PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The cases are not similar as you indicate. In the case of Barnabas, we are seeing the important role that Barnabas plays in the narrative after the election. Based on that, we are saying that the narrative is indicating that the original story has been changed. Only an original narrative where Barnabas replaces Judas or becomes an apostle justifies the major role that he plays in the rest of the narrative. In the case of Paul's missing trial before Caesar, we are looking at what comes before in the narrative and seeing that what comes afterwards does not fit in the narrative, and proposing that the most logical solution is that the trial scene was intended but was decided against or suppressed.

Here is an example where what comes before in the narrative and what comes after in the narrative indicate that the narrative was changed. Philip is one of the seven people appointed to solve the contradiction between Hellenic and Jewish followers of “The Way”. Stephan, the first, gets killed, and as we expect, Philip then becomes the main character in the narrative. In chapter 8, after Stephan’s death, he goes to the city of Samaria (Sebaste) and battles Simon . Somehow, Jerusalem hears about this and Peter suddenly shows up in the narrative to replace Philip in the narrative. The author makes the point that Philip was proclaiming the Christ, baptizing, casting out spirits, and healing the paralyzed and lame. Peter comes and brings the holy spirit by laying on hands. It seems that the author wanted us to associate the laying on of hands and the bringing of the Holy Spirit with Peter. Peter and Philip are soon returning from Samaria to Jerusalem when Peter disappears from the narrative as suddenly as he had been inserted. An angel comes to Philip and tells him to go to take a certain road between Gaza and Jerusalem. There, he meets a Eunuch and after baptizing the Eunuch, a spirit whisks him away to Azotus, and from there, he goes to Caesarea. Note that the narrative works just the same without Peter. The only reason for Peter show up is for the author to make the point that only Peter could bring the Holy Spirit to people by laying on hands. But, at 6:6, the narrative had told us that the Apostles had laid hands on Philip, so presumably Philip, afterwards, had the power to lay hands on all those he preached to. Otherwise, if non-transferable, the power to lay hands and bring the Holy Spirit would have died out with the apostles. The narrative does not explain why Peter had to go to Samaria and lay hands and Philip could not have done so.


Now, at Caesarea, we have Cornelius the Centurion. Since Philip is in Caesarea and Peter is not. We should expect that Cornelius will interact with Philip. Instead, we get lots of angels appearing in order to get Peter and Cornelius together. We must assume that the angels are just part of the author/editor’s razzle-dazzle to take people’s mind off the fact that Philip was in Caesarea and intended to be the one to interact with the Centurion.
Why bring Philip to Caesarea if not to meet the Centurian from Caesarea?

(The Jew-Non Jew eating together probably played no part in the original story. Instead we may suggest that the story of the Centurion’s slave being healed has migrated from the original text here into Luke’s gospel at 7:2-10.)

When we next meet Philip in chapter 21, he is still in Caesarea as he welcomes Paul into his house. So Philip never leaves Caesarea and never gets back to Jerusalem where the narrative was sending him after Samaria.

The text sets up a meeting between Philip and the Centurion at Caesarea, but substitutes a meeting with Peter instead. Afterwards the text points to Philip still being in Caesarea, but gives him nothing to do but to host Paul, just as Cornelius hosted Peter.

Here the narrative failure of Philip and the Centurion meeting occurs both before and after the event. The best explanation is that the author/editor has substituted Peter for Philip in this case. However, it is possible that Philip himself was a substitute in the story for one of the other 7 sub-apostles assigned in the original story to handling Hellenic-Jewish relationships.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay