andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

I agree that it is not clear that the author and editors of Acts actually intended to push the view that James the son of Alpheus (1:13) is the James referenced in 12:17, 15:13, and 21:18. But that was not what I meant when I said I simply meant that if the events in Galatians 2:9 are ultimately the same as the events in Acts 15 then they occur after the death of James the brother of John in Acts 12. Hence whoever the James in Acts 15 = Galatians 2:9 may be, he is not (according to Acts) James the brother of John and son of Zebedee.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

I know the consensus is that Paul wrote before Mark. I was unaware that it also affirms Pauline influence on Mark.

I need a clarification here. Are you suggesting that if the oldest extant manuscripts of two writers are both from the same century, then the default inference should be that the originals must also have been written at about the same time?

aa5874

Lay people are entitled to show how they came to a concensus.

It just cannot be that a supposed concensus cannot be challenged when the concensus is faith-based.

History is not decided on faith-based concensus.

This is the real concensus---There is no historical support for any Pauline writer before the Fall of the Temople outside of apologetics.

aa5874

Lay people are entitled to show how they came to a concensus.

It just cannot be that a supposed concensus cannot be challenged when the concensus is faith-based.

History is not decided on faith-based concensus.

This is the real concensus---There is no historical support for any Pauline writer before the Fall of the Temple outside of apologetics.

avi

In my opinion, not a fact, both "Paul" and "Mark" are second century creations. I have no reason to imagine that they represent works by the same author, but, I do believe that whoever wrote them, communicated, in person, or via messenger. To answer your question, directly, yes, I believe that both were written within two decades of one another, both in the early second century. I therefore believe, not a fact, that both authors' original manuscripts were copied within a decade or so, of their initial appearance, and ultimately both were copied, and incorporated into Papyrus 45 (Mark, Acts) and 46 (Paul). Those are all beliefs, not facts.
I assume, Doug, that your opinion is quite different from mine. Perhaps you may wish, in elaborating your own perspective, to explain why the earliest copies of Mark and Paul, into Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian were made only in the second century, if the works had already been extant half a century earlier? My claim is very simple: copies can not be made of non-existent writings.

avi

aa5874

I am just pointing out that HJers cherry-pick their evidence.

An HJer may selectively use one or two lines of the Pauline writer as an historical source and totally ignore the abundance of evidence that show Jesus was not a man which would render Galatians 1.19 useless to support historicity.

Steven Carr

How can one of the James of Acts 1:14 not be distinguished from the James who was in the group of brothers of Jesus? But that James is just called James, with no attempt at saying which James it was.

It is like introducing 'Michael and the Jackson 5', but referring to a Michael was was not in the Jackson 5.

Doug Shaver

Yes, I've gathered that. I know where you are. I'm trying to get you to explain how you got there.

You are claiming that your position is a proper default position, something a person ought to believe absent any compelling evidence to the contrary. You also claim that this default (contemporaneous authorship) arises from the fact that the oldest extant manuscripts of Paul were produced at about the same time as the oldest extant manuscripts of Mark.

Too bad. If you had so imagined, that would explain how you got your default that the originals must have been written at about the same time.

That could be a plausible inference from your default, but you can't use it to justify your claim that contemporaneous authorship is the default.

That does not answer my question.

You are claiming that these beliefs are justified as inferences from the facts, and that they are justified by default -- that anyone examining the facts ought to have these beliefs unless there is compelling evidence against these beliefs.

But so far, the only fact you have mentioned is that the oldest extant manuscripts are all about the same age.

My opinion is that (a) the original documents on which the extant Pauline writings were based were produced before the First Jewish War and (b) Mark and the other canonical gospels were produced in the second century.

I cannot properly elaborate in a brief post. My reasoning has to do with differences among the various sects that produced the documents, the relative influence of those sects at various times, and the manner in which they evolved and were amalgamated into the religion that we now recognize as orthodox Christianity. The Pauline sect was barely visible throughout the first century and practically disappeared sometime in the second. The sect associated with the canonical gospels possibly did not even exist in Paul's day. But, whether it began to exist in his time or soon afterward, it soon became more popular than his.

avi

Well, that's fine. There are beaucoup folks who agree with you!

Then, may I inquire, WHY you think that Paul's letters to Seneca are fraudulent?

There must be some evidence, attractive to you, which propels you to imagine a first century date for Paul's epistles.

I assume, maybe incorrectly, that this evidence is not Patristic. I assume, perhaps in error, that you are not persuaded by any of the Roman Historians' accounts.

Then, I am puzzled, what evidence is there, that you find persuasive, for a first century origin? The related question, perhaps more on topic, is why this same evidence should not lead to a conclusion that Mark also was penned in the first century? What is there about Paul's writing that suggests ignorance of the first Jewish Revolt, 66CE, and what is there about Mark's writing which underscores awareness of the third Jewish-Roman conflict, 132CE, so as to provide a nifty time marker for their respective origins?

Well, I certainly don't want you to feel obliged to respond at all, but I am curious to read one or two paragraphs, if you have time to put pen to paper for that amount of detail! Thank you for raising many interesting questions in this thread....

Cheers,
avi

Solo

I have no problem with that part, Andrew. I explained why I don't trust the historical accuracy of Acts, therefore the "if Acts 15=Gal 2:9" does not provide much to go on.

E.g., when Saul returns to Jerusalem (9:26), the brethern are afraid of him even though 8:1 asserts that everyone except the twelve were driven out of Jerusalem. But 9:26 does not prevent 11:19 again to refer to 'those who were scattered' in Stephen's persecution (i.e. everybody but the twelve) pressing on in their mission. Just so you appreciate the stoned perplex of the narration, if James (the Lord's brother) was not part of the twelve, as 1:13-14 seem to indicate, he would have to have been - if Acts were reliable - among the ones scattered in the persecution after Stephen's death, but somehow sneaked back in, as the church leader. At minimum, I would venture, that is counter-intuitive.

FWIW, Haenchen cites Loisy, as one for the view that the persecution against the James' community happened after the 'Jerusalem conference' as a result of its giving in to Paul's mission. Be it as it may, the one-line write-off in 12:1 of James Zebedee, one of the three people said to be closest to Jesus, is an odd way to write history and is best understood as a short literary prologue and segue to Peter's miraculous rescue without much thought to actual chronology.

Best,
Jiri