Duvduv

This is not nitpicking at all. It is pointing out the differences in world view based on the "hands" involved in writing the epistles.

Here is Galatians 1:11 followed by Galatians 1:15:

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.

And as far as Marcion is concerned, just note that Justin supposedly lived at the same time as Marcion in Rome and doesn't cite a single text or epistle possessed by Marcion, and then along comes Tertullian supposedly decadesv after Justin and Marcion who launches a full scale doctrinal attack on Marcion to shore up orthodoxy, making a valiant effort at propaganda but who cannot cite any specific writings of Marcion to let the reader judge for himself, but rather propagandizes against the bogeyman with no sources but only claims.

Duvduv

How could any scholar with integrity possibly accept the interpretations of propaganda texts in a supposed two sided debate where the reader or audience is never afforded the slightest ability to form an independent opinion based on both sets of available information?!
All a writer named Tertullian does is provide pre-digested interpretation, expecting the reader to take his word for it, which they invariably do in accepting the claims about the bogeyman named Marcion.

But some folks will hang on to the second century scenario at all costs. Even the fanciful imaginings of an unknown writer who is identified as second century Tertullian.

Duvduv

The Book of Acts states that Saul was a disciple of Rabban Gamliel. Now since official Christian dating places Paul before the destruction of the Temple, this means that "Saul" was a student of R. Gamliel the First, who died around the year 50 CE according to the Talmud, and was succeeded by his son, R. Shimon ben Gamliel the First. So according to the official dating, Saul, who became a Christian around two or three years after the Jesus figure died in around 30 CE could have only been a disciple of R. Gamliel in the teens or twenties of the first century in his youth. Of course Acts never says how much before his "conversion" Saul was a student of R. Gamliel, so apparently it could have been anytime during the lifetime of Jesus (who of course Paul never mentions anywhere having heard of the miraculous story of Jesus during the lifetime of Jesus). And of course we see that had "Irenaeus" known of the Book of Acts he would have seen that it was impossible for his HJ to live 50 years because the chronology of events in Acts and the epistles would have left hardly any time for Paul to do his work BEFORE the destruction of the Temple.

The author of Galatians should have certainly wanted to include reference to R. Gamliel to enhance Paul's reputation and integrity given his penchant for bragging, i.e. that here was a fellow who was the student of one of the greatest rabbinical teachers among the Jews and "gave it all up" for Christ.

The epistles are very forthright about the fact that gentiles did not need circumcision, and that believers were circumcised in their hearts, etc. By contrast Acts 16 tells us that Paul himself circumcised a Jew named Timothy whose mother was Jewish.

In any event, was there only this single assimilated Jew, Timothy, among others Jews in that single location and anywhere else of all the places that Paul visited?! The story is of no significance since anyone would assume that it was appropriate for any Jew to be circumcised, and Acts does not say explicitly that really he didn't need to be circumcised although he was a Jew. Furthermore, if the Jews knew that Timothy's father was a gentile but his mother was a Jew, he would have been under tremendous social pressure to be circumcised long before the arrival of Paul.

Indeed, the story is as insignificant as is the story of Stephen as the backdrop to the whole description of Saul as as persecuter. Stephen was not even persecuted by Paul in his own backyard.

The sentence in Acts 16:3 makes absolutely no sense: "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek."

In this scenario it should say that "they all knew his mother was a JEW." Thus, he was circumcised because his mother was a Jew, not because his father was a Greek.

In any event, nowhere do we find "Paul" saying in any of the epistles or even in Acts that he was proficient at cirumcision as a trained Jewish Mohel (religious circumciser), which would strengthen his reputation in Galatians immeasurably given the fact that the author liked to brag about his accomplishments, i.e. that despite the fact that he was a trained mohel with an obvious ability and interest in circumcising people, he was convinced to reject the idea that gentiles should undergo the procedure which he could perform easily.

These cases are additional proof tha the (confused) author of Acts was not informed by the epistles and that the author of the epistles was not informed by Acts.

Duvduv

Speaking of circumcision, who can doubt that these statements come not from some writer in the 2nd century but from later Church officialdom, since of course it would be possible for circumcised Jews to become believing Christians, and such statements would only alienate potential Jewish converts. And of course in Galatians and Acts there is no condemnation of Jews just because they circumcise their males.

Philippians 3:2: " Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh."

Romans 2: "No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God."

Duvduv

Do any apologists bring any versions of the stories of circumcision in Acts that differ from the canonical story about Timothy or Titus, which makes no sense?

For that matter, is there any discussion in any writings of apologists explaining how Paul was a senior rabbinical disciple of R. Gamliel the first AND also a qualified mohel/circumciser, which of course is not indicated in the epistles as one of his "qualifications" from his past dedication to Pharisee Judaism??

N/A

Duvduv

I guess the answer to these questions is apparently a resounding "No", indicating there never were any competing versions that were substantively different that the canonical Book of Acts and epistles.

N/A

Toto

Please stop bumping your own threads. But if you must, at least stop quoting your previous posts.

These particular instances appear to secular scholars to be the creative invention of the author of Acts, for reasons beyond the contradictions that you have noted.

Christian apologists have swallowed much larger contradictions before breakfast.

Duvduv

Again, you don't have to insult me, Toto. If a particular thread gets forgotten by participants that's no crime on their part or on my part. If a participant chooses to restate or repost something, as far as I know there is no prohibition in the FAQs to doing so.

In this case, I simply was restating that I have no found any source suggesting that apologists ever had versions of Acts or epistles that differed substantially from the canonical versions, and was simply asking whether anyone else ever did. Must I apologize for doing so??!

Toto

It is considered rude to just bump up threads, and to needlessly repeat blocks of text. I think you should apologize and change your behavior.

If you throw out a question and no one answers, it may be that no one knows the answer, or no one cares, or you may have framed the question inartfully. Perhaps you need to do more background reading on the issue so you can pose a question that makes sense and invites discussion.

For instance, you wrote "Do any apologists bring any versions of the stories of circumcision in Acts that differ from the canonical story about Timothy or Titus, which makes no sense?" What apologists would these be? The function of an apologist is to defend the faith, which usually means defending the text as written. The idea of an apologist rewriting Acts to remove an anomaly that you found is just too bizarre.

Do you mean to ask if a non-apologetic scholar has a different version? But what would the basis for this version be? There is no other source for these events. You either accept them or reject them.

If you would read up on the scholarship of Luke-Acts, you would come across the theory that Acts was written for anti_Marcionite purposes, to Catholocize and domesticate Paul, by portraying him as following Jewish law. This picture of Paul contradicts the picture from the epistles. This theory explains a lot of those anomalies in Acts. Are you looking for a better theory? Why?

Duvduv

I was not being rude, Toto.
You obviously did not read my posting because I said I was not "just bumping up threads" or "needlessly repeat blocks of text" when readers may be interested in reading previous exchanges, and I have not seen these regulations on your FAQs.

I was SIMPLY curious as to whether historically there ever were any writers who cited any texts that differ substantially from the canonical ones as authoritative, and you turn my posting into a whole new megilah.

I don't have patience to deal with your "lurking" to single me out for these kinds of comments and commentaries on how and what I post about (especially when my postings are politically incorrect in relation to professional "scholarship"). If you want to turn this Board into a discussion group for professional scholars in the field, be my guest, but at least say so.