Grog

I have a question (probably for AA):

I understand the view that Acts precedes the epistles. I have not accepted that viewpoint, but I understand it. And I can see that Acts doesn't match what is contained in the letters. However, it seems to me, that the matching goes both ways. If the epistles were written after Acts, why didn't the fabricators go to greater pains to match the letters to the itinerary in Acts? Were the letters created to counter Acts? Why and who would do that?

I can understand the explanation the other way: Acts was written to counter the letters and incorporate Paul into the fold. Acts doesn't match the letters because the author(s) was not so concerned with that as the overall goal of incorporating Paul. Maybe the author didn't (as appears to be the case) even consult the letters but only had a vague recollection of what they contained. And at any rate, didn't want to give authority to the letters by referencing them in any way. I can understand that line of argument. The reverse, I'm having trouble with.

Duvduv

Hi, Grog. Your question would probably be alot easier to answer if it were possible to find out the answer to my questions first pertaining to why the figure named Paul was so important to start with.
Isn't it possible that the author(s) of the epistles did not consider the Book of Acts as a legitimate text and so sought to ignore it?
Alternatively, isn't it possible that Acts and the epistles originated from different places, and by the time they were canonized the officialdom felt that neither could be changed?

Indeed, we could ask and have asked your question in relation to the contradictions between the gospels themselves or even between the gospels and the epistles. If Paul was so important why didn't someone find a way to put him into to a gospel story, and alternatively, why the epistles (and Acts for that matter) weren't fixed to include any stories and aphorisms from the gospels.

I have addressed these questions to AA but he prefers not to delve into them.

Toto

Just to be clear, AFAIK this theory is unique to aa5874, it is his, it has not convinced anyone else, and there are other issues that might be a better focus of your attention.

Cheers

:wave:

Duvduv

...such as why IF Acts and the epistles did have a common origin why then does Acts not reflect so much of what is found in the epistles, and IF Acts is truly associated with GLuke thanks to the author of GLuke being the author of Acts, why there are no aphorism or stories about the historical Jesus of GLuke in the Book of Acts.

Toto

No one claims that they have a common origin. The claim is that the author of Acts was aware of the epistles and sought to counter some ideas in them and turn Paul into a good party member. Acts does reflect a lot that is in the epistles, but does not incorporate or repeat the theology of the epistles.

It's still not clear why you would expect the author of Acts to include all of this material. It might help if you could pick out one particular part of Acts where the author might logically have referred to some aspect of the historical Jesus, but did not.

Bernard Muller

to DCHindley,
I just read on this thread your two long postings you made on Jan28 and Jan31.
I am amazed that we are almost in perfect agreement on this sweeping view of the start of Christianity.
However I do not agree Acts was written by more than one author or the author of Acts knew about Josephus' Antiquities (but "Luke" knew about 'Wars').
My conclusion about Acts and the Pauline letters has always been that "Luke" did not know about Galatians and 1&2 Corinthians but had other sources, some written, some oral, mainly from Paul's companions. But by the time Acts was written, those companions were dead, what they said was not exactly remembered, which allowed "Luke" to modify, extrapolate, embellish, resequence etc., all of that to satisfy her agenda.
If you are interested, or for anyone else, here is a webpage where I explained why "Luke" knew 'Wars' but not 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html
On this other webpage, I demonstrated why "Luke" was a woman, from a Roman colony, Philippi in Macedonia, which would explain most of the motivation and agenda of "Luke": very much pro-feminist, pro-Roman, trumpeting Philippi, making sure that the "council of Jerusalem" happened before Paul went to Philippi (with his gospel approved by the Church of Jerusalem!), pro-Pauline (after all Paul started Christianity in Philippi --among women):
http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
I want to add the Christology and theology in Luke's work are not quite the same as in the Pauline letters. But the Lukan community was not in a vacuum and followed trends away from Pauline ideas and also had to adopt Jewish Christian concepts (such as Son of David --but not from the royal line!, no sacrifice for sins).

aa5874

Please, examine your own question, "
If the epistles were written after Acts, why didn't the fabricators go to greater pains to match the letters to the itinerary in Acts?

Now, I ask you If the epistles were written BEFORE Acts, why didn't the fabricators go to greater pains to match the letters to the itinerary in Acts?

Why does NOT gLuke's birth narrative and gMatthew's match when one must have written after the other?

Why does not the last chapter of the Short-Ending gMark MATCH the Long-Ending gMark when one MUST have been written after the other?

Why does NOT gJohn MATCH the Synoptics when one must have been written after the others?

The answers are EXTREMELY easy to resolve.

The Jesus story was changed and more so-called details were added.

The stories with more details and most changes are considered LATER.

The Pauline writings are SPECIFICALLY aimed at the Post-Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writings begin where the Gospels end.

The Pauline writings begin AFTER Jesus was raised from the dead and the Gospels END after the resurrection.

The Pauline wrtings contain SIX post resurrection visits by Jesus with over 500 PEOPLE in one session.

No one of the FIVE Gospel authors and not even Acts of the Apostles record such events.

The author of gMark ENDS his story by claiming NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

The author of Acts ENDS his story without ever stating Paul wrote an epistle.

It must be clear that the authors of the NT, all of them, were NOT aware of the Pauline claim of the SIX Post resurrection visits.

You don't understand the evidence from antiquity---perhaps Doherty and Ehrman.

You don't understand Justin Martyr, Aristides, Ephraim the Syrian, Hippolytus, "Against Heresies" 2.22, Minucius Felix, Pliny the younger, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Celsus, Origen and Eusebius.

You need to understand the evidence of antiquity.

You need to understand that the Pauline writer NEVER claimed he wrote any letters to the Churches Before c 68 CE and Neither did the author of Acts.

aa5874

Again, why are you as a moderator acting in such a manner? You are constantly and deliberately making Unsubstatiated claims.

Why??? Why??? Why???

I have lost all confidence in you as a fair moderator.

Duvduv

Acts does not mention the issue of justification without the law for gentiles to whom Paul was directed, evidently because the Paul of Acts was to busy ignoring that directive and talking to Jews.

Acts does not discuss the indwelling of the Christ in the believer or vice versa. Acts only mentions that believers had "faith" without explaining faith in WHAT.

Unlike the epistles, Acts knows of someone called the Baptist, but doesn't even in passing hint at who he was at all for the sake of those who hadn't yet downloaded the rest of the NT ("Oh, yeah, you mean THAT John the Baptist from your first volume?").

We know of many other discrepancies because they have been discussed frequently on this Board.

And of course if Acts were written by the same person who wrote GLuke, then pray tell. why does Acts never refer to a single aphorism, such as any good preacher would do, of the HJ.

And if Acts were written to counter the epistles in doctrine, i.e. that the author of Acts believed "Paul" to be different than the fabricated Paul of the epistles, what is so important about the biography of this Paul altogether, when surely a biography of Andrew or James would be far more interesting, or even a biography of Peter, all of whom knew the HJ that appears in the gospels? Or does the author rely on the subtle detection of the average reader to say, "Oh, now I got it" especially when there is no explanation of what was wrong with the Paul of the epistles in the first place?

Toto

If the purpose of Acts is to emphasize the unity of purpose between Paul and Peter, why would the author want to even mention any theological disagreements?

Acts makes only a passing reference to the baptism of John. Why would you expect more?

Where exactly would you expect Jesus' words to be quoted?

Evidently the early preachers in Christianity did not quote Jesus. The historical Jesus was a later development.


I don't get the point here.

Paul was an independent force who had to be tamed. Acts is not a subtle discourse. Act is not a biography of Paul - it is a fictional history of the early church.