TedM

IF Acts can be parsed as you say and the above quotation is the 'early layer' of Act Material, then we still have a very gospel-like Jesus who is NOT the same one some paint the epistles to be representing. The parts in bold above give details that go beyond the baptism and passion story: the place Jesus was from, the area his ministry covered, his reputation as a great healer, the physical resurrection appearances after the crucifixion all are mentioned.

Further, the context of Acts is that of how Christianity spread and the particular quote above is a sermon which highlights the important points that would appeal to his audience, so wouldn't you expect it to be much as it is--focusing mostly on the claim of resurrection? After all, THAT was what the commotion was all about! It wasn't about Jesus going around preaching and healing because he--as far as the audience was concerned--was dead and wouldn't be doing that anymore.

I see you are putting a lot of emphasis on John here but would only make traditional sense considering the audience which would have been well aware of John.

I gotta let this go..too many things I should be doing. All the best, Ted

GakuseiDon

It's certainly puzzling the silence about a historical Jesus over the first few centuries. And not just in early Christian writings. Graham Stanton notes in his "The Gospels and Jesus" that "precise historical and chronological references are few and far between in the numerous Jewish writings discovered in the caves around the Dead Sea near Qumran."

One issue is that we bring our own expectations into how the people back then should have written. We tend to expect that they would have written to meet our expectations. I know that some here believe that our modern-day western communication style is "human nature", but as someone who spent some years in Japan, I have experienced the problems in expecting western values to represent some kind of common "human nature" shared by all.

I've mentioned the Context Group before. As Wiki describes it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Context_Group

The Context Group is a working group of international biblical scholars who promote research into the Bible using social-scientific methods such as anthropology and sociology. Its webpage defines the group succinctly as "A Project on the Bible in its Socio-Cultural Context"...

At the root of the Context Group's social-scientific method is the belief that biblical scholars have taken western cultural assumptions for granted when interpreting the Bible, an ancient document produced in a much different culture.

The key difference is that the modern western world is an individualistic, industrial society, whereas the society of the ancient Mediterranean world was collectivistic and agrarian.

The ancient Mediterranean was also a high-context society, where discourse took shared cultural values for granted. This contrasts with the modern western world, which is a low-context society in which discourse tends to be more specific and specialized (i.e. to particular groups, subcultures, etc.). According to the Context scholars, the interpreter must learn the cultural assumptions and values behind the text in order to understand it correctly. This involves understanding values such as honor and shame, for example, which Malina calls "pivotal cultural values."

Imagine staying at someone's house for the first time and being told "Don't piss on the floor". You'd think "Of course I won't piss on the floor. Why did he tell me that?" That's the kind of 'context dissonance' that can occur. The greater the shared values, the higher the context, and the more things can be left unsaid:

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

In a high context culture, many things are left unsaid, letting the culture explain. Words and word choice become very important in higher context communication, since a few words can communicate a complex message very effectively to an in-group (but less effectively outside that group), while in a lower context culture, the communicator needs to be much more explicit and the value of a single word is less important.

Here is an example of cross-cultural miscommunication in Japan by comedian Dave Barry:
http://www.analytictech.com/mb119/cr...munication.htm

The Japanese are not big on saying things directly. Another way of putting this: Compared with the Japanese, the average American displays in communication all the subtlety of Harpo hitting Zeppo with a dead chicken. The Japanese tend to communicate via nuance and euphemism, often leaving important things unsaid; whereas Americans tend to think they're being subtle when they refrain from grabbing the listener by the shirt.

This difference in approach often leads to mis-understandings between the two cultures. One of the biggest problems -- all the guidebooks warn you about this -- is that the Japanese are extremely reluctant to come right out and say "no", a word they generally regard as impolite. My wife, Beth, learned this before we even got to Japan, when she was making airplane and hotel arrangements through a Japanese travel agent. Beth, who is an extremely straight-ahead type of communicator, was having a hell of a time, because she kept having conversations like this:

BETH: . . . and then we want to take a plane from Point A to Point B.
TRAVEL AGENT: I see. You want to take a plane?
BETH: Yes.
TRAVEL AGENT: From Point A?
BETH: Yes.
TRAVEL AGENT: To Point B?
BETH: Yes.
TRAVEL AGENT: Ah.
BETH: Can we do that?
TRAVEL AGENT: Perhaps you would prefer to take a train.
BETH: No, we would prefer to take a plane.
TRAVEL AGENT: Ah-hah. You would prefer to take a plane?
BETH: Yes. A plane.
TRAVEL AGENT: I see. From Point A?

And so it would go, with arrangement after arrangement. Inevitably, by the time Beth got off the phone, she was a raving madwoman. "What is the PROBLEM??" she would shout, causing the dogs to crawl around on their stomachs (in case they had done something wrong). "Why can't these people COMMUNICATE???"

The answer, of course, is that the travel agent was communicating. A person familiar with the Japanese culture would recognize instantly that the agent was virtually screaming, "THERE IS NO PLANE, YOU ZITBRAIN!" To the best of my knowledge, in all the time we traveled around Japan, nobody ever told us we couldn't do anything, although it turned out that there were numerous things we couldn't do.

Barry goes on to provide the following helpful chart translating Japanese phrases to American English:

	Japanese person	Actual Meaning
	I see	No.
	Ah.	No.
	Ah-hah.	No.
	Yes.	No.
	That is difficult.	That is completely impossible.
	That is very interesting.	That is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
	We will study your proposal.	We will feed your proposal to a goat.

stephan huller

The other possibility is that the author of Acts was trying to construct an ecumenical portrait of Jesus - i.e. one that various pre-existent traditions could agree on.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ted,

Thanks for pointing this out. It is important that the Acts material tells us that God1. Anointed Jesus with the Holy spirit and power. It is a common motif found most often in Acts and in the epistles, but also in the begining of Acts and Matthew.

Acts 10:38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil

Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on ...
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the ...

Acts 2:4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to ...
... And they were all full of the Holy Spirit, and were talking in
different languages, as the Spirit gave them power. ...

Acts 2:33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from ...
... God used his power to give Jesus the highest position. Jesus has also received and has poured out the Holy Spirit as the Father had promised, and this is what ...

Acts 8:19 and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on ...
... and said, "Give me this power so that anyone I place
my hands on will receive the Holy Spirit." ...

Acts 19:6 When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came ...
... And when Paul had put his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they had the power of talking in tongues, and acting like prophets. ...

Romans 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared ...
... and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord. ...

Romans 15:19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power ...
... in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem, and round about even unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the ...

Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace ...
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. ...

Hebrews 2:4 God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various ...
... God bearing, besides, witness with them to it, both by signs and wonders, and various acts of power, and distributions of the Holy Spirit, according to his will ...

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is ...
... to know, that no one, speaking in the power of the Spirit of God, says, Curse on Jesus; and no one can say, Lord Jesus, unless in the power of the Holy Spirit. ...

1 Thessalonians 1:5 because our gospel came to you not simply with ...
because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. You know ...

1 Corinthians 2:4 My message and my preaching were not with wise ...
... And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit. ...

2 Timothy 1:14 Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you ...
... Through the power of the Holy Spirit who lives within us, carefully
guard the precious truth that has been entrusted to you. ...

1 Peter 1:12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving ...
... you. And now this Good News has been announced to you by those who preached in the power of the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. It ...

2 Peter 1:21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man ...
... for prophecy was not ever uttered by the will of man, but holy
men of God spake under the power of the Holy Spirit. ...

Jude 1:20 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most ...
... But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most
holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit, ...

Luke 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you ...
... And the angel answering said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and power of the Highest overshadow thee, wherefore the holy thing also which shall ...

Luke 4:14 Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit ...
... Then Jesus returned to Galilee, filled with the Holy Spirit's power. Reports about him spread quickly through the whole region. ...

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His ...
... Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin,
she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit. ...

Power goes with the holy spirit like bacon with eggs.

The Acts material also knows that Jesus "went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 10:39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem"

Probably "all that were oppressed of the devil" means sick people.

This attribute could very well be discerned from prophesies as something the Christ would do. Jesus was the Christ, ergo, Jesus did them.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan Huller,

Yes. An outline of a story before it is written generally looks a lot like a summary after it is written. Are we getting a summary or outline of Jesus activities in Acts? This is an interesting question.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseiDon,

Good point.

In ancient times, it was perfectly acceptable for an historian to make up a speech that he hadn't actually read or seen. Today, it would be frowned upon by historians.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

ph2ter

Don't you think that the Epistle of Barnabas similarly reveals slightly more about Jesus than Paul's letters and slightly less than Acts?

Doug Shaver

What do you mean by "know"? If Acts as written during the second century, as I believe it was, the author could not have known anything about Jesus. What he could have known about was some stories about Jesus that were making the rounds of whatever religious community he was affiliated with--stories that he had already included in his "former treatise."

It is generally assumed that the former treatise was the book we know as the Gospel According to Luke. Possibly it was some other document that has since vanished. Even in the latter case, the author implies that had given his reader the details of Jesus' ministry in that earlier book. I see nothing suspicious about his failure to repeat any of those details in Acts, which was clearly not intended to be about Jesus himself but about what Jesus' followers did after his alleged ascension into heaven.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Doug,

According to the author of the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was the only son of God and performed dozens of miracles that were witnessed by thousands of people.

One expects that the writer of Acts would mention a little bit of information like He was the only son of the only real God or that there were thousands of people around who witnessed his miracles. Maybe, one of the apostles could have said, hey you don't believe me, just go to ___ and you'll find five thousand people who witnessed this miracle, or you know Jason Smith, he was a blind man and Jesus healed him, go to ___ and ask him.

If all the letters of Paul referred to the miracles and works of Jesus while he was alive, we could simply dismiss the author's neglect of them as a deliberate choice. Well, everybody already knows about these things, so why should I talk about them again. In fact, outside of the gospels, we find nothing about them. The material that Luke is using doesn't know anything either.

Let us say that I am arguing that the Great Gazebo was the greatest magician of all time. My argument is "He died and came back to life. I saw him and eleven of my friends saw him, well actually only ten of my friends saw him, we then elected somebody to say that he was a witness although, he never actually saw him return from the dead."

The Material in Acts clearly demonstrates that it was the Holy Spirit performing all the miracles and anybody (not just Jesus of Nazareth) could perform them. All you have to know is the magic word "Jesus" and believe it will work. It not only does not know that Jesus was the Son of God, but it doesn't take him to be anybody unusual. The things he said and did, it implies, is not worth remembering or knowing about. We should only remember that he was the Christ, the Jews killed him and God resurrected him. Its main ideology is that the Jews do not believe and persecute Jesus' followers, although Jesus' followers perform good magic (healing the sick).

In a sense, Acts can be seen as a sequel to the gospels. In the gospels the Jews disbelieve and persecute Jesus the Son of God/magician. In Acts, the Jews disbelieve and persecute the magician followers of Jesus. However, the emphasis on the magician followers of Jesus suggests that they are actually magician followers of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

The material in Acts knows Jesus as a follower of the Holy Ghost, nothing more, and not the Son of God. It is reasonable to suspect that this material predates the material that portrays Jesus as a Holy Man and the Son of God.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles is AFTER the Jesus story ENDS and BEGINS at the fictitious "WITNESSED" ascension of Jesus.

Acts of the Apostles is NOT about the ACTIVITIES of Jesus but the ACTIVITIES of the Apostles AFTER they were filled with the Promised Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

The story in Acts is pretty straight forward.

Jesus went to heaven in a cloud, sent the Holy Ghost and then the apostles got the Promised Holy Ghost which they NEEDED to preach the Gospel to the whole world by becoming MULTI-LINGUAL and to perform miracles.

Anyhow, there is a problem.

If Jesus did exist, he could have ONLY been human so Acts of the Apostles is fundamentally fiction.

The ACTIVITIES of the Apostles are BASED SOLELY on the POWER they Got from the Promised HOLY GHOST.

It is hardly likely that the Jesus cult was started with the Power of a Holy Ghost and that the apostles spoke multiple languages in order to preach to the whole world.

And further, Justin Martyr did NOT account for the ACTIVITIES of any apostle, including "Paul", as STATED in Acts of the Apostles. Nor did he ACCOUNT for the day of Pentecost and talking in tongues.

Justin Martyr ACCOUNTED for Simon Magus which is found in Acts but did NOT even say that Simon Magus was once a member of the Jesus cult as STATED in Acts 8.13

There is simply NO evidence or source of antiquity that can show Acts of the Apostles is about Jesus as a follower of the Holy Ghost.