spamandham

Paul's revelation in Acts is clearly fictional. However, Paul's revelation in the epistles probably isn't fiction, because it reads like the visions that people with temporal lobe epilepsy report. In other words, it's a delusional account, not a fictional account. You understand the difference don't you?

I do know what's implausible. So do you, and so does everyone else.


Ok thanks. I thought you were referring to the epistles in the NT.

...but the motives are important. If your theory is inconsistent with human behavior, then it needs refinement. You and I can both detect that aspects of a story are fictional or fraudulent, but that doesn't mean everything in the story is fictional. Virtually every writer of fiction incorporates real places, people, and events into works of fiction.

No, I'm saying that under the model I suggested, which has Jesus starting as a known allegorical character, that it wouldn't make sense to attempt to historicise him if everyone still knew he was an allegorical fictional character. Historizing him only makes sense if people had forgotten the origins and were no longer sure whether he was historical or not.

...this is why motives are important.

The syncretization argument stems from noticing that the Jesus of the epistles is a different Jesus from the Jesus of the Gospels (once we subtract the pastoral stratum). It makes no sense whatsoever for perpetrators of a fraud to throw together two different ideas about this Jesus character, unless they wanted us to conclude there had once been two different traditions. What would be the motive for that? It complicates their job of selling the fraud.

The simpler explanation is that there really were two traditions at one point that were syncretized together. If you were going to attempt to syncretize two traditions, what better way to do it than to trump up another book that shows the two traditions originating as 1...enter Acts. In Acts, we have further evidence that Paul is a syncretic character, because of his name change from Saul to Paul, which according to R.M. Price, is evidence of syncretism.

So we have at least 3 bits of evidence that suggest syncretism: two clearly different Jesus's, a clearly fraudulent book that shows an attempt to bind the traditions, and a tell tale sign of syncretization through the name change trick.

Your position requires that someone planted this evidence of syncretization as part of their fraud, with no discernable motive for doing so, 1000+ years before the type of textual analysis to detect such things even existed.

The priest at the church I attended as a child used to constantly say he was called to the priesthood to preach the gospel. By your reasoning, he was also part of the gospel story and therefor a fictional character.

Doug Shaver

If you tell me something that I'm certain is untrue, then I can call what you say a mistake, or I can call what you say a lie.

What is the difference? Or are you saying there is no difference between a lie and a mistake?

DevilsAdvocate

So having two representations of your name in two different languages and cultures is evidence of fraud? Paul as a roman citizen and Saul as a jew. Peter and Cephas the same? That hardly seems difinitive.

aa5874

"Delusion" means, according to my webster's, "a false opinion or idea, a false unshakeable belief indicating a severe mental disorder."

"Fiction" means "literature consisting of invented narrative, a false story or statement."

So is it you view that a delusional account of an event is more accurate and reliable than a fictional account? And it may be that it was the authors of the Epistles who were delusional, while "Paul" was fictional.

And, again you seem to have special knowledge of the mental health of one of the Pauls.


You keep forgetting that Acts is fictional. We have no evidence of syncretization in Acts, we have fiction. Who actually changed "Saul" to "Paul"?

Once your priest's epistles to the Churches were canonised and are in the NT and it is claimed that he said, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." and " I am a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God...", then I would think your priest was a part of the gospel story.

spamandham

Paul is not mentioned anywhere in Acts prior to chapter 13 (13:9). Saul, however, is introduced in chapter 7 and referred to consistently as Saul all the way up through chapter 13, when we are finally informed he was also known as Paul. After that, he is never again called 'Saul', except in 3 quotes referring to events in the past (22:7, 22:13, and 26:14).

Sure, this is not definitive - nothing really is with these texts, but it's a strong case. Is there any other good reason for the author to put off telling us that Paul and Saul are the same person for 6 chapters?

spamandham

No. The point is that a delusional account, while certainly false, is not in the same category as 'fiction', or more properly fraud in this discussion.

If by special knowledge, you mean "the ability to correlate symptoms", then I suppose so.

I have not forgotten that Acts is fictional. I completely disagree that there is no evidence of syncretization in Acts. see my post right above this one. Who changed Saul to Paul? Whoever wrote chapters 13+ did it. I have no idea who that was.

You probably would think it. But you would be wrong.

Amaleq13

No, you either recognize there is no indication of conflict between Paul and Peter or James in Acts or you pretend otherwise.

Both are depicted as thoughtfully considering the issue and both are depicted as siding with Paul against those who were insisting on circumcision.

Your original claim that Acts describes Paul confronting Peter and James is simply wrong.

There is no indication in Acts that Peter or James were part of the "problem". They are only described as part of the resolution.

Acts depicts Peter and James as arbiters of a dispute between Paul and a third party.

Galatians depicts Paul in direct conflict with Peter and James.

No amount of semantic games can change this blatant difference.

Peter starts out by reminding his audience (contrary to Galatians) that he was given responsibility to preach to the Gentiles. He goes on to admonish Paul's opponents by essentially repeating Paul's position from his own letters. There is no hint that he ever opposed that position nor any suggestion that his statements represent any sort of change of heart. It certainly does not sound like he used to preach that Gentiles had to be circumcised.

James' speech makes it easier to think he is new to the debate but, again, there is not one single hint suggesting that he ever held the position that gentile believers in Christ had to be circumcized.

Except that the opposition to Paul is specifically described as focused upon the requirement of circumcision and James did not support it.

James' offer of a compromise between two conflicting parties is no indication that he was also in conflict with Paul. It certainly doesn't support your contention that such a conflict was the reason Paul made the trip.

Yes but Acts gives us no reason to think that Peter or James were part of those "elements" or that these "elements" were somehow their representatives. Absent what is related in Galatians, we would have no reason to suspect that to be the case.

It continues to have no relevance to the question of whether Acts provides any support for your original claim.

This observation does nothing to diminish the difference between depicting James and Peter as Paul's opponents and depicting James and Peter as arbiters of Paul's disagreement and, ultimately, opposing Paul's opponents.

It has none of the elements of Peter and James directly opposing Paul.

There are no spies mention in Acts, only "certain men" "from Judaea" who came to preach that circumcision was required. We are later told they were Pharisees but there is no hint or suggestion that they were sent by anyone, let alone James, as spies. That claim is only found in Galatians. On this point, there is no consistency.

Nonsense. They are direct opponents in Galatians and, at worst, neutral judges who deny Paul's opponents in Acts.

There is no indication in Acts that Peter withdrew from gentile believers.

There is no indication of hesitation on Peter's part to support Paul in Acts.

There is not a shred of a hint of this in Acts.

Where, in Acts, there is no indication or hint that they had any such connection to James. In fact, he denies their primary demand.

There is no reason to read any sort of delay or prior conflict in the speech of either man. The only reason such an idea might occur to someone comes not from Acts but from Galatians.

There is no indication in Acts that Paul was "at odds" with either James or Peter at any point.

Surprising for someone who kept admonishing me against bringing Galatians into the discussion, it is clear that your claim requires one to read information from Galatians into Acts. You cannot identify discrepancies between accounts when you are so clearly focused on establishing a harmony between them.

spin

Given your ridiculous definition of fiction, you could proclaim almost anything you liked was fiction, so I don't think you really need to try to argue anything.

"[N]on-fiction" is not a genre, just as "non-detective" is not. In fact, fiction isn't a genre either.

With regard to Lewis we have both his own comments, comparable works and the content of his efforts to have some idea of his intent.

Rubbish. It is possible at times to derive intent from the literature itself, especially when you know what genres were available to the writer. Writers don't write in a vacuum, but reflect their times.

You've read too much fantasy.

How do you tell what is and what is not fiction in the period when you don't know the standards or contexts for the works you are analyzing? How do you know Tacitus was not writing fiction? Is there not material which you'd consider not veracious in his works? Was Tacitus able to retrieve the words of all the speeches that he wrote into the mouths of his subjects?

Declaring things to be fiction doesn't make them so.

Doh! as a criterion. The literature claims that supernatural beings are real. In fact people of the time tended to believe that they were real. You are unjustifiably projecting modern sensibilities onto ancient people.

How do you know?

Name one word in the Hittite language. You can't? It must have been a fiction. Please use a bit of logic.

Have you checked them all out? Obviously not. You are not able to do so. Another logical problem you won't face is that you assume uniformity for what you haven't experienced. Hamlet says, "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt about in your philosophy."

Many of these have been used in historical texts. Some of the great historians of the past were extremely rhetorical.

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish.

You may be right (though certainly not with Enoch).

You may be right again. Or at least the Jesus Seminar. But it's irrelevant. If a person's life has been embellished it doesn't mean that the person didn't exist. (And remember here, I don't say Jesus existed. I'm complaining about the simplistic nature of your methods of analysis.)

This says nothing to me. Perhaps you needed to explain a little more what you had in mind regarding Honi. At the moment I recall only basically what Josephus says.

Midrash is not necessarily on a scale of fiction. As I said, it is a manner of explanation... through illustration. What it deals with can be fiction or not.

I constructed a simple chiasmus for you with regard to Columbus. Does it make Columbus any less historical??

Again, you are manipulating ordinary language:

1 An act or instance of lying; an intentional false statement; an untruth. OE.
b Something that deceives; an imposture. M16.
2 A charge of falsehood. obs. exc. in give the lie to below. L16.
3 An anecdote, a tale, a tall story. Orig. & chiefly Black English. M20. - NSOED

The first two indicate intent. The third is not standard.

This didn't follow from what it ostensibly comments on.

If Boadicea was a doll, then yes it probably was fiction, but I'm happy to see that you'll stop and make a bit of room in your theory for a bit of other input.

For most people this still won't work. Is Robin Hood fictional? I don't mean the TV or film character, but the figure referenced in records from Plantaginet era England. You cannot verify the truth of Robin Hood, so is the figure fiction? For most people, Robin Hood is in the too hard to handle category because there just isn't enough information. It is only you with your weird view of fiction that can meaninglessly decide.

One doesn't even have to assert fact, you fail through lack of information.

There are quite a lot of assertions that still may be true, though unverified. If someone asserts that Origen had a brother, do you say that is fiction because you lack a means to verify it?

No. Verification makes a claim definite, be it positive or negative.

Except your idiosyncratic view of fiction.

As I said, fiction is not a genre. Mystery is a genre of fiction. If a person knows the word "genre", they will have no difficulty understanding my last assertion.

Genre regarding the gospels must be brought up. We see simplistic views stated on the issue of what the gospels are from both believers and non-believers. If you don't know why an author wrote texts, you have more difficulty interpreting them. If the writers were working from what they considered to be veracious sources, thy may have been attempting to present the information to the best of their abilities. They might have been writing fluent garbage in doing so. Try reading Lucian of Samosata's "How (Not) to Write History" to understand some of the ancient problems in presenting history.

I'm glad you don't assume your conclusions.

I guess you aren't interested in what the writers were doing because you already know that what they were doing is irrelevant. It's all fiction according to you wide-sweeping definition. Net that are too wide usually catch too much.

People in the real world will know that my position is not one of belief, they will know that I don't support a HJ or a MJ approach. They'll know that I whinge about good methodology, which doesn't allow you to go beyond the evidence. That means that I allow myself fewer conclusions than the committed person. But then, most things that I accept are usually fairly hard to argue against logically.


spin

aa5874

You have no idea who wrote chapters 13+, you have no idea when chapters 13+ was written, and you have the idea that Acts is fictional, so where did you get the idea that there is evidence of syncretization in Acts?

DevilsAdvocate

Agreed. There is nothing definitive in these texts. There is also no indication of a reason either is there. If Acts was compiled by a later writer from various sources as it claims, then there may be a root in there. Another source from a gentile tradition perhaps. All speculation. It is interesting the change is made in the middle of the journey.