andrewcriddle

The issue with Chrysostom's comments about Acts is that most people at that time learned about the Bible by hearing it read in church, not by reading it for themselves.

Acts was at the time apparently little used in public worship, so the typical member of the congregation knew little about it.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

Andrew, that does not seem to be what the author was intending at all. After all, why would Acts be less known in public discourse than any of the epistles or gospels? Why would it be ignored in public discourse when it tells the story of the greatest apostle of the Christ and is a continuation of the gospel of Luke as a second volume?
And when it has been part of the canon at least since "Irenaeus" over 200 year earlier?!

To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.(2) For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight. For indeed it may profit us no less than even the Gospels; so replete is it with Christian wisdom and sound doctrine, especially in what is said concerning the Holy Ghost. Then let us not hastily pass by it, but examine it closely

mountainman

Aside from a curious few, religious conversion to the centralized state monotheistic church would have been required for these people to have attended church. It was not Hollywood.

It might be conjectured that the post-Nicaean Diocesian Bishops had available to them their own Greek-literate "readers", who's task it was to read the bible to the public. Unless therefore these post-Nicaean bishops were themselves Greek literature students of the canonical texts, they also may not have read Acts (or other NT books) for themselves.

More to the subject of the OP, it is generally acknowledged that the massive missive exchange between the author called "Paul" and the Roman writer Seneca, was forged in the 4th century. Were these letters between Paul and Seneca also read out to the church before canonization occured c.367 CE? They appear to have been in circulation at that time.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
And according to you, No silence is the evidence for FORGERY!
to Duvduv,
I did not use Irenaeus for these calculations. How many times shall I say Irenaeus' claims are proven wrong and should be discarded? Are you taking this 20 years claim seriously, that is as an alternative to a much lesser time of preaching, indicated by Acts (after close study) and the info from Josephus' works on the duration of Pilate's rule in Judea. After all, that's what he missed (according to the whole of AH 2.22) when he forced his argumentation (with the help of a big lie) (and we can know about his motivation and his line of thought all along AH 2.22).

You seem to assume that Irenaeus had to be honest, a know-it-all, remember-it-all, with no lapse of memory, having spent time to study history, etc. And if he does not measure up, claim who ever wrote AH 2.22, was an imposter, some mysterious Irenaeus the heretic.
I study the writings of "fathers" enough to know this is not true: many of them lie, exaggerate, invent fiction, show ignorance, even make conflicting statements, etc.

Chrysostom said Acts was little known, not unknown.
To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.
Note: the "they" are the "many persons" and 'many persons' does not mean everybody.
It is obvious that all along the second century, started by either the ending interpolated in gMark or Aristides' apology, and repeated in Justin Martyr and Irenaeus writings, the idea that, right after the resurrection, the 12 went all over the world to preach the Christian message, had become quasi-canonical. And that's ideal. What would be better than to have the eyewitnesses/followers of Jesus doing the preaching all over?

But what did Acts say? A bunch of Greeks started to preach some message and make converts outside Palestine among Jews & God fearers. Then Paul & others went to the Gentiles, none of them said to be eyewitness of Jesus. Paul even wrote he boasted, got visions and revelations, admitted much of his teaching was coming from scriptures or his own mind.
Not reliable at all and clashing with these marvelous twelve disciples evangelizing the whole world in a flash!
So that's one reason to keep that book on the shelf.

Another reason is Paul, the "super apostle" of Acts.
Paul was not liked by Jewish Christians, Ebionites and even some orthodox Christians (even some today Christians). But his writings were exploited by heretics.
Tertullian (207) called him "the apostle to the heretics" and
http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Recomm...rch-views.html (I know, this is a Christian site but seems very informative about the other side of Paul's perception in the 2nd century. Let's call it a hostile witness!)
Now I quote Tertullian in Against Marcion:
"I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace."
"'Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him,"
'please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle'"
"He [i.e., Paul] himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ. Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person’s attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records."

"But Tertullian often treated Paul kindly when he found many edifying things in Paul's words or life."

aa5874

Your claim is most absurd.

Justin Martyr CORROBORATES the statement of Chrysostom.

Justin Martyr did NOT know the book of Acts existed and did NOT know of the any author of Acts and made ZERO mention of Saul/Paul, the Day of Pentecost, the UNPRECEDENTED bright-light conversion of the Blinded Saul/Paul.

Justin Martyr did NOT mention that Paul preached Christ crucified to the Gentiles and specifically stated that it was 12 ILLITERATE disciples who preached the Gospel to every race of men in the world.

First Apology There is ZERO credible evidence from any source of antiquity for Acts of the Apostles.

Duvduv

Bernard, let's try it a different way. Two centuries or so before Chrysostom heresiologists allegedly knew about Acts as if it were common knowledge. Such people were "Irenaeus," "Tertullian" and Origen, not to mention "Eusebius."

Secondly, it is argued that Acts followed as a second volume to GLuke, which was ostensibly known by LOTS of people including those I mentioned above.

Chrysostom tells us how little the existence of Acts was known, and he followed the aforementioned gentlemen ostensibly by two hundred years and more.

Now if Acts was not known, why didn't anyone else mention such a thing, and even more importantly, how could they have known about GLuke??

And IF GLuke and Acts got separated like conjoined Siamese twins, then who realized and convinced everyone that they belonged together?

And is it possible that Chrysostom talked in this matter in his capacity as preeminent salesman for "Paul" whose mind was exclusively guided by Christ??

mountainman

From WIKI

Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,
Who is arguing that? Not me or Chrysostom.
Acts and a gospel are vastly different. They are two different books treating of two different stories. gLuke stands alone and does not need Acts. gLuke does not have a controversial Paul in it. Acts does. Why would they come and be read together?
Can someone be interested in gLuke and not in Acts? Certainly.
I already explained why Acts would be left behind: Many Christians did not like Paul and the fact Christianity was not preached all over by Jesus' own disciples.
BTW, that's why Justin Martyr rejected Acts. Justin based his Christianity on things allegedly reported by the disciples of Jesus in the synoptic gospels, often called memoirs of the apostles. He was not likely to admit others than these eyewitnesses, a bunch of Greeks, many not named, preached Christianity all over. So forget about Acts!

Duvduv

I think you are mixing up a few things. The issue is merely that the traditional view is that Luke authored both the first volume called the Gospel according to Luke, AND authored his second volume Book of Acts. This is allegedly the case since the days of "Irenaeus" which was over 200 years BEFORE Chrysostom.

Then suddenly at the dawn of the 5th century he comes along as claims that Acts is very little known, yet Luke is not little known despite the "fact" that they go together, and the greatness of Christianity's Paul is unknowable without Acts, but of course we know about him allegedly from early writings long before Chrysostom.

Obviously something doesn't make sense here in the logic of the scenario based on the statement of Chrysostom at the start of his Homily on Acts.........

aa5874

I CHALLENGE your claims about Acts, Paul and Justin Martyr. You have NOT provided anything in the writings of antiquity to support you.

You are INVENTING "explanations".

Please, name the Christians who wrote that they did NOT like Paul.

Please name the Christians who wrote that they did NOT like "the fact Christianity was not preached all over by Jesus' own disciples".

Please Identify where Justin Martyr claimed he did NOT like Acts of the Apostles.

You are INVENTING solutions from your IMAGINATION.

Again, the available evidence from apologetic sources show the COMPLETE opposite.

Christian writers of antiquity appear to like Paul and did NOT mention the Memoirs of the Apostles mentioned by Justin Martyr.

1. Ignatius mentioned Paul and did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles mentioned in Justin Martyr.

2. The First Epistle to the Corinthians mentioned Paul but did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin Martyr.

3. Irenaeus mentioned Paul and Acts but did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin Martyr.

4. Tertullian mentioned Paul and Acts but did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin Martyr.

5. Clement of Alexandria mentioned Paul and Acts but did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin Martyr.

6. Hippolytus mentioned Paul and Acts but did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin Martyr.

7. Origen mentioned Paul and Acts but did NOT acknowledge the Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin Martyr.

The evidence CONTRADICTS you. It appears that supposed Christians of antiquity liked Paul.

Why??? Why??? Why are you BLATANTLY presenting erroneous information on BC&H?

Let us NOT waste anymore time.

We have ENOUGH evidence available to show that Paul of Tarsus was a FABRICATED character to give the False impression that there was a Jesus cult of Christians BEFORE the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE when there was NONE.

The writings of Philo and Josephus, non-apologetic sources for the Entire 1st century, suggest that Pauline teachings of the resurrected Jesus were UNKNOWN or had no influence on Jewish Laws regarding the atonement of Sins.

Paul of Tarsus is an INVENTION.