Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 06-14-2009, 10:51 AM

Hi GakuseiDon,

This is an excellent question. Why would he leave out stuff from Jesus' life in both Acts and Romans.

I would propose that the gospels in circulation were pretty diverse. The author possibly does not want to offend groups by choosing material from one group and not another. In his own gospel, the author seems to have used diverse gospel sources to keep everybody happy.

Also, consider that the gospels had possibly not reached any kind of holy scriptural status when he was writing. They were just stories being written by hack writers for entertainment in the name of alleged Apostles. Therefore it was better to use the more solid Old Testament scriptures for making serious points.

We should remember that nobody wrote reviews of Shakespeare's play in his lifetime. They were considered cheap entertainment for the masses and not on a par with real literature. The gospel genre may have been considered in the same way in their time, fun to read, but not worth quoting.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Now, in reading Acts and the Epistle to the Romans, it struck me that the ideology regarding Jesus was quite similar. In both Jesus is the Messiah and a man who has been resurrected and brought to heaven. Virtually nothing else is said about his life and no references to the gospels are made.
...

Since the author demonstrates an excellent grasp of rhetoric in writing his history of the early Church and the adventures of Paul, there does not seem to be any reason to conclude that he could not have also authored this piece of rhetoric (and perhaps other letters of Paul). This would explain the references and the close problematics and ideologies of the works.

Why would the author leave out references about Jesus' life and the gospels in Acts when he wrote the letter to the Romans, IYO?

PhilosopherJay · 06-14-2009, 10:54 AM

Hi Clivedurdle,

Excellent points, well worth considering.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

The references to Pentecost and the Holy Spirit above are interesting.

Are these ideas found in Judaism or Greek forms of Judaism or are they evidence of this Judaic cult being more separated from its parent than realised, or that these are later texts trying to correct another doctrinal error?

Might Peter's vision that it is OK to eat everything - ie end of Judaic law - be a Greek Jewish idea going back to the Maccabean wars?

What are these claims to fulfill the law but obviously smashing apart the law with the debates about food and circumcision except reruns of the wars of the Maccabees and the arguments between the Pharisees and Zealots about is the law unchangeable or do you go with the spirit of the law?

arnoldo · 06-14-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Paul is now the only witness to himself.

So, why does the writer Paul become true automatically without evidence?

Probability needs evidence. Belief about Paul is not evidence. Paul's name is worthless.

But Paul baptised a lion in the wilderness.
And when thrown to the lions at the end.
lo and behold, Paul is thrown to his very
own and special historically baptised lion.

The author of the acts of Paul Aesop's Paul.
Paul's name was the laughing stock of the
entire greek speaking eastern empire.

Tertullian whom Momigliano questions as being
a real person informs us that the author of
the acts of Paul wrote out of love for Paul.
All you need is love?

Pete

. . . The fact that the Acts of Paul is referenced by Tertullian ( 160-220 A.D) would suggest an earlier, rather than latter date for the writings of Paul, don't you agree? Still, it is interesting that Tertullian dismissed the Acts of Paul primarily due to the status of women rather than the issue of the lion (perhaps comparing Daniel's attempted execution by Lion by Nebby to Paul's alleged attempted execution by Lion by the Romans)

Quote:

But the woman of pertness, who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism, so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul's name, claim Thecla's example as a licence for women's teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul's fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female the power of teaching and of baptizing! "Let them be silent," he says, "and at home consult their own husbands."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...tullian21.html

Solo · 06-14-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

One striking feature of Acts is the insertion into it of chapters 19 and 20 on Apollos. In earlier chapters the author has made clear that Paul did not go into Asia.

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Asia represented Hinduism and Buddhism and the eastern gateway
since the time of Alexander was his city of Alexandria. The author
of Acts represents Paul as not daring to intrude on the authority
of these ancient asian traditions (which included their multi-
disciplinary aspects - mathematics, astronomy, asceticism, etc -
much of which had been incorporated into Hellenic thought at
Alexandria itself ... until the fourth century.

This not daring to intrude on Asia is parodied by the author of
the Acts of Thomas, who has Thomas flatly refusing Jesus' order
to honor the lot which befell him and convert the Indians to the
new Testament. The reason given by Thomas' author?

In his words ...

how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?

The Asia references in Paul and Acts are transprently to the Roman province of Asia.

Jiri

aa5874 · 06-14-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

This is an excellent question. Why would he leave out stuff from Jesus' life in both Acts and Romans.

Except for the Gospels, all other books and epistles in the NT have very little about the life of Jesus on earth .

In fact, the Pauline writer has more information about Jesus on earth than the epistles of any so-called disicple or brother of Jesus.

The writer called Paul claimed Jesus was betrayed in the night, was crucified and rose on the third day.

The writers called Peter, James, John and Jude in their epistles did not quote a single passage from the Gospels or mentioned that Jesus was betrayed, crucified and rose on the third day.

1. Peter and John were supposedly disciples of Jesus on earth. Their epistles contain even less about Jesus than those of the Pauline writer.

2./b] James and Jude were also supposed to be the earthly brothers of Jesus[/b], yet virtually nothing about the life of Jesus, their so-called brother on earth,[/b] can be found in their epistles.

It should be clear that all the epistles were primarily doctrinal or theological. The absence of information about the life of Jesus in all the epistles cannot be a primary indication of when they were written.

PhilosopherJay · 06-14-2009, 04:57 PM

Hi toto,

Thanks for the links, interesting stuff.

I think the question under the Emperor in the trial of Paul is extremely important. It may be a key to understanding the whole writings and why Acts was broken off and never finished.

The author's defense of Paul was primarily jurisdictional. The Jews had a right to judge Jews, but the fact that Paul was a Roman citizen would have given him more rights. It made it a juridictional dispute to be decided by the emperor.

The author pulls the Roman card in defending Paul, suddenly turning him into a Roman citizen. At the same time, the author wants it clear that Paul is not simpy getting off for being a Roman citizen, he wants to make it clear that the Jews are persecuting him unfairly and he has done nothing against the Mosaic laws. That is why both in Acts and in the epistles Paul circumcises a Greek convert to Judaism. It is important for the author to show that the Jewish charges are wrong and that Paul is a good and faithful Jew.

In order to portray Paul as a good and faithful Jew, it is necessary for the author to invent the New Testament (not the books, but the concept). The old testament laws are no longer in force, because the death of Jesus represents a New Testament -- God gives to you eternal life in heaven, and in exchange, you believe in God and obey the Church. That's how the "holy spirit" thing works.

At some point, the author realizes that his gambit won't work. Ultimately, Paul is Jewish, so Nero upholding the Edict of Augustus, must turn him over to them to be judged. As a lawyer, the author knows he is going to lose his case before Nero (even if it is a fictional case). He has to change the terms of the case. Paul cannot be Jewish any more. Paul must be a part of a new successor religion called Christianity. If he is part of a new religion, the Jews have no right to judge him.

If the author was fighting Marcion, which is quite possible, on the issue of whether Christianity was a branch of Judaism or a new religion, it is evident that he lost. Although he clearly started out wishing to show it as the truest branch of Judaism, the only way he could get Paul off at the trial before Nero would have been by declaring that Paul was not Jewish, but part of a new religion. Through the epistles, he, in effect, has Paul create a new religion. Still, he cannot admit that Marcion was right and Christianity was a new religion, so he cannot write the trial scene. He never finishes Acts.

This is the dilemma the author creates for Paul and himself:

1. The Jews are wrong about Christianity being a break from their religion and Paul must be shown as continuing Judaism.
2. If Paul is shown as continuing Judaism, then the Jews have a right to judge him and they judge him as not continuing Judaism, but creating a new religion.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Just a few points -

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

...

Acts is written on the cusp of a break from Judaism. Romans is written just after that break occurs.

A more modern view than van Manen is that of Joseph B. Tyson in Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk), which has been reviewed on vridar. Acts was written to counter Marcion, who rejected the Jewish god and Jewish law.

Romans and all of Paul's letters are best viewed as compiled in layers.

Apollos is probably Apelles, a heretic who was at time associated with Marcion, but who broke with him and whose followers were integrated into the mainline church. See Roger Parvus' A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and other Apellean Writings. Parvus has posted here and on the JM list.

Why would following the Mosaic laws have been relevant in a trial before the Emperor?

Quote:

...

It seemed the author planned to simply attach Romans to Acts, but then the Apollos controversy came up and he was forced to interpolate into Acts and then write 1 Corinthians to back it up.

The author of Luke-Acts probably also wrote the Pastorals, which might have been the third book in the Luke-Acts trilogy. Romans doesn't appear to have been written by the same author as the Pastorals.

Toto · 06-14-2009, 07:08 PM

Hi Jay -

The actual charges against Paul in Acts 24:5 as stated by the High Priest "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him..."

As in Jesus (equally fictional trial), these were charges based on false information (Acts 21:27-29.)

Paul's defense: 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.

..."

Granted that this is all dramatic fiction, there is no indication that Caesar's court would lose jurisdiction over Paul if he were really Jewish. He is portrayed as Jewish and a Roman citizen, and therefore can ask to be tried by the emperor.

I don't see the Edict of Augustus as giving the Jews exclusive jurisdiction over Jews accused of crimes. I don't know how it was applied in practice. But in Acts, the Roman officials assume that they have jurisdiction over a Roman citizen accused by the Jews of a combination of troublemaking and violating Jewish laws.

I don't think that Acts was broken off and never finished, just because Paul's final trial and death are not part of it. If we assume that Paul is a fictional character (and I think most would agree that the portrait of Paul in Acts is highly fictionalized, whether or not there is a historial Paul) then there is no real need to actually portray that final mythical event. So I think that there is no problem here that requires a solution.

arnoldo · 06-14-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

One striking feature of Acts is the insertion into it of chapters 19 and 20 on Apollos. In earlier chapters the author has made clear that Paul did not go into Asia.

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Asia represented Hinduism and Buddhism and the eastern gateway
since the time of Alexander was his city of Alexandria. The author
of Acts represents Paul as not daring to intrude on the authority
of these ancient asian traditions (which included their multi-
disciplinary aspects - mathematics, astronomy, asceticism, etc -
much of which had been incorporated into Hellenic thought at
Alexandria itself ... until the fourth century.

This not daring to intrude on Asia is parodied by the author of
the Acts of Thomas, who has Thomas flatly refusing Jesus' order
to honor the lot which befell him and convert the Indians to the
new Testament. The reason given by Thomas' author?

In his words ...

how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?

Pete

The implication seems to be that Thomas couldn't preach the truth since the Indians all ready knew it, correct? The text of the Acts of Thomas stated that Thomas was refusing to go due to health concerns (as well as possibly having a Jonah complex

)

Quote:

According to the lot, therefore, India fell unto Judas Thomas, which is also the twin: but he would not go, saying that by reason of the weakness of the flesh he could not travel, and 'I am an Hebrew man; how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?' And as he thus reasoned and spake, the Saviour appeared unto him by night and saith to him: Fear not, Thomas, go thou unto India and preach the word there, for my grace is with thee. But he would not obey, saying: Whither thou wouldest send me, send me, but elsewhere, for unto the Indians I will not go.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ctsthomas.html

The fact that trade between the Roman world and the Indian continent is attested by Cosmas Indicopleustes;

Quote:

The book is not without value, however. 'Indicopleustes' means 'Indian voyager'. We learn from stray scraps in classical literature that there was some trade between the Roman empire and India. But Cosmas was one of the rare souls who had actually made the journey. Indeed we learn from his book that he had travelled over much of the Red Sea coast, and as far as Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), and he describes some of what he saw, and even drew pictures of the strange animals in his autograph manuscript. Some of these have been copied into the existing manuscripts. Away from his daft theory, Cosmas proves to be an interesting and reliable guide. He happened to be in Ethiopia at the time when the King of Axum was preparing a military expedition to attack Jewish Arabs in the Yemen. He records now vanished inscriptions. In short, he gives us a window into a fascinating world of which we would otherwise know nothing. This is the main value of his work. . .

Cosmas is often referred to in the literature as a Nestorian. He tells us that he was a pupil of Patricius, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, and a friend of Thomas of Edessa. All of these were Nestorians. He highlights the churches planted in the East, all again Nestorian. One passage only gives the opposite impression, that where he uses the Chalcedonian term theotokos, Mother of God, for Mary; but this passage is not found in the Vatican manuscript, suggesting it is a later addition.

Interestingly he refers to Marcionites and Montanists in book 5, which suggests that these groups were still active in his part of the world at this time. . .
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/co...0_0_eintro.htm

mountainman · 06-15-2009, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

But Paul baptised a lion in the wilderness.
And when thrown to the lions at the end.
lo and behold, Paul is thrown to his very
own and special historically baptised lion.

The author of the acts of Paul Aesop's Paul.
Paul's name was the laughing stock of the
entire greek speaking eastern empire.

Tertullian whom Momigliano questions as being
a real person informs us that the author of
the acts of Paul wrote out of love for Paul.
All you need is love?

Pete

. . . The fact that the Acts of Paul is referenced by Tertullian ( 160-220 A.D) would suggest an earlier, rather than latter date for the writings of Paul, don't you agree?

My position is that Tertullian was interpolated
in order to take the heat off the appearance
of the Acts of Paul in a later century.

Think about the term "conflict of interests".
Eusebius himself identifies these anti-apostolic
fictions as the work of vile heretics. Eusebius
is the source for the orthodox, and at the moment
the source for the gnostic heretics.

If we are to honestly contemplate believing Eusebius
in respect of the NT canonical story, how are we to
contemplate believing Eusebius to be an expert on
the non orthodox non canonical heretical phenomenom?

Eusebius by all objective accounts must be
classified as a hostile witness with respect
to the gnostic heretics. Dont you agree?

mountainman · 06-15-2009, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Asia represented Hinduism and Buddhism and the eastern gateway
since the time of Alexander was his city of Alexandria. The author
of Acts represents Paul as not daring to intrude on the authority
of these ancient asian traditions (which included their multi-
disciplinary aspects - mathematics, astronomy, asceticism, etc -
much of which had been incorporated into Hellenic thought at
Alexandria itself ... until the fourth century.

This not daring to intrude on Asia is parodied by the author of
the Acts of Thomas, who has Thomas flatly refusing Jesus' order
to honor the lot which befell him and convert the Indians to the
new Testament. The reason given by Thomas' author?

In his words ...

how can I go amongst the Indians and preach the truth?

The Asia references in Paul and Acts are transprently to the Roman province of Asia.

Jiri

The Nag Hammadi "Acts of Peter and the 11, 12 or 13 Apostles"
mentions "The City of Nine Gates", a citation from the Gita.
The Acts of Thomas tells us how christianity overcame Hunduism
and Buddhism. Many of these stories start with the apostles
standing around casting lots for the nations, reminiscent of
the scene where the Roman centurions are casting lots for the
elven mithrail armour Jesus was wearing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-14-2009, 07:08 PM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Jay - The actual charges against Paul in Acts 24:5 as stated by the High Priest "We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him..." As in Jesus (equally fictional trial), these were charges based on false information (Acts 21:27-29.) Paul's defense: 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man. ..." Granted that this is all dramatic fiction, there is no indication that Caesar's court would lose jurisdiction over Paul if he were really Jewish. He is portrayed as Jewish and a Roman citizen, and therefore can ask to be tried by the emperor. I don't see the Edict of Augustus as giving the Jews exclusive jurisdiction over Jews accused of crimes. I don't know how it was applied in practice. But in Acts, the Roman officials assume that they have jurisdiction over a Roman citizen accused by the Jews of a combination of troublemaking and violating Jewish laws. I don't think that Acts was broken off and never finished, just because Paul's final trial and death are not part of it. If we assume that Paul is a fictional character (and I think most would agree that the portrait of Paul in Acts is highly fictionalized, whether or not there is a historial Paul) then there is no real need to actually portray that final mythical event. So I think that there is no problem here that requires a solution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.