angelo

That's very likely. Look at the gospels, the longer the time span, the more magical they become. The more theological and complex, especially gJohn.This dude whoever was the author was either eating magic mushrooms or was completely deluded, not to mention revelation. :huh:

Duvduv

The contrasts between Galatians and the Paul sections of Acts are made more complicated by the absence of any alternative versions of either document. We would want to see a manuscript were either the Galatians Paul is said to have had the name Saul, or where the Acts Paul is said to have been sought for arrest by Aretas or was a student of Gamliel.

We are left wondering why the author of Galatians would not have thrown in the name Saul at least once had he known about Acts, or alternatively why the author of Acts would have mentioned persecution by the Jews in Damascus had he known about Galatians when this is mentioned nowhere in Galatians.

Of course we know that when these texts were written they werer not intended to be holy writ, so the sect leaders would not have minded contradictions if they thought the texts emerged from different sources who had different "traditions" about Paul.

This reinforces my view that interpolations were not centralized and intentional, because had they been so, the emerging Orthodox would have enhanced the consistency between Galatians and Acts, instead of sloppiness with inconsistencies, and no one would have even noticed.

aa5874

Your view does not make much sense because we find Galatians and Acts in the very same Canon.

It was a Centralized body that INTENTIONALLY CANONIZED Acts of the Apostles and Galatians.

Once you understand that Galatians NEEDS Acts of the Apostles then you will see that Galatians is a CORRECTION of the chronology in Acts.

The Galatians writer would have NOT have needed to claim he was NOT lying if there was no other version of the Pauline chronology.

Galatians 1:20 KJV---Now the things which I write unto you, behold , before God , I lie not.

Duvduv

Then it just begs the question. If "Paul" isn't "lying" in Galatians then maybe he IS LYING in Acts.

I KNOW the centralize hierarchy accepted both into their canon despite the contradictions. I also said this fact would suggest that interpolations were not apparently the result of an intentional effort to insert an array of doctrinal issues that would clean up the contradictions.

I was arguing that the texts were accepted even before they were ever considered as holy writ whereby the possibility also existed that the sect did not necessarily believe that Galatians was actually a first-hand text written by "Paul" any more than Acts was. So if that's the case, then they accepted both as "traditions" about Paul without knowing which should be considered "historically correct."

Thus the contradictions appear a problem only from an analytic perspective where one assumes that Galatians was written by someone actually claiming to be Paul recounting his own life.

But if the original attitude of the readers (with or without interpolations) was that it was NOT actually written by Paul but merely a didactic tool, then the contradictions were not a problem.

aa5874

The character called Paul in Galatians did NOT claim he wrote Acts of the Apostles. If the author of Acts is NOT lying then the author of Galatians may be lying.

angelo

The general consensuses among babblical scholars is that the author of Luke is also the author or acts.

aa5874

And the general "consensus" among scholars who believe Jesus existed is that Jesus existed.

At this time, the so-called general "consensus" is of no significance because it has been EXPOSED the Scholarship has ZERO credible evidence from antiquity but are ENGAGED in Guesswork, Logical fallacies and Presumptions for their claims about Jesus and the Pauline letters.

If the author of gLuke is the author of Acts why did NOT the author identify him/herself to remove any doubt???

Plus, it is very little use to claim gLuke and Acts have the the same author when they were written AFTER the 1st century so are NOT really contemporary writings of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

angelo

There is no contemporary writings of Jesus .

sotto voce

It's great when you can get others to do the hard slog for you.

Duvduv

You already pointed out that "Paul" was not in fact a liar.
The fact that the Paul of Acts doesn't mention writing epistles doesn't matter. If you say that Galatians corrects Acts in certain matters, then you can argue that it corrects Acts in other matters. But maybe "Paul" is lying in Acts.