angelo

There is precious little that has survived today that is any older than around the 3rd century. And even that proves nothing except to throw doubt on the whole stated origins of xtianity and it's founder. I'm in the myther ranks, I can't see any solid evidence that Jesus ever existed.

aa5874

I did NOT really ask you for your rank.

You claimed that you were of the opinion that Acts of the Apostles was written AFTER Galatians and I asked you to provide the source of antiquity for such an opinion.
There is NO source of antiquity provided.
Now you tell me that little has survived older than the 3rd century.

What was supposed to survive before the 3rd century???

You expect to find writings from the 3rd century to be DATED to the 1st??

The evidence that we find and are dated REPRESENT history---we cannot assume that our imagination can re-construct the past.

There is ZERO evidence from antiquity that Acts of the Apostles was written after the Pauline letters when the author of Acts appear NOT to know of any Pauline letters.

angelo

Yet the majority of bablical scholars insist that Acts is from the author of Luke and much later than Gal. I understand there is no evidence from antiquity for this stand except perhaps pre-conceived personal ideas on the historians part.

Toto

If they are being careful, Biblical scholars state that the gospel of Luke and Acts have the same final editor, based on the use of language. Paul is assumed to be earlier based on the chronology of Acts and some assumptions that might be true or not. But these are not preconceived or personal ideas - there is a method.

tanya

I do not agree with you.

The "method" of analysis of Luke and Acts to determine a date of publication is based on imagination, not science.

So, some folks think this "prediction" that the temple will fall, represents an after the fact statement, thus, Acts follows Luke, and that still doesn't tell us anything about Galatians. It is all just supposition. Literary compositions need not follow actual dates reliably.

Kent F

Yes, but why assume that the changes were made in Galatians? To me it's obvious that the changes to the story were made in Acts.

You say in this thread that Acts is not reliable, that it's a fairy tale, and I totally agree, but what puzzles me is that you still use it as evidence against Galatians. A fairy tale story can't be used as evidence against anything.

Acts is full of utterly unbelievable stories but nothing of the sort appear in Galatians. The epistle has a genuine core, Acts has not.

No, we can't. All we can deduce is that Acts was a late addition, since it's not quoted until late 2nd century.

We can see that the Gospel writers and the writer of Acts added the "human" aspect of the story of the Pauline resurrection since Paul never mentioned the virgin Mary, John the Baptist, the disciples, the miracles, Pilate and the empty tomb.

The personal revelation is not only present in Galatians, it's everywhere in the Pauline epistles. Then Acts, the fairy tale, invents Saul and that Saul/Paul was a persecutor of the early christians. That Paul did consult with others before he started to preach is therefore also an invention.

Clement of Alexandria had a different version of Galatians. The numerous writings against Marcion also show that there existed different versions of Galatians and the other epistles. The different versions were shorter and therefore earlier. The Roman church added to them. The King Aretas nonsense is one such addition. Going to Jerusalem after three years is another.

Many biblical scholars admit that the Pauline epistles have been tampered with. Few, if any, claim that Acts have been interpolated. Why is that? Who interpolated the epistles and why was it done? The obvious answer is that the interpolations were done by the same people who championed Acts as a true story. They tried to make Paul look like their Paul, when he was not. In Acts, Paul is merely a spokesperson for Peter. In the epistles, he says he has his own gospel, from no man. Paul belonged to an earlier church, the Alexandrian one.

The first christians, or rather chrestians, were followers of Mark (Mark=Paul) and since Mark is the patron saint of Alexandria to this day, and considered its first bishop, why should it be so hard to accept that the Alexandrian church was the earliest and that Mark/Paul was its main writer? After all, the Alexandrian church was the first to adopt the title Pope. The Roman church stole this title, just as they stole its main writer and added their own patron saint Peter. And since the Roman church emerged as a power in the late 2nd century, the Alexandrian church has to be earlier.

The author of Galatians/the epistles is "someone like Moses" because he delivers a new interpretation of the old law, a new covenant. This in itself proves that the so called genuine Pauline epistles are after the fall of the temple in 70 CE but it also proves they are earlier than Acts. Why? Because a Paul later than Acts would have been killed as a heretic: he rejected the old law, preached a Jesus who was wholly divine, not born of the virgin Mary, not baptized by John and because he said he had his own gospel of no man, he would also be judged as rejecting the gospel writers. Why would such a man be allowed to preach and why would the Roman church preserve any of his writings? But a Paul earlier than Acts (and the power of the Roman church) didn't have to be killed as he was already dead when Acts was written!

DCHindley

On Crosstalk back in 6 Feb 2003, Sakari Hakkinen had questioned this assumption in a way I found interesting. He says, in part:

The usual arguments proposed for the same author are:
1. The forword with the dedication to Theophilus.
2. Linguistic similarities: vocabulary, style etc.
3. Theology.
4. The way how the sources are used, including doublets.

He notes, though, that arguments based on linguistics can be reversed.

When linguistic parallels are used to claim that two texts are written by same author, one should also give equal weight to dissimilarities. In the literature on Acts, usually the differences in style, vocabulary or syntax are explained by the use of different sources by the author in the Acts compared to the sources used in the Gospel. But let us imagine that the author of Acts was other than the author of GLuke. Then the linguistic similarities between the works would be explained by the use of GLuke as a source to Acts (and possibly by some common sources with GLuke). The dissimilarities would then be considered referring to the composer of Acts (or to some lost sources used by him).

I have read a journal article (now cannot be located) that noted that the vocabulary of Acts has closer affinity to that of John than Luke.

DCH

aa5874

Well, you have been CAUGHT in your OWN Trap. In this very post you state Galatians was CHANGED by the Roman Church.

You have done EXACTLY what I wanted you to do. You have IDENTIFIED those who wrote Galatians as found in Existing Codices and that Galatians is NOT Credible--A fairy Tale.

Galatians in the Existing Codices is a product of the Roman Church and was probably written in the 4th century if what you say is true.

Your IMAGINARY Galatians of Clement and Marcion have NOT been found.

There is ZERO credible evidence whatsoever in the Pauline writings themselves to show that they all could NOT have been written by the ROMAN Church.

Sheshbazzar

Yes. I certainly have a degree of faith, or confidence, but not in any miracles.

When there is so much evidence contained within The LXX that the NAME יהושע > Ἰησοῦν > Iēsous > 'Jesus' sic was known, was employed, and was understood to be the prophetic name of the coming 'High Priest' and 'Reconciler' at least 500 years before the alleged 'birth' of the mythical 'jeebus christ'. (Exodus 33:9-11, Deut 18:17-19, Zec 3:1-10, 6:12-13)

I have every reason to be very confident that midrash writings concerning this prophetic 'Joshua/jesus' the 'messiah/christ' figure existed long before the myhtical 'Jebus' of Nazereth' was ever invented or 'born'.

It is my confident expectation -based upon present and readily available TEXTUAL EVIDENCE- that as Archaeolgy advances, these pre-christian era writings will eventually turn up, as well as those original Jewish writings of Saul The shälakh' that christianity doctored and corrupted.

Anyway, we are of one accord in our convictions that the claims of christianity, and of any HJ are doomed to bite the dirt.
I simply believe that the evidence, when it is all in, is not going to be based upon our opinions or personal persuasions or interpretations, but upon the uncovering of rock solid, tangible and irrefutable Archaeological evidences.
The days of 'Babylon the Great', 'The Whore', and all of her whoring daughters are numbered, and it is all about to come crashing down and be utterly destroyed in One Day.

aa5874

Your claim is completely erroneous. There is NO method to show that any of the Pauline writings were composed before c 70 CE except the "Presumption Method".

The Pauline writings, P 46, are DATED to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

All claims by Biblical Scholars about the DATE of Pauline writings are PRESUMPTIVE.

Biblical Scholars have UTTERLY failed to show that:

1. There are NO dated Pauline letters in the 1st century.

2. The author of Acts did NOT claim SAUL/PAUL wrote any letters to churches.

3. The author of Acts claimed SAUL/PAUL as his group DELIVERED letters written by the Jerusalem Church.

4. Apologetics of antiquity have claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

5. An Apologetic of antiquity has claimed Paul wrote his letters AFTER Revelation.

6. Letters attempting to place Paul before c 70 CE have been deduced to be forgeries.

7. The Pauline writers themselves did NOT state that they wrote letters to CHURCHES before c 70 CE.

The Pauline writings are deemed to be early by the Presumption method NOT by Evidence.