Duvduv

Another interesting observation to suggest composites in one text by more than one hand, AA. However, Acts also doesn't do a satisfactory job in filling in the 3+14 years of no information of the activities and whereabouts of Paul after his revelation identified in Acts (and then the very brief mention in Galatians). One would assume that Acts would tell us how successful and glorious Paul's preaching was to the gentiles during the missing years since we learn how great he was at baffling the Jews. Instead we see alot about failed attempts to the Jews thereafter, leading one to suppose that between Jerusalem and Jerusalem Paul was trying to preach to Jews. What happened to his powers of baffling?!

And of course Galatians doesn't say a word about those lost years of successful and glorious preaching. So how many people were involved here? A persecutor named Paul; a persecutor named Saul; a new man missing for 17 years; a Paul preaching to Jews when he was supposed to preach to the gentiles; a Paul writing letters and preaching to gentiles.

aa5874

Again, when we read Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul is almost always preaching to Jews--the Circumcised.

In Acts, the very FIRST time Saul/Paul goes to Rome, there were ALREADY some brethren around Rome and Saul/Paul MEETS and Consults with Jews in the City.

Acts 28:17 KJV But, now the Jews in ROME will state that they NEVER received any letter from anyone about Paul.

Acts 28.21 Acts of the Apostles was COMPOSED BEFORE the so-called Pauline letters to the Uncircumcised Churches.

Duvduv

According to traditional dating Epistle to the Romans was written around 58 CE. In Acts Paul arrives in Rome in 60 CE. Could any intelligent believer have noticed that in 60 Paul was unknown in Rome and yet had written a letter to his followers in ROME two years EARLIER? When he claimed that the faith was known throughout the world?!

And this is supposed to have happened two years before the statement you quote, AA, from Acts 28:21.

Romans 1:8
Let me say first that I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith in him is being talked about all over the world.

aa5874

The TRADITION is based on Acts of the Apostles---The very source that is considered highly unreliable and full of fiction.

The very same persons who claim that they do NOT trust Acts use it for their History for Paul and the History of the Jesus cult.

The claim that the Pauline letters are early, before c 70 CE, is fundamentally based on Acts.

However, ALL DATED Texts show a BIG BLACK HOLE for Paul and his letters before c 58 CE.

Duvduv

Good point, which is why Acts or some other filler story served an absolutely indispensible role in establishing the first century scenario since it would have been impossible to date anything for the believers about Paul from the epistles alone.

On the other hand Acts did not trigger a bunch of epistles from Peter or anyone else except for Paul himself. So the church could have lived with only Acts without any epistles about this other apostle unless such epistles emerged from elsewhere.

If "Saint Peter" and his legacy was enough without letters than presumably "Saint Paul" could have had a similar legacy. However it wasn't enough. They still wanted to take on the ideology of the epistles with no comparable set of texts from Peter, Barnabas, John, James or anyone else.

aa5874

Your stories keep CHANGING post by post. Please, what is your position, now???

My position is that Acts of the Apostles was COMPOSED BEFORE the Pauline writings. This means the Pauline letters are NO earlier than the 2nd century which is compatible with the DATED NT manuscript.

Duvduv

No. I haven't changed my position. I still view Acts as coming from a different source than the epistles and unlikely from the 2nd century as opposed to later, which I know is considered heresy to some secularists, The epistles are often incoherent and appear to have been rushed to meet a "deadline." But the church was able to superficially view them as complementing each other as long as a reader does not analyze them or compare them too closely.