Toto

The question of the historicity of Acts has been the subject of intense scholarly interest as well as Christian polemics. I don't think it would fit into a short blog post.


It is very hard to take anything you say seriously if you think that the Paul of Acts bears any resemblance to the Paul of the epistles.

In Acts, Paul is a firebrand who starts out on a historically improbable quest to track down Christians in Damascus on behalf of the High Priest in Jerusalem (except that the High Priest would not have had any jurisdiction in Damascus, and Saul/Paul elsewhere claimed to be a Pharisee, not a mere Temple policeman, and there is no record of anti-Christian activity at that early stage, and the conversion scene seems to have been ripped off from a Greek play. . .) Paul is then converted to a self effacing party man for the Christian faction. He runs around preaching with a few fellow Christians, and makes his way to Rome.

In the Epistles, Paul is his own man, who owes his connection to Jesus to no other man. He is boastful and authoritative. He mocks his rivals.

But Acts ignores the conflicts among Christians - the Christians who rejected Paul, of whom we have ample record in the Patristics.

Joseph Tyson in Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) has detailed the underlying structure of Acts, which is a response to Marcion. The purpose of Acts is to portray the earliest years of the church as united and one big love fest among Christians, while "the Jews" are the enemy.

...

Toto

Not this again. Layman made a long argument to that effect years ago on IIDB. It didn't fly then and it doesn't fly now.

The correlations between Acts and the letters do not point to a shared historical source - the point to the most likely conclusion that the author of Acts had the letters in front of him and intentionally rewrote parts or distorted parts.

For example, in the letters, Paul jokes about escaping from Damascus from the ethnarchs of Aretas (which Aretas is not clear) by being let down in a basket through a hole in the city wall. This throw-away line (as I read it) has been subjected to an amazing amount of scholarly exegesis. Is it historical or metaphor only? Aretas III was in control of Damascus before Paul's time, Aretas IV was not in control of Damascus, so who were these ethnarchs and why were they in pursuit of Paul? The reference to the escape in the basket is a literary allusion to the Hebrew Scriptures (look it up) - but perhaps Paul was writing in code? Perhaps Damascus is a stand in for Jerusalem, and "Aretas" a stand in for some other leader, and escaping the city through a "loophole" - a hole in the wall - is a reference to Paul's escape from some legal matter through a legal or rhetorical loophole? Is there a connection to the Damascus Document in the DSS?

The author of Acts, on the other hand, has put Saul in Damascus through some obviously non-historical story telling, and gets him out through that same hole in the city wall to escape "the Jews."

Please give me one serious reason to think that there is any history involved here.

aa5874

How can the Patristics be a record when they are questionable sources?

TedM

Just a summary would do. I didn't find anything much on wiki. For example, are the places, leaders, historical events mentioned corroborated or not?


ANY resemblance? Let's take a look Toto:

Acts and Paul RESEMBLE each other a LOT in this respect. They both claim that Paul was an advanced pharisee who violently persecuted Christians, and who was in the vicinity of Damascus when he was converted. NO RESEMBLANCE Toto?

Both Acts and the Epistles indicate that Paul was so contoversial with Jewish Christians that he was imprisoned several times, had to escape from Damascus at night from his enemies, was stoned, and eventually made his way to Rome. NO RESEMBLANCE?

You expect Luke to show Paul doing that? Come on.. Yet, there are clear similarities in Acts. He mentions that it was Jesus alone who called him, he talks of being the strictest of Jews--trained by Gamaliel himself, he turns to the Gentiles when the Jews didn't listen. And, you seem to have no awareness of the opening verses regarding the council with the Christian leaders in Jerusalem:

NO RESEMBLANCE?


see above.

The most logical conclusion is that Luke was writing about the same Paul that the epistles represent. That's corroborative. I don't see the significance of smoothing out some of the rough edges. The main issues are still addressed for the most part.

How is that a response to Marcion specifically?

TedM

I recall that it did indeed fly. People were flabbergasted on these threads. They had no idea that it was so closely corroborated. They obviously didn't know their sources very well. But, being skeptical by nature, points started coming out to diminish the mountain of evidence that was presented until finally some decided that it was nothing but a molehill.


This is a fringe viewpoint. Anything is possible, but how probable? What possible reason would there be for messing up the timeline events surrounding Paul's conversion? What reason for messing up with the missionary journeys? I'm not aware of any. Makes more sense that he did NOT have them in front of him, though may have had the 'we' manuscripts or his own memory to go by.


Yes, even some scholars like to let their imaginations run wild. The interesting thing here is that Paul's report is LESS probable than Lukes! Of course, there are adequate explanations anyway for showing that both could have been accurate. This example IMO doesn't help the case for Lukan invention.

I've given you a number, and Layman gave a huge number.

TedM

Acts, or the Epistles?:

Toto

All consistent with the author of Luke-Acts using Josephus as a source - and missing a point.


In Acts, Paul was not an advanced Pharisee. He was a low level Temple policeman. If he was a student of Gamaliel, he slept through some lessons. In the epistles, he was called from his mothers womb. . . no resemblance.

Why are you misstating things like this? The Epistles have Paul in conflict with "Jewish Christians" if by that you mean the Jerusalem Church headed by James. But James never imprisoned him. Acts, on the other hand, has Paul in conflict with actual Jews, not Jewish Christians. The Epistles have Paul giving a long stand up routine about his travails, but it seems to be more drama than history. (How many people survived being stoned?)

You are the one claiming similarities - and now you ask if Luke would be expected to show Paul as he was ? The Epistles say that Paul owed his gospel to no man, while Acts has him struck by Jesus, but counseled by Ananais in Damascus. In the Epistles, he maintains the idea that the Jews will come around, while in Acts, they are his enemies. :huh:

No resemblance - beyond a weak parody.

There is evidently no evidence that would convince you

It indicates that the author of Luke knew of Marcion.

TedM

Some quotes from wiki on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...f_the_Apostles


"Some prominent scholars and historians view the book of Acts as being quite accurate and corroborated by archaeology, while agreeing with the Pauline epistles."


"Most scholars understand Luke's works to be in the tradition of Greek historiography...The preface identifies the work as belonging to the genre of ancient history."


"It has been claimed that the writer of Acts used the writings of Josephus (specifically "Antiquities of the Jews"), as a historical source.[12][13] The majority of scholars reject both this claim and the claim that Josephus borrowed from Acts,[14][15][16] arguing instead that Luke and Josephus drew on common traditions and historical sources.[17][18][19][20][21][22]"


"Historicity
Passages consistent with the historical background

Acts contains some accurate details of 1st century society, specifically with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem,[25] including:

Inscriptions confirm that the city authorities in Thessalonica in the 1st century were called politarchs(Acts 17:6-8)
According to inscriptions, grammateus is the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus(Acts 19:35)
Felix and Festus are correctly called procurators of Judea
Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune(Acts 21:31 and Acts 23:36)
The title proconsul (anthypathos) is correctly used for the governors of the two senatorial provinces named in Acts (Acts 13:7-8and Acts 18:12)
Inscriptions speak about the prohibition against the Gentiles in the inner areas of the Temple, as Acts 21:27-36); see also Court of the Gentiles
The function of town assemblies in the operation of a city's business is described accurately in Acts 19:29-41
Roman soldiers were permanently stationed in the tower of Antonia with the responsibility of watching for and suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jews; to reach the affected area they would have to come down a flight of steps into temple precincts, as noted by Acts 21:31-37

However, Talbert also notes that "There is widespread agreement that an exact description of the milieu does not prove the historicity of the event narrated".[26]"



"more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[60] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[61]"


"The narrative of Acts, too, itself implies something other than what it sets in relief; for why should the Jews hate Paul so much, if he was not in some sense disloyal to their Law?"

Toto

Ha ha ha. No one was was flabbergasted. Layman had copied his points from some other apologist, and all of his points were easily refuted.

Layman, of course, was part of a group of apologists who used to post here. They never converted anyone, because they didn't have good arguments. Apologists in general seem to have given up on the idea of converting skeptics, and are just devoting their time to convincing their followers that they have some logical arguments. (See the Lee Strobel thread.)

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.


No it's not. I may have time to look up the reference later, but this is a scholarly opinion.

Acts is church propaganda. I don't know what needs to be explained beyond this.


You can't just wave your hands and say there are adequate explanations. You have already demonstrated that your standards are to accept any argument that supports the historicity of Acts, and to arbitrarily reject any arguments to the contrary, even those of reputable academics.

You have not produced any real reasons, or any peer reviewed reasons.

Toto

Under the new rules, Wikipedia is not to be cited as proof.

This only proves that Christian apologists have been active on Wikipedia.