mountainman

Yes, the author of the Acts of Thomas was poking fun at the
ascetic and spiritual status, and the activities of the christian
apostles, and at the relationship between them and Jesus.

The text plainly states that Thomas was the slave of Jesus.
Moreover that Jesus sold his slave Thomas at the Saturday
afternoon markets and received in exchange a bill of sale.

The Indian King floats Thomas alot of money to build a palace.
Thomas spends it all. The news was not Good News for the King"

And when the king heard that,
he rubbed his face with his hands,
and shook his head for a long space.

Where's Billy Connelly when you need him?

PhilosopherJay

Hi toto,

Thanks for bringing up the prosecution and defense arguments.

I am reminded of what G.E. Moore said, "I do not think that the world or the sciences would ever have suggested to me any philosophical problems. What has suggested philosophical problems to me is things which other philosophers have said about the world or the sciences."

The interesting thing for me is not that the Jews would fabricate charges of both troublemaking and disobeying Jewish laws, but the response of Paul.

It is a clear statement by Paul that he is Jewish and Christians are Jews.

This leads to the question of "Did the Jews have a right to persecute fellow Jews". I think the answer is yes. The practices of the Jews like circumcision were abhorrent to the Romans. Tacitus captures how the Romans regarded the Jewish customs:

In other words, Romans allow Jews the autonomy to do things that they themselves consider abhorent.

Josephus confirms this tolerance:

The Romans have a hands-off policy when it comes to Jews and Jewish laws. It is only when there are disputes between non-Jews and Jews that the Romans are brought in to decide things. This is my reading of the situation. If someone has counter-evidence I would be interested to hear it.

If Jews are dealing with Jewish problems, then Paul's admission that he is a Jew means that legally the Jews have jurisdiction over him. Paul condemns himself by his defense argument that he is a Jew.

It is my hypothesis that this leads to the author having to re-evaluate the relationship of Christianity and Judaism and to come to the conclusion that Christians are not the old Jews, but Jews of a new type. This is reflected in the doctrines espoused in Romans.

I would note that I believe that Plato also broke off his writing about Atlantis because he found himself in a similar contradiction. Plato had argued in the Republic that the Gods should not be shown doing harm to people. However, in the tale of Atlantis it is the Gods who destroy Atlantis. When Plato realized that his tale broke his rule against showing the Gods in a bad light, he quit writing in mid-sentence.

We have to see it as a contradiction within the author. He is a Christian, but he is also a rhetorician/lawyer. As a Christian he wants to send Paul to Rome to prove that the Roman Church was blessed by Paul. As a rhetorician/lawyer, he wants to get his client off from the false charges against him. Getting Paul to Rome was the easy part, he just had to make him a Roman citizen. However, knowing that his audience knew that Paul was Jewish presented him with in an insoluble problem in his narrative. Caesar would have no choice but to hand the Jew over to the Jews for judgment. He could not get his client off.

The revaluation of the position of Christianity to Judaism that we see in Romans is the result of his attempt to solve this artistic/legal problem.

It is natural for Christians who wish to see the author only as a Christian reporting history and not a rhetorician/lawyer creating a fictional narrative, to not see the problem. They do not wish to see the major narrative flaw. For nine chapters (1/3 of the novel) the narrative builds towards a trial before Caesar, a replay of the Jesus trial, but this time with a happy ending due to the intervention of the blessed Emperor of Rome. The author can't deliver on his happy ending, so he leaves it unfinished. The Christians do not care what happened to Paul, they're just happy that he made it to Rome.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Solo

Hi Pete,
although the Greeks had a concept of continents (Europa, Libya, Asia) the Acts/Pauline letters context
of Asia is without much doubt the province of Asia in today's Turkey.

The prohibition of the Holy Spirit to preach in Asia in Acts 16:6, is followed by a trip to neighbouring Mysia, in northwestern Anatolia, only to suffer the same taboo by the picky Spirit nixing a visit to Bithynia just east. The interdictions to preach in Asia may be a rendering of Paul's 2 Cor 1:8 in which he describes his bout with severe depression in that part of the world:

For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. .

I don't think there is any connection to Hindiusm or Buddhism as religious competitors.

Best,
Jiri

dog-on

I think that the author of Acts was the editor of what we now call Luke, as well as the editor of the Pauline Epistles.

arnoldo

Agreed, Eusebius plainly states this in his introduction in The History of the Church;

mountainman

Thanks Arnaldo.

Eusebius says that he will provide the names and dates of these heretics. But in all his massive Ecclesiastical History there is not even one name mentioned specifically as an author of an extant NT apocryphal tractate. We need to ask the question why does Eusebius not give us the name of the author of any of the NT Apocryphal stories which he lists as heretical. He is very prepared to utterly denounce these authors and their philosophy, but he does not provide us with any data, even though he tells us that he will.

If you were writing a history of the authorship of the christian literary material do you think you would provide the name of authors who created and preserved these non canonical stories about Jesus and the Apostles? Can anyone think of a good reason why Eusebius would not disclose the name and/or names of these terribly perverted and unknowledgeable gnostic heretics?

Why are we trusting Eusebius as an integrous source of data concerning the historical opposition to the new cult of canonical christianity? Eusebius seems to be considered as a divine and unquestionable source of knowledge, both for the history of the Good Guys and for the history of the Bad Guys. This is an unprofessional approach to skepticism. Somewhere along the line we need to critically question the integrity of Eusebius.

If we are not going to make any headway in this matter with the canonical new testament, and are content to trust the Eusebian account, then it seems to me that we must necessarily view the Eusebian account of the heretics with certain reservations.

Christianity is a coin with two sides.
One one side is the Canonical NT.
On the flip side is the NT Apocrypha.

Together they are one cohesive
historical literary phenomenom
collectively called "Christian origins".

The evidence of the manuscript tradition
suggests that the texts are sourced
from the fourth century coptic and syriac
and a likely Greek original authorship.

Eusebius is lying throiugh his teeth about
the heretics. They were writing "The Acts
of Pilate" in Eusebius' time, and having it
read out aloud in the grass-root pagan
schools. Eusebius cannot tell us who was
responsible for the authorship of these
heretical tractates. Why?

aa5874

The author of Acts did not appear to have originally wrote about Paul or was aware of Paul. Saul was apparently the only name of the character from the start. It wll be noticed that the author of Acts did not give the alias for Saul as soon as he introduced Saul for the first time at the end of Acts 7.

The author would immediately give the surnames or aliases of other characters as soon as they were introduced for the first time.

The surname and alias of Joseph is given immediately, it would appear that the author was already aware of this character or knew that he would include a character called Joseph Justus in his story.

Ac 1:23 - Again, the author of Acts knew in advance that a character called Barnabas would be included in his story and readily gives the other name for Joses as Barnabas from the very first time he introduced the character in Acts 4.36.

Ac 4:36 –
The first time the name Tabitha appears in Acts, the author immediately gives the other name Dorcas for Tabitha clearly implying that he was aware of the character or that he knew in advance that Tabitha would be called Dorcas in his post-ascension story.

Ac 9:36 – The author of Acts introduced a character called John and proceeds right away to give John the surname Mark. John surnamed Mark was either known to the author or was a name chosen by the author to make up his cast for his story.

Ac 12:12 – Again, the author immediately calls Simeon by another name, Niger.
Ac 13:1 – Another character Judas, presented for the first time, is allocated the surname Barsabas.
Ac 15:22 – So, it is noticed that the author of Acts has developed a pattern. Any characters with other names or surnames, as soon as they are introduced, their other name or surname is given.

In the very verse that the character is presented for the first time their other names are given.

But, Saul was introduced for the first time in Acts 7.58 and it is only in Acts 13.9 that Saul was changed to Paul without any explanation.

In the story of Acts, Jesus, the Holy Ghost, Joses called Barnabas, and Ananias all used the name Saul.

Acts 7.58Acts 9.4Acts 9.17Acts 9.26Ac 11:25 - Acts 13.2 Now, if the author of Acts was aware of Paul and knew that he was called Saul, the author could have notified the readers as early as Acts 7.58 where Saul was introduced for the first time just as did for Joses called Barnabas who travelled with Saul.

Based on the information found in Acts, it would appear to me that the author of Acts was not aware of the name Paul, Pauline letters, the Pauline gospel by revelations or the Pauline churches and probably, initially, wrote about a character called Saul which was later changed to Paul after the Pauline letters were completely fabricated.

It should be noted that the Pauline character in the epistles never claimed he was once called Saul, was from Tarsus and used to visit the synagogues of Jews on Sabbath days all over the Roman Empire.


Based on Acts, Saul was just a character that tried to convince Jews about Jesus on Sabbath days in the synagogues all over the Roman Empire, there is really no information about any churches started by Saul although churches are mentioned with almost no details whatsoever.

The author of Acts was not likely to write the Pauline letter called Romans, but perhaps, the Pauline authors did change the word Saul to Paul as found after Acts 13.9, where the word Saul was eliminated and Paul was inserted for the next 15 chapters.