Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 06-13-2009, 10:49 AM

Hi aa5874,

I tend to agree with you that Paul is a fictional character. Like Job was changed from skeptic to believer after meeting Yahwah and Xena, Warrior Princess was changed from villainy into heroism after she met Hercules, Paul underwent a similar dramatic change after meeting Jesus. Since Yahwah, Hercules and Jesus are fictional characters, it seems reasonable to assume that Job, Xena, Warrior Princess and Paul are also fictional, although I sometimes have my doubts about Xena.

In any case, I am not interested in demonstrating the non/historicism of these characters at the moment, but seeing if we can perhaps date NT text through the ideology exhibited in them.

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.

Yet the information in Romans appears to match closely the situation of Paul in Ephesus in chapter nineteen of Acts. For example:

Romans 1.15.So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
Acts: 19.21. Now after these things were finished, Paul purposed in the spirit to go to Jerusalem after he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, saying, "After I have been there, I must also see Rome."

Romans 16.23. Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you.
Acts 19.29 29. The city was filled with the confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theater, dragging along Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's traveling companions from Macedonia.

Acts tells how the Apostles from Jerusalem spread the Holy Spirit all the way to Rome without breaking any of the Jewish laws.
In Romans, the author makes only one main argument that the Holy Spirit is superior to the law of the Jews. The author, however, shows great respect for the Jewish laws, indicating that it was only the weakness of the flesh that defeated them, and therefore led to God sacrificing Jesus. In other words, the laws are good, just not as good as the Holy Spirit.

Since both reflect a similar problematic and similar attitudes towards the highly specialized subjects, we may conclude that the authors held very close views of the fundamental issues involved at this point in history, or that there was only one author of both works.

Now, if we assume that there was a real Paul, then we must suppose that the author of Luke/Acts got his information about Gaius and Paul's wish to travel to Rome from the Epistle. However, if we assume that Paul did not exist, then we may reverse that formula: The information from Acts is being put into the Epistle to the Romans.

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.

Anybody heard of this hypothesis before?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I tend to agree that Paul's gospel to the Gentiles was a later invention than the gospels; however it is complex because as Toto pointed out, “We don't know who wrote the letters attributed to Paul, or who edited them or added to them."

But we don't know who wrote Acts of the Apostles, or if it was edited or if there were additions.

It is really not known if all the writings of antiquity were edited or if there were additions.

We can base our conclusions on what is before us until it can be shown that there is other contradictory information available.

And further the writings of Paul cannot be just claimed to be in error when it appears to place him late.

From the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius it is written that the Jews expected a physical Messiah or Christ. Josephus made commentary on the book of the Hebrew Scripture, including Daniel and made no reference to a heavenly Jesus.

The PHYSICAL Christ or Messiah with respect to the Jews was expected at least since the writings of Daniel.

The author of Daniel is the only writer to name a character called the Messiah.

Again, based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius, the Jews thought that the Messiah would have been a Jew and would deliver the Jews from those who were their enemies.

The Jewish Messiah was expected to be physical.

Now, look at Church History 3.20. According to Eusebius, Domitian, Emperor from 81-96 CE, was putting the descendants of David to death until he heard from the grandchildren of Jude, the brother of the supposed Jesus.

Based on the writings of the Church ,Domitian learned of the heavenly Christ and kingdom for the first time or was not aware of the heavenly Christ and kingdom until long after Paul was dead.

Up to the reign of Domitian, Christ and his kingdom were considered physical.

Paul is now the only witness to himself.

But, Paul has more problems, his name has been manipulated. Justin Martyr did not write a word about him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosophy Jay

My belief at the moment is that they were originally written independently of the gospels and Acts. This means that they may have been written before or after the gospels. However, where they match Acts, it seems probable that someone has altered the letters to make them appear to match Acts.

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.

Domitian did not appear to heve heard about Paul's Christ according to the Church story.

Toto · 06-13-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Now, if we assume that there was a real Paul, then we must suppose that the author of Luke/Acts got his information about Gaius and Paul's wish to travel to Rome from the Epistle. However, if we assume that Paul did not exist, then we may reverse that formula: The information from Acts is being put into the Epistle to the Romans.

Even if Paul did not exist, the author of Acts might have picked up this information from the epistle, whoever wrote it.

Note that the last chapter of Romans, with its shout out to some named individuals associated with Ephesus, probably was added on to the underlying essay.

Van Manen on Romans

Quote:

Conclusion: 15:14-16:27

The conclusion has so little of an organic character either in relation to the whole or in itself that many critics who hold to the Pauline origin of the rest of the Epistle have declared it not genuine, or have tried to account for its presence here by supposing it brought in from another Epistle of Paul. For us the question is not whether it is "genuine," but whether it was originally the conclusion of the Epistle entitled "to the Romans." This question has already been answered in the affirmative, though the answer does not exclude further queries as to possible modification and rearrangement. The last chapter has a peculiarly inorganic character. Some have supposed verses 1-20 to be part of a letter Paul wrote to the Ephesians-which is, so far, to admit the theory of composition out of fragments.

You may find more of value in that essay. The book is available in pdf format on googlebooks

The most radical dates for Paul's letters put the date of composition (or extreme editing) to about 120 CE. Pervo dates Acts at about 110 CE, but it might be as late as 150 CE. So it is possible that the author of Acts wrote Romans, or did a final edit, or inserted a few key passages.

Previous threads on Romans might be of interest, if only for the humor:

Did Paul write Romans? [Stephen Carr]

Romans 15: Spain or Iberia

PhilosopherJay · 06-13-2009, 05:03 PM

Hi toto,

Thanks for these sources. I haven't read Van Manem in quite a while. He makes some excellent observations.

He says this about Acts:

Quote:

pg. 100. Only the oldest of the three representations of Paul which they contain brings us near the historical reality. There is no question yet of “Christians,” or of a break with Judaism…They simply form a direction or a sect among the Jews, not apart from them.

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

He says this about Romans:

Quote:

pg. 108. For the unity insisted on is, it must be repeated, a relative unity. It reminds one of the unity of a Synoptic Gospel or the Acts of the Apostles.

A same author Luke-Acts-Romans scenario would account for the similarity.

Quote:

pg. 113.
Whatever may be the original source of this paragraph, the redaction proceeds from one whose aim it is to rescue the Pauline teaching from the reproach of antinominalism.

The redactor (or author) is interested in protecting Paul from the charge of being against the laws of the Jews. This is a major theme of the author of Acts.

Still, I think we can get beyond Van Manem who simply interested in proving the non-existence of Paul.

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.

Quote:

16:6. They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia;

At the end of chapter 20 we are again told that Paul avoided doing anything against the Jewish law in Asia:

Quote:

16. For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so that he would not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost.
17. From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church.
18. And when they had come to him, he said to them, "You yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot in Asia, how I was with you the whole time,
19. serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials which came upon me through the plots of the Jews;

Basically, he is telling us that any charges against Paul doing something against the law in Asia are false. The whole synagogue of Ephesus can attest to him doing nothing wrong.

Later, in the story, he tells us that Jews from Asia are responsible for the arrest of Paul

Quote:

21.27. When the seven days were almost over, the Jews from Asia, upon seeing him in the temple, began to stir up all the crowd and laid hands on him,

Quote:

24.18. in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia--

The defense that Paul will use in the Trial before the Emperor is clear. Jews from Asia accuse me of attacking the Mosaic law, but I avoided Asia and when I had to go to Asia - Ephesus, the Jews of the synagogue were with me and would have stopped me from saying anything against the Mosaic Laws.

Yet in chapters 19 and 20, when Apollos is introduced, this whole defense is subverted.

Quote:

1. It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2. He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit."
3. And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism."
4. Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
7. There were in all about twelve men.
8. And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God.
9. But when some were becoming hardened and disobedient, speaking evil of the Way before the people, he withdrew from them and took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.
10. This took place for two years, so that all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.

It seems that the author or someone has recklessly inserted/interpolated the Apollos passages into the text.

We may suppose that after the text was in circulation, the author read something about Apollos being the first to preach to the Ephesians and all of Asia. It was necessary for him to somehow counter this and show that Paul was the first real Apostle derived from the Jerusalem crowd to preach there.

After writing Romans, the author takes up the argument again in
1 Corinthians 1

Quote:

12. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."

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 chronology is

1.Writes Acts minus Acts 18:24 - 19:22
2. Writes Romans to prove the last 9 chapters of Acts.
3. Writes Acts 18:24-19:22 added to counter charges from the Church of Ephesus that Apollos was the first Apostle
4. Writes 1 Corinthians to prove Acts 18:24-19:22.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Now, if we assume that there was a real Paul, then we must suppose that the author of Luke/Acts got his information about Gaius and Paul's wish to travel to Rome from the Epistle. However, if we assume that Paul did not exist, then we may reverse that formula: The information from Acts is being put into the Epistle to the Romans.

Even if Paul did not exist, the author of Acts might have picked up this information from the epistle, whoever wrote it.

Note that the last chapter of Romans, with its shout out to some named individuals associated with Ephesus, probably was added on to the underlying essay.

Van Manen on Romans

Quote:

Conclusion: 15:14-16:27

The conclusion has so little of an organic character either in relation to the whole or in itself that many critics who hold to the Pauline origin of the rest of the Epistle have declared it not genuine, or have tried to account for its presence here by supposing it brought in from another Epistle of Paul. For us the question is not whether it is "genuine," but whether it was originally the conclusion of the Epistle entitled "to the Romans." This question has already been answered in the affirmative, though the answer does not exclude further queries as to possible modification and rearrangement. The last chapter has a peculiarly inorganic character. Some have supposed verses 1-20 to be part of a letter Paul wrote to the Ephesians-which is, so far, to admit the theory of composition out of fragments.

You may find more of value in that essay. The book is available in pdf format on googlebooks

The most radical dates for Paul's letters put the date of composition (or extreme editing) to about 120 CE. Pervo dates Acts at about 110 CE, but it might be as late as 150 CE. So it is possible that the author of Acts wrote Romans, or did a final edit, or inserted a few key passages.

Previous threads on Romans might be of interest, if only for the humor:

Did Paul write Romans? [Stephen Carr]

Romans 15: Spain or Iberia

mountainman · 06-13-2009, 08:57 PM

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?

Quote:

At the end of chapter 20 we are again told that Paul avoided doing anything against the Jewish law in Asia:

What about Alexander's Hellenic law in Asia?
The author of acts is suprisingly reluctant to
spell out any historical details closer to "home".

Quote:

Yet in chapters 19 and 20, when Apollos is introduced, this whole defense is subverted.

It seems that the author or someone has recklessly inserted/interpolated the Apollos passages into the text.

We may suppose that after the text was in circulation, the author read something about Apollos being the first to preach to the Ephesians and all of Asia. It was necessary for him to somehow counter this and show that Paul was the first real Apostle derived from the Jerusalem crowd to preach there.

After writing Romans, the author takes up the argument again in
1 Corinthians 1

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 chronology is

1.Writes Acts minus Acts 18:24 - 19:22
2. Writes Romans to prove the last 9 chapters of Acts.
3. Writes Acts 18:24-19:22 added to counter charges from the Church of Ephesus that Apollos was the first Apostle
4. Writes 1 Corinthians to prove Acts 18:24-19:22.

Codex Bezae does not have Apollos.
The name Apollonius is explicit.

Apollonius of Tyana is implicated historical material in the fabricated collage.
He has a greater measure of historicity than the "HJ".
Ammianus' account of Apollonius needs to be understood.
Ammianus wrote in the same century that the NT became widespread.

Eusebius' polemic "Against Apollonius" at that epoch
is also highly relevant in the political and architectural
environmental traditions. Apollonius of Tyana - the more
historical figure that the "HJ" - is written out of history.

Except for Philostratus.
Except for Codex Bezae.
Except for analysis of the testimony of Eusebius.
And the inscription at the Adana Museum.

How did the name Apollonius get into Bezae?
Who knows?

I have enjoyed reading many discussions here.
Please carry on as best you see fit.
Its winter. Am moving slower.
Sunshine is a valued commodity.

Pete

mountainman · 06-13-2009, 09:15 PM

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?

A single common god would be good to some.
What's the use of a melting pot of religions?
The new testament is about the new god.
Think - manual, reference guide.
Ignore massive plaguerism of pagan wisdom.

Who is/was/to be the Good God ?
Who is/was/to be the Chrestos God?
Monotheism had its sword-pointed sharp demands.

Greetings. Am enjoying reading a number
of your summary comments. And best wishes,

Pete

GakuseiDon · 06-14-2009, 02:07 AM

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?

Clivedurdle · 06-14-2009, 03:57 AM

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?

DCHindley · 06-14-2009, 07:05 AM

Technically, Jewish purity laws only applied if you were planning to visit the temple to make an offering. Most folks, even in the land of Israel (however defined), were unclean most of the time, with the possible exception of the chief priests. Generally, the closer to the temple or holy city, you find a greater proportion of purer people.

But dietary law is something else. Generally, these are not directly connected to purity, so Jews everywhere tried to maintain them. Others, especially those who were slaves or unable to maintain traditions due to sparsity of numbers or lack of resources (i.e., out in the boondocks), may have no choice but to eat what was available just to survive. Finally others may have decided that dietary laws could be treated like purity laws, and disregarded when outside the holy land. Members of the Herodian households may have adopted this approach, at least when hob-nobbing with the Roman and Greek elites they lived among.

What is to keep Peter from adopting this kind of position, when traveling abroad at least?

DCH

Why can't Peter reason that

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?

Toto · 06-14-2009, 08:58 AM

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.

Quote:

...
One striking feature of Acts is the insertion into it of chapters 19 and 20 on Apollos. ...

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.

Quote:

The defense that Paul will use in the Trial before the Emperor is clear. Jews from Asia accuse me of attacking the Mosaic law, but I avoided Asia and when I had to go to Asia - Ephesus, the Jews of the synagogue were with me and would have stopped me from saying anything against the Mosaic Laws.

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.

PhilosopherJay · 06-14-2009, 10:32 AM

Hi Pete,

The fact that Codex Bezae has Apollonius is really intestering. There are a group of scholars who believe that Codex Bezae actually represents a text closer to the original written text. They base this on the fact that some of the text in Bezae that has been changed in the other manuscripts is more genuinely Lucan than the changed text. See, for example, Rius-Camps, Josep, and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger. The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition.

We know that Apollonius was in Ephesus in 96 C.E. from Philosostratus' Life of Apollonius (8.26) and Cassius Dio (Roman History (67.18.1)

We may conjecture that the writer of Acts was trying to say that the miracle healer Apollonius was actually a Christian and did his magic through the Holy Ghost. He did not realize that Apollonius would be dated to Ephesus in 96 by Dio Cassius when he writes his history circa 225. This ruins the chronology of Acts which is supposed to be taking place in the 50's. Thus it was necessary to change the reference to the unknown Apollos.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

{snip}

Codex Bezae does not have Apollos.
The name Apollonius is explicit.

Apollonius of Tyana is implicated historical material in the fabricated collage.
He has a greater measure of historicity than the "HJ".
Ammianus' account of Apollonius needs to be understood.
Ammianus wrote in the same century that the NT became widespread.

Eusebius' polemic "Against Apollonius" at that epoch
is also highly relevant in the political and architectural
environmental traditions. Apollonius of Tyana - the more
historical figure that the "HJ" - is written out of history.

Except for Philostratus.
Except for Codex Bezae.
Except for analysis of the testimony of Eusebius.
And the inscription at the Adana Museum.

How did the name Apollonius get into Bezae?
Who knows?

I have enjoyed reading many discussions here.
Please carry on as best you see fit.
Its winter. Am moving slower.
Sunshine is a valued commodity.

Pete

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

06-14-2009, 03:57 AM	#7
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	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?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.