Toto

This is a rather breath taking statement. Which serious academics have you read? Richard Pervo seems to dismiss the reliability of the historical content of Acts.

The Jews had been in existence for centuries. Christianity had just been invented.

archibald

Calm down Toto. Count to ten. Reread the post.

'Dismissing the reliability' is obviously not at all uncommon.

If Pervo (what a fab surname) goes as far as suggesting there is no history at all in Acts (or more to the point that it was meant as fiction), he would, I think, still be rare, or at least in a very small minority, as I understand it. I'm not even sure he excludes the possibility¹, since I understand that he thinks Luke used Josephus as a source. This appears to be one of his reasons for dating Acts to the start of the 2nd C.²

You may now breathe easy again.

All I was saying is that Rome was the capital city and all roads (and busy sea routes) led there. I was asking the question, why wouldn't some Christians have reached Rome after 20 years, perhaps via Jewish connections? But what I would actually like is some evidence that it hadn't or that Paul wasn't writing to there, but to somewhere else. I accept these things are possible, and can be speculated.

Wouldn't it be the more objective order of approach to first note that the evidences appear to say 'Christians in Rome', and then ask what evidence there is to the contrary?

^1. From an interview with Richard Pervo:

'In 1987 Profit with Delight compared Acts with historical novels, but did not press the identification. This claim is sophistry: Ancient novels are romances. Acts is not a love story. Therefore Acts is not a novel. No one, to my knowledge, has called Acts a romantic novel. (Interaction with romantic novels is as early as the Acts of Paul). The issue has been the range of comparison. Does one stop at top shelf, or also look lower? The objective has been to read Acts in terms of popular literature. One may call it “apologetic history,” “popular narrative,” or whatever. “Historical novel” is acceptable. Acts is more like Alexander Romance and Artapanus than Thucydides or Polybius. (Both Greg Sterling and Richard Pervo point to Artapanus as a major model for comparison.)

The objections to viewing Acts as a specimen of historiography are major. This is a separate question from historical value (not handled aptly in Profit with Delight, which assumed, sometimes argued, historical problems as a means for urging wider generic exploration.) Acts is best viewed as a response to contemporary issues rather than as an attempt to extract historical data from various scraps of tradition.'

http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/20...o-re-acts.html




^2. Interview here: http://www.westarinstitute.org/Polebridge/mystery.html


Incidentally, it may also be worth generally adding to Tacitus and Suetonius that Pliny the Younger was (according to his letters to Trajan) sending Christians to Rome for trial (Roman converts) by around 100-110AD.

archibald

Not a lot, perhaps. There doesn't seem to be much in the list to indicate Rome.

The only one I might consider as any way even half decent is the one above, 'proclaimed in all the world'. This might be seen as meaning all the 'known' world, which would imply including Rome, which, for instance, was, I have read, thought to have been referred to as 'earth's remotest end' in the Psalms of Solomen.

As for the rest, I would have to hear why he thinks they do. On the face of it, they don't seem to say enough.

It might be worth adding that 2 Timothy also refers to Rome, though was this Paul writing? Some say yes, but it's not part of the consensus. Who knows? It was certainly written by someone, and if that someone wasn't Paul, or Luke, then it was someone else (an anonymous follower, after his death?) who had heard of Paul in connection with Rome. Doesn't make it true, obviously.

Intrestingly, even Pervo, whom Toto cited, has said that 'everyone knew that Paul was a great Roman martyr'.¹ He suggests that when the epistles (including this one) discuss how Paul anticipates his death, this is a revisionist account of something (Paul's death as a blow) which may have been difficult to accomodate in an idealization of Paul, for a Paulite like Luke, in Acts. Of course, when Pervo says 'everybody knew', he probably means everybody knew the story, not everbody knew it for a fact. This was not an uncommon standard (including heard stories in one's accounts). There is no doubt that even if Luke saw himself as an historian (which it appears he definitely did) he would not be considered a reliable historian by today's standards. Too much bias and unchecked sources and revisionism. 'Church history' of this sort was not history. It was 'winner's version'. This is a common mess for ancient historians to wade through, in many, many ancient texts.

Richard Carrier goes as far as to say² 'He (Luke) may well be an accurate historian, but that does not make him a critical historian. Only content like that of Suetonius (previously discussed in the chapter) can identify a critical historian from a merely accurate one. Still, the quality of Luke as a historian need not be denied here........that does not mean his information on private matters transmitted solely by hearsay through an unknown intermediarys was good, or that he did not import his own assumptions...'

(My brackets)




^1. In the second interview linked to in my previous post.
^2. 'Not the Impossible Faith', page 185

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrewcriddle,

Acts 19:21 does tell us exactly whom the Letters to the Romans was originally written for:

Compare to Letter to the Thessalonians:

1Paul and Silvanus and Timothy,
To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace.

Logically, if one goes from Macedonia to Achaia, one has to pass back through Thessaloniki in order to get to Jerusalem. The sentence after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia[/B], saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” makes no sense as it is now, but it would make perfect sense reading after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia[/B], saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Thessaloniki.”

The letter to the Thessalonikians tells us that he visited Thessaloniki before visiting Macedonia and Achaia. It is logical to assume that the source of Acts had Thessalonki as the intermediary place before he goes to Jerusalem. Rome is completely in the opposite direction, far to the West and makes no sense as a destination if one is traveling from Corinth in Achaia back to Jerusalem.

In the current Thessalonikians 1 and 2, Paul has already visited Thessaloniki and Corinth. The letter now called "Romans" was written to explain how Paul got to Thessaloniki.

In Thessalinikians 1, Paul says "after we had already suffered and been mistreated in Philippi, as you know, we had the boldness in our God to speak to you the gospel of God amid much opposition."

But note this in the current ending to Romans:

The ending of Romans was actually part of the ending of Thessalonikians 2.

We may take it that there was originally two letters to the Thessalonikians - the first a "pre-visiting" letter sent from Philippi and the second a "I'm coming back" letter. The current edition of Romans takes part of the first pre-visiting letter for its beginning and part of the second "I'm coming back" letter for its ending.

The current two letters of Thessalonikians are both from the original second "I'm coming back" letter.

Whoever created Romans must have known that people expected two Thessalonikian letters. Therefore, when he changed the first "pre-visiting" letter to "Romans," he must have also split the second "I'm coming back" Thessalonikian letter into two letters.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Paul is on his way to Jerusalem after visiting Macedonia and Achaia and will stop off at Thessaloniki to collect some money. The word Spain is substituted for the word Phillipi which was in the original text.

In the Philippians, Paul confirms that he preached in Philippi before going to Thessaloniki:

Toto

His surname is Finnish. He is the foremost authority on Acts.

Why are you not looking for some evidence that there were Christians in Rome at that time, or that Paul was writing to a church there? You are inverting the burden of proof and labeling one possibility as speculative.

Your "evidence" is the produce of a church that centered itself in Rome and has a documented history of forgery.

archibald

The first bit is just upside down thinking. Goodness knows what way your reasoning processes must work. For one thing, you don't seem to grasp that the texts are the starting point, as regards counting evidence. For another, I don't have to 'label' anything as speculative when it just is obviously more so.

The second bit is not even accurate. Tacitus is the produce of the church? Care to establish that? Oh yeah, the same editor did him and a few others. Yeah. I forgot.

And sequeing from the general to the particular like that as regards forgeries. well, it's just, er, breathtaking. :]

Regardless of the facts of the matter, I do not get the impression that you are able to even grasp the principles, or for that matter distinguish between what somebody actuall says and what you think it seems to say. I would strongly prefer it if you didn't respond to any more of my posts.

As for Pervo, he turns out to be the latest in a growing line of people you link me to who upon investigation don't quite give you as much support as first implied.

GakuseiDon

In 1 Clement, we have:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...t-roberts.html

Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation... Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.

Would "under the prefects" best fit Rome?

Toto

The texts are the starting point, but accepting them at face value is not. There are people who claim that anyone claiming an interpolation has a heavy burden of proof. These people are just wrong.

I was referring to the content of Paul's epistle to the Romans. But yes, we only have copies of Tacitus because the Christian church preserved them, and monks copied them. This church does have a record of pious forgery. What is your objection to this?

Feel free to point out where you think I am mistaken. I might be.

And leave you free to post misinformation? This is not an option.

Then please point out exactly what your objection is. I have read several of his books. I don't cite him as support for mythicism.

mountainman

Reasoning processes in the field of ancient history generally start with the evidence. Goodness knows what way your reasoning processes must work.


The texts are anonymous and undated and are associated with a highly suspicious provenance. This is your starting point.

There are no certainties since the field (of history) can only be described in a probabilistic sense.

Please arnaldo, you need to look at the evidence itself. The evidence suggests that there was a succession of centuries editors of the source material claimed to establish the absolute certitude of Chrestian origins.




Sloncha !

Sheshbazzar

How -smoothly- that was inserted into Clement!