jakejonesiv

In the Pauline Epistles, Paul is an apostle because he received his authority directly from Jesus Christ in vision by direct revelation. Acts has three contradictory accounts of Paul's vision (Acts 9, 22 and 26), and never once does the author of Acts confer the title of apostle to Paul for visions. Instead he is a witness (martus), a self-witness is not sufficient.

In Acts, Apostleship is redefined (from a witness of the Risen Jesus) to exclude Paul. When discussing a replacement for Judas, the requirement is stated, "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" Acts 1:21. Thus "Matthias; ... was added to the eleven apostles. But please notice that by requiring that an Apostle had been a companion of the [alleged] earthly Jesus, Paul is forever excluded, and his title of Apostle denied.

Indeed, Paul is called an apostle only once, in the entire book of Acts, and that is 14:14, where it is only in conjunction with Barnabas. But Barnabas is no more an Apostle than Saul (see Acts 9:27). At best, Paul is an apostle (in the mundane sense of messenger) with a small "a" while Peter and James et. al. are Apostles with a large "A".


It is striking that the only time that Paul is labeled an apostle in Acts [But see note 1], it is as a team with Barnabas, who is a figure of minor authority, lesser than the Twelve? (Acts 4:33,36). And Barnabbas is named first! "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd..." Acts 14:14, cf 14:4.

Thus if Acts 4:4,14 confers full apostleship equal to the Twelve upon Paul, it also does the same thing to Barnabas. I can find no record of this in any document of the early church.

Barnabas is called an apostle in the lesser sense because he and Saul were sent forth by the church at Antioch on a particular mission (13:1-3). This is in contrast with the definition of Apostle given in Acts 1:22. They were not Apostles, as in the Twelve, but apostles as in messengers. Thus I have have stated, Paul is not an Apostle with a capital "A" but with a small "a" no higher than Barnabbas. [See note 2].

And when Paul goes off on his own in the last dozen chapters, the term apostle disappears from the text.

Paul is given a false background of "Saul" joined in the flimsiest fashion. Paul is nowhere identified with Saul except in the canonical book of Acts.

The author of Acts knew that Pauline authority derived from the epistles written in his name, but he effectively took them away from Paul by never openly acknowledging them.

The catholic author of Acts was out to neuter the fire breathing Apostle who thundered that anyone who opposed his gospel was to be accursed. Galatians 5:2 states "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Acts turns Paul into a milksop and a toady. He directly undercut Galatians 5:2 with Acts 16:3. "Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." It is absolutely unbelievable that such an act could be attributed to Paul without sinister motivation.

The author of Acts knowingly suppresses the Paul of the Epistles and dilutes his uniqueness by taking away some the signature features assigning them to Peter. The line between Peter and Paul is smeared. The author of Acts put the Pauline teachings of the epistles and into the mouth of Peter (Acts 15:7-11), while Paul and Barnabas are reduced to telling miracle stories (15:12)! It is Peter (not Paul) who receives divine revelation to eat with Gentiles. Peter supplants Paul with the first conversion of a Gentile, Acts 10:1-11:8. The Paul of the epistles proclaimed the grace of God and the end of the Torah (law). But Acts portrays Paul as a Torah observant Jew, and Paul went along with some elements of Torah were required even of Gentile converts, Acts 15:19-21.

After Paul is torn down from his lofty position as the “Apostle of the heretics” and made subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles (who are the proxies of the Roman church), he is remade into a good catholic saint, a heroic figure indeed, but no longer a threat to the authority emerging catholic church. The “Acts of the Apostles” was written for this very purpose; to create the illusion of harmonious Christian origins.


We have identified the historical rational for Acts that fits very well with the results of a historical-critical study of the Christian sects of the middle second century CE. Marcion had appeared with the first canon consisting of ten Pauline epistles and an early version of the Gospel of Luke. Marcion challenged the authority of the Roman church (which appealed to Peter and the Twelve Apostles) and dismissed the validity of the Hebrew scriptures to Christianity. The Acts of the Apostles countered Marcion by subverting the epistles, demoting Paul to a lower position as a good catholic, and by insisting that Jesus and the apostles fulfilled prophecies, paved the way for the inclusion of the Hebrew scriptures in the Christian Bible as the Old Testament.


[Note 1: Unless the Western text preserves the original http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/more...ng_02_text.htm
[Note 2: This is an analogy used by e,g. Ben Witherington New Testament History (or via: amazon.co.uk) page 29.]


Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

The relationship of the Pauline Epistles to the “Acts of the Apostles” is a big theme in the discussion of early Christianity. The Paul of Acts writes no letters. This seems inexplicable; a Paul with no letters is no Paul at all.

Barbara Shellard (New Light on Luke, Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (or via: amazon.co.uk), JSNTS 215, Sheffield Academic Press 2002) details the vast difference of Paul in the Acts from the Paul of the epistle so that many scholars assume that Luke did not know Paul's letters. http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/SHENEWLIG

Many scholars have concluded that the author of Acts did not know of any Pauline epistles. That position has begun to crumble. We now know that the author of Acts did know the epistles. He did not mention them because he despised them and wrote to undercut their authority.


Acts should be dated into the second half of the second century CE. No one had ever mentioned that a gospel named Luke or a document “Acts of the Apostles” existed before Irenaeus. Neither Justin Martyr nor Marcion mentioned Acts. Either Acts was not yet written, or it was hidden for over a century, and emerged coincidentally at the exact time that Irenaeus began to teach that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. That is too much coincidence to accept without examination.

A number of NT scholars have found that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline epistles. John Knox found that the author of Acts suppressed mention of the epistles to domesticate Paul—and through Paul, Marcion.

Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) demonstrates that Luke/Acts were second century works written to refute Marcion. It is argued that Marcion's Gospel was not derived from canonical Luke, but from an earlier version much more similar to Mark than canonical Luke. It is also argued that Acts was written to combat the Paul of the Marcionite PE which identified Paul as the exclusive apostle. The author omitted any direct mention of the Epistles, and teamed Paul up with Peter to create a mythical false harmony between the two.
http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2007/3650.html

William O. Walker has argued that the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:1-3) is repudiation of Paul's statements on circumcision in Galatians 2:3-5.


Heikki Leppä, "Luke's Critical Use of Galatians" (Ph.d diss., University of Helsinki, 2002). Leppä finds verbal agreements between Acts and Galatians. Here is one out of many.
On 35-37 he discusses συμπαραλαβὼν (sumparalabōn). This word occurs a mere four times in the New Testament. Each time it is in the context of Paul taking a companion along with him on a trip.
Galatians 2:1 (συμπαραλαβὼν, sumparalabōn)
Acts 12:25 (συμπαραλαβόντες, sumparalabontes)
Acts 15:37 (συμπαραλαβεῖν, sumparalabein)
Acts 25:38. (συμπαραλαμβάνειν, sumparalambanein)
According to Leppä, the best explanation is that Gal. 2:1 was in the mind of the author when he wrote Acts 12:25, 15:37, and 25:38. This is conclusion is reinforced by the observation that the author did not use this word when he had the opportunity in contexts that did not pertain to Paul.


Michael D. Goulder, "Did Luke Know Any of the Pauline letters" Perspectivess in Religious Studies 13 (1986). According to Goulder, Luke may have known 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians.

Dating Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk), Richard I. Pervo, chapter 4, "Acts among the Apostles, the Letters of Paul"

The author of Acts knowingly suppresses the Paul of the Epistles and dilutes his uniqueness by taking away some the signature features of the “epistle Paul” and assigning them to Peter. The line between Peter and Paul is smeared. Indeed, Acts even went so far as to define apostleship to exclude Paul.
The author of Acts snatched the Pauline teachings of the epistles and putting them into the mouth of Peter (Acts 15:7-11), while Paul and Barnabas are reduced to telling miracle stories (15:12)! It is Peter (not Paul) who receives divine revelation to eat with Gentiles. Peter supplants Paul with the first conversion of a Gentile, Acts 10:1-11:8.

Galatians 5:2 states "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Acts turns Paul upside down. He directly undercut Galatians 5:2 with Acts 16:3. "Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." William O. Walker demonstrated verbal parallels between the account of Titus in Gal 2:1-5, and that of Timothy in Acts 16:1-3. "The Timothy-Titus Problem Reconsidered" (Expository Times 92, 1981).



The Paul of the epistles (and Marcion!) proclaimed the Grace of God and the end of the Torah (law). But Acts portrays Paul as a Torah observant Jew, and Paul went along with some elements of Torah were required even of Gentile converts, Acts 15:19-21.

We have identified a “Sitz im Leben” for Acts that fits very well with the results of a historical-critical study of the Christian sects of the middle second century CE. Marcion had appeared with the first canon consisting of ten Pauline epistles and an early version of the Gospel of Luke. He challenged the authority of the Roman church (which appealed to Peter and the Twelve Apostles) and dismissed the validity of the Hebrew scriptures to Christianity. The “Acts of the Apostles” countered Marcion by subverting the epistles, demoting Paul to a lower position as a “good catholic,” and by insisting that Jesus and the apostles fulfilled prophecies, paved the way for the inclusion of the Hebrew scriptures in the Christian Bible as the “Old Testament.”

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

With the rejection of Marcion by the Bishops of Rome, there was conflict between the sects. Proto-orthodoxy faced its greatest challenge, and the threat felt by the church must not be underestimated.



The Marcionites were tough opponents. The Marcionites had a universal message and a solid base of operations in Asia Minor. They were well funded. They had natural allies in the Gnostics. They had the Apostle Paul, and taught that only Paul knew the truth and he had gotten it directly by revelation from the Risen Christ. Marcion had a a clear articulation of Paul's justification by faith. Marcion was discrediting the Twelve Apostles including Peter. This struck at the heart of apostolic succession, the rationale for the Roman church’s supremacy.



And the Marcionites had something the catholics did not yet have; a canon of scripture.



So the catholics got busy to create their own canon of scripture to oppose the heretics. They co-opted and redacted the Marcionite Epistles of Paul. They could not throw Paul out, because the wanted to evangelize the Marcionites and convert as many as possible to the catholic sect. So they had to reposition Paul to a position more congenial to orthodoxy

Jake

jakejonesiv

In Acts chapter 9, the tale of how Saul was converted on the road to Damsacus is related. Many people assume that this is when Saul's name was changed to Paul. But this is incorrect. The Saul character retains his old name for four more chapters!

As late as Acts chapter 13, Saul still doesn't have his new name, Paul. Saul, Bar-Nabas, and John meet a magician named Bar-Jesus, the son of Jesus (13:6). How ironic! Of course, this magician must be labeled a false prophet (13:6).

The author of Acts immediately wishes to confuse the fact the the magican was known as the Son of Jesus by changing his name to Elymas (13:8), and claiming that is what Bar-Jesus meant all along. It makes no sense and has
lead to many variants in the extant manuscripts.

Bar-Jesus/Elymas was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus. This is the first time in Acts we encounter a Paul, and it isn't Saul.

But is soon as Sergius Paul is intoduced, within two verses, Saul takes his name! "Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence .... But Saul, also known as Paul..." Acts 13:7,9.

This is the old switcheroo. Sergius Paulus loses his name (he is merely the proconsul in 13:12), and henceforth Saul is known by his familiar name, Paul!

Now that the Catholic St. Paul, has fully been revealed by gaining his rightful name, sort of like Batman getting his first bat suit. He is now ready to battle the Magus, the arch heretic whom he calls "... son of the devil, you enemy of all that is right, full of every sort of deceit and fraud" Acts 13:10.


But there is something the author of Acts cannot hide; the new Paul is battling his evil doppleganger, his mirror image.

Paul continues in 13:10, "will you not stop twisting the straight paths of the Lord?" But wait, in Acts 9:11 it is Saul who is on Straight Street; now Elymas Bar-Jesus the Magician who is on Straight Street, and he is making it crooked.

The magician (is he son of Jesus or son of the Devil?) is struck blind for a time, just like the presumed Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.

"Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. For three days he was unable to see..." Acts 9:8-9. "You will be blind, and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately a dark mist fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand" Acts 13:11.

This story is the twin to Simon Peter's confrontation with a near identical Magician, the anti-Simon, Simon Magus. Acts 8:9-24. (In Acts, Peter and Paul are like the Double Mint Twins).

Who then is this son of Jesus, Elymas the magician? The closest one can find is Josephus Antiquities 20.7.2, which mentions a Jewish magician on Cyprus named "Atomos". But variants of this text give Simon as the magician's name.

Hermann Detering in "The Falsified Paul", pages 164-165 commented that when refering to a person, "Atomos" in Greek and "Paul" in Latin are equivalent.

Jake Jones IV

gurugeorge

Great stuff.

The author of Acts is in the tricky position of having to appeal to "Paul" as an authority, but having to make him seem less than the made-up "Apostles" of the "Apostolic Succession" (e.g. the made-up "Peter").

Perhaps this is is because "Paul" was the only genuine pre-Diaspora Christian known to the majority (non-orthodox, mostly proto-Gnostic) Churches, and this then-newfangled thing we now call "Orthodoxy" had to carve out some kind of authority for itself, independent of "Paul"'s merely visionary authority, but without alienating those whose authority was "Paul" (i.e the majority variegated types, Gentile remnants of "Paul"'s itenerant preaching).

So they invent the Apostolic Succession as a supposed authority, but actually (historically) have only "Paul" as an authority, just like everyone else.

aa5874

You really have no IDEA when Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were written so your claim that the author of Acts knew of "Pauline authority" is completely unsubstantiated.

You are merely repeating "Expert opinion" that is based on the FLAWED assumption that the Pauline writings are earlier.

Please NOTE that the name "PAUL" is a LATE ADDITION even in Acts. There was NO person IDENTIFIED as "PAUL" up to Acts 13.9.

SAUL was introduced since Acts 7.58 only as SAUL and then suddenly there was a name change in Acts 13.9.

'PAUL' did NOT ever claim he was called 'SAUL' in the Pauline writings so it made NO sense for the author of Acts to introduce a character called SAUL and then suddenly change to PAUL after calling the character SAUL over 20 times in six chapters.

"PAUL" is a LATE ADDITION to Acts of the Apostles. The story of "PAUL" is really the story of SAUL in Acts.

There was NO 1st century character named PAUL, a JEW and a Pharisee, who preached all over the Roman Empire before the Fall of the Temple that Jesus Christ, a JEWISH Man, BELIEVED to be the Son of God, was the End of the Law, REMITTED the Sins of all mankind by his resurrection and BEFORE whom all MUST BOW in the Roman Empire. .

Such a character like PAUL, A Blaspheming Jew, who placed a JEW, like the blaspheming Jesus, above the Roman Emperor, would have been IMMEDIATELY NEUTRALISED by the Romans and Jews and INSTANTLY destroyed.


Your statement is WHOLLY erroneous and based on FLAWED Expert Opinion.

The author of Acts was PUT FORWARD as a WITNESS for Paul.

NO other character, NOT even Jesus Christ, had an author as his WITNESS for his activities on earth.

The author of Acts DEDICATED about 12 chapters where he and Paul traveled, PREACHED and PRAYED together all OVER the Roman Empire.

The name Peter was RIPPED from Acts of the Apostles and NOT ever mentioned again after ACTS 15. Peter was DUMPED and Eliminated.

In fact, In Acts when PETER was ready to preach to the Gentiles for the first time, PAUL was ready to go on his SECOND expedition.

The author of Acts DEMORALISED Peter.


Ac 15:36 - PAUL had ALREADY evangelised CITIES of the Roman Empire . PAUL had CHOSEN men like Barnabas, Silas and Judas and Peter had NOTHING after the SHOWDOWN in Acts 15.

Acts of the Apostles DESTROYED and ELIMINATED Peter once and for all in Acts 15 and Never mentioned Peter's name again AFTER the SHOWDOWN in Jerusalem.

Examine the STATS in Acts

Before Acts 15.8 PETER is mentioned 56 times.

Before Acts 15.8 SAUL/PAUL is mentioned 31 times.

After Acts 15.8 PETER is Mentioned ZERO times.

After Acts 15.8 SAUL/PAUL is mentioned 120 times.

The author of Acts DEMOLISHED and DEMORALISED PETER after the SHOWDOWN in Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Acts of the Apostles appears to have been manipulated to Historicise PAUL.

tanya

"they" ??
suspected date when this manipulation occurred?

How would any Christian/Jew, living in the second or third century survive, while actively soliciting membership in a new, forbidden religion? Isn't it only after Constantine legalized the practice of all religions in the Roman empire, that Christianity could expand/flourish/commence? With all that notorious Roman repression, kind of makes one wonder how Polycarp, Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius lived into their 80's/70's? Very mysterious. Not only stalwart physical specimens, but also invisible to the Roman Army/police.

jakejonesiv

Thanks Bubba. Must be that good caribbean coffee.

aa5874

It is NOT inexplicable. Acts of the Apostles was NOT initially about Paul, it was about a character called Saul, and it was written BEFORE the Pauline letters were invented.

Up to the second century, it was claimed by Justin Martyr that it was the 12 ILLITERATE disciples that preach the gospel to EVERY race of men through out the world. See "First Apology".

Paul, the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles were unknown to Justin Martyr, Aristides, the author of Sinaiticus gMark, and the author "Against Heresies" 2.22.

It is also claimed by the Church that Paul was aware of gLuke See. "Church History".

It is time that people understand that the abundance of evidence suggest that the Pauline writings are ALL forgeries and that Paul LIVED AFTER gLuke was written.

aa5874

The answer is extremely simple. In the 2nd century, Christians were operating in Secret.

Celsus asserted that Christians established Secret Associations contrary to the Law.

"Against Celsus" 1
Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are historically bogus. It is virtually impossible that Peter and Paul could have OPENLY preached Jesus was the Son of God PUBLICLY and that he could REMIT sins.

They would have been INSTANTLY NEUTRALISED the way Jesus was IMMEDIATELY neutralised in the NT.