Duvduv

Of course "Paul's" gospel was exclusive as described in Galatians. In Acts the revelation does not teach an exclusive gospel. In fact, the revelation itself was not exclusive to Saul, since both Annanias and Peter also had divine revelations.Saul and Paul in Acts NEVER claim to have an exclusive gospel from a risen Jesus.

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father.......
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

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.

Toto

The final edited version of Luke and Acts appear to be late. Why are you convinced that this is incredible? If you want to have a discussion here, please write more complete thoughts, not just your gut reaction.

outhouse

hes not talking about the final stage.

he thinks luke/acts copied Marcion's script

aa5874

You are just a story teller. There is really NO evidence for what you have DREAMED up.

The Pauline writings show the VERY LEAST VARIANTS per page when compared to other Greek NT manuscripts.

In effect, the Pauline writings have the same or similary Variants per page as the LATEST Texts.

gMark has 10.3 variants per page.

gJohn has 8.5 variants per page.

Acts has 4.2 variants per page.


Romans has 2.9 variants per page.

2 Corinthians has 2.9 variants per page.

Philippians has 2.5 variants per page.


1 Timothy has 2.9 variants per page

2 Timothy has 2.8 variants per page

Titus has 2.3 variants per page

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

There is simply no evidence that people were adding to the Pauline Epistles to tone down Paul.

Duvduv

So what is Paul/Saul's background? When "he" describes it in the epistles, there is mention of other matters but not of his name Saul:

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Phil 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjaminan Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Galatians 1:13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Acts 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
(Notice that in Galatians "he" is zealous for the traditions, but in Acts he is zealous towards God.

And now he is portrayed as a free Roman, which is mentioned nowhere else, as important as it can be:
Acts 22:25-28 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned? When the centurion heard that, he went and told the chief captain, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the chief captain came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the chief captain answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born.

In the same chapter in Acts he is described as in Philippians as a loyal Pharisee he is also described as a free Roman citizen by birth. This would be appropriate for a Roman Paul but not for a Jewish Saul.

Toto

The claim is that Paul's father has some connection to the Roman army (if Paul in fact were a tent maker, the Roman army would have been a major client.) This would have made it plausible for Paul's father to have bought or been granted Roman citizenship, and Paul would have inherited that status. It was not unknown for Jews to have Roman citizenship in Paul's time.

I will lead you to search for the information if you want to know more. There are several scholars who have written on the possibility of Paul's Roman citizenship. I do not regard the claims in Acts as any more than fiction, and the claims in the epistles are only slightly more reliable.

Duvduv

Notice the redundancy in Romans. If he was a Benjamite then OBVIOUSLY he was also an Israelite and a descendant of Abraham. And it would really make no difference what tribe he would be from since in the Second Temple period tribal identification had already disappeared. The same is true for Philippians, except that this epistle needs to add adherence to the law of the Pharisees.
Galatians says NOTHING about what kind of Jew he was at all.
Acts only considers important that he was a Pharisee, and his pedigree was of no importance at all (whereas Philippians is concerned about his pedigree and his affiliation).
And other than Acts 22 there is no mention of his being a born Roman citizen although in all other cases where he is dealing with gentiles one would assuime that this would also be important, at least as important as being a Benjaminite or studying at the feet of Gamliel. Galatians and Romans did not consider his being a Pharisee or a Roman citizen of any importance.
Speaking of which, what difference would it make to any gentile readers that he claimed in a speech to Jews that he was specifically an (alleged) student of the head of the Sanhedrin when R. Gamliel is not even called the leader of he Pharisees in that same speech??

outhouse

the odds are in favor he was a roman citizen, but my main reason is that he took his message to romans, not jews.

he did not devolop his message around true judaism, thus even his judaism is in question.


as far as im concerned he and others built up his judaism to try and build in credibility to his favor in yahweh

Tom Verenna

Sorry but that is incorrect. Tyson believes that an earlier version of Luke was written at the end of the first century (Ur-Lukas) and then Marcion or a Marcionite wrote their version, and finally the Canonical version we have now (which contains various antiMarcionite theological functions.

Also, not sure why you think that Tyson is not credible here. He is well published and well respected, an important member of SBL, and helps head up Westar Institutes Acts Seminar.

Hope this helps.

Edited a detail in Tyson's info.

outhouse

I was running with this tom/rook


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion

In the 2006 book Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle, Joseph B Tyson makes a case for not only Luke but also Acts being responses to Marcion rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke


this i could see. not really how its stated above though



I thought it was common knolwedge Marcio was a rewrite of luke