luke is using independent sources to Josephus while denying that Luke used Jewish sources.



Layman writes 'In a reference to Deut. 21:22-23, Acts has Paul using an uncommon description of Jesus’ crucifixion as being on a “tree� rather than a cross. In Galatians, Paul uses the same phrase to describe Jesus’ crucifixion.

Acts 13:29 (“Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.�) and Gal. 3:13 (“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us, for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’�).'

Layman does not regard this as evidence of Acts using Paul's letters.

Layman writes 'After reciting some of the challenges he had faced, Paul declares, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.� Philippians 4:13. Similarly, after reciting a list of hardships, Ignatius declares, “Though this is difficult, yet Jesus Christ, our true Life, has power to effect it.� Smyrn. 4:2. Barnett calls this a “rather clear echo of Phil. 4:13�

Layman writes 'Acts 13:21 (“And afterward they asked for a king, so God gave them Saul the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years.�) and Phil. 3:5 (“circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, concerning the law, a Pharisee�).'


Is Acts 13:21 'a rather clear echo of Phil 3:5'? Layman would die rather than say that, although he has no problems in finding rather clear echoes of Phil 4:13.

Can you spot any double standards here? Layman trots out a string of places where the terminology of Acts is similar to Paul's letters and denies that Acts uses Paul's lettters.


Layman trots out a string of places where 2nd century epistles use similar terminology to Paul and claims that this proves they use Paul's letters.....

Totally ad hoc.

There is no methodology. It is just proof texting.

Steven Carr

You mean, a bit like when Laymans writes :-

'The term sundoulou occurs only in the Pauline letters only in Col. 1:7 and 4:7. In the one instance it is applied to Epaphrus and in the other to Tychicus. In each case pistos diakonos is a further element in the characterization. In the letters of Eph. 2:1, Philad. 4:1, and Smyrn. 12:2, each time in connection with sundoulou. The usage in these instances strongly suggests acquaintance with Colossians.'

Clearly the highly unusual vocabulary of 'servant' and 'faithful minister' strongly suggest acquaintance.

While some would argue that Christians might often use the phrase 'servant' and 'faithful minister' about themselve, unique descriptors like that would be good evidence of borrowing.

But of course, Layman will deny all evidence of Luke borrowing from *any* named written source for Acts.....

Ted Hoffman

This looks interesting and I will have a look at it as soon as I get time. Peter, I have been looking forward to you posting a link to Doherty's response to Muller on your site.
Just so that people can weigh both sides of the issue.

I would have loved to see The Sword in the list of "Other Blogs". Carlson has a link to it.

Otherwise, great site and articles.

Steven Carr

As always, Peter Kirby has some interesting comments on Acts on his blog

'Several scholars have noted the parallels of prison escape, as narrated in Acts, in other Greek literature, including but not limited to Bacchae.

Luke Timothy Johnson writes: "Accounts of prison-escapes are found everywhere in Hellenistic fiction, whether their wonderful character is owed to some human virtue or relationship (see Lucian of Samosata, Toxaris 28-33; Achilles Tatius, Clitophon and Leucippe 3:9-11), or due to some divine intervention (Ovid, Metamorphoses 3:690-700; Artapanus, On the Jews, frag. three; The Acts of Paul 7; The Acts of Thomas 162-163).


One of the most interesting examples of the type-scene is also one of the earliest, the escape of the devotees of Bacchus from prison by divine intervention after a tyrant had jailed them in an attempt to halt the growth of the cult (see Euripides, Bacchae 346-357; 434-450; 510-643)." (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 217)............

........

My bet is that this kind of prison escape scene was stock in trade for fiction in the first century. Which definitely casts doubt on historicity, but doesn't necessarily indicate Euripides as the sole source (or in the mind of Luke while writing at all).'


I'll skip to his conclusion.

'Although I doubt that Luke had Euripides in particular in mind when composing any certain passage of Acts, my study has made clear the substance of the argument made by critics, which is, that the stories were inspired and shaped within the context of Greco-Roman civilization, where the expression of an animal kicking at its spurs would signify resistance to the will of a god, and where a story about an escape through a door that opens by itself was a portent of divine approval, and when historiography did not have the same meaning that it has today.


Such is all the weight that the argument based on Euripides was meant to bear, and the argument is made stronger from the parallels not only to Bacchae but also to the wider literary tradition.'

I also doubt that Luke had Euripides in mind when composing a passage of Acts.

But he certainly had Euripides in the back of his mind. He was a learned man after all.

Similarly for Acts 17 'For in him we live and move and have our being.', which is a clear echo of Epiminides.