spamandham

In his book, "The Falsified Paul", p.66, Hermann Detering claims that Galations contains obvious polemics against Acts.

He also claims that the introduction to Galations smacks of pseudonymity (p. 54), and points out several other tell tale signs of fruadulent authorship. Although I agree with him on these points, he never delved into the claim that Galations contained obvious polemics against Acts (vs. the other way around).

If the author of Galations is familiar with Acts, does this not call into question the authenticity of even the 'authentic' epistles?

Is Detering right in regards to the claim of polemics against Acts in Galatians!?

DCHindley

Albert Schweitzer's take on it is as follows:

[According to the Ultra-Tübingen Dutch Radical critics A. D. Loman, Rudolf Steck, and W. C. van Manen] [126] When the Tübingen school set up the axiom that Acts is less trustworthy than the Epistles, they made things easy for themselves. There are weighty arguments to support the opposite opinion.

That the moment a mission to the heathen was undertaken the question of the observance of the law must come up is clear. The most natural thing to happen would be that it should come up for discussion on purely practical lines and should take the form: how much must the Gentile Christians take over of the Commandments in order that the Jewish believers might have table-fellowship and social intercourse with them?

This is the form of the problem which Acts presupposes, and it gives us in the account of the so-called Apostolic Council a decision in accordance therewith.

The Epistle to the Galatians, on the other hand, asserts that the question of the validity of the law as such was raised at that time, and that Paul and the original apostles agreed to divide the spheres of their mission work into Gentile and Jewish. About the most pressing need, the establishment of a modus vivendi in mixed churches, nothing was done. This representation is much less natural than the other.

Nor is the case different in regard to the picture of Paul which these two sources give us. In Acts everything is clear and simple. The Apostle appears at first rather as an assistant to Barnabas, but afterwards makes himself independent, and maintains his position in relation to the original apostles by the force of his personality, in a free but not a hostile fashion.

In the letters, on the other hand, everything is unintelligible. Stress is laid on the fact that the Apostle of [127] the Gentiles after his conversion has no intercourse with the original apostles and the Church, receives nothing whatever of the doctrinal tradition about Jesus, and draws his gospel entirely from revelation.

The statements regarding the external facts of his life are extremely confused. After his conversion he is said to have first spent three years in " Arabia " and then to have gone to Damascus, and from there, three years after his conversion, to have paid his " visit of ceremony " to the Church at Jerusalem, during which, however, he says that he saw only Peter, and James the Lord's brother. After that he spent fourteen years in Syria and Cilicia.

Who can form a clear picture of the journeys implied in the letters, or of the relation of Paul to his churches?

Who can understand the character here presented? Sometimes the Apostle is radical, sometimes conservative, sometimes bold, sometimes despairing; in small things firm, in great things weakly yielding; now violent, then again mild; in all ways full of uncertainties and contradictions.

Far from arousing belief, the statements of the letters about the Apostle create difficulty upon difficulty and doubt upon doubt, if once one ventures to read them with an open mind. On the one side it seems as if a certain tendency to bring him into opposition with the original apostles made itself felt throughout, while on the other hand the traits are thrown together without any reference to an integral psychologically intelligible picture.

The most natural view is, therefore, that Acts represents what is historically most authentic, while in the letters an imaginary picture is drawn, exhibiting throughout the same tendency, but composed by various hands.

Paul & His Interpreters (or via: amazon.co.uk) [*] (1912, page numbers in brackets)

DCH

[*]mod note - available here as free download

Toto

The contrary view is here, based in part on analysis from Joseph Tyson in Marcion and Luke-Acts: a Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Of course, Acts could be purely theological fiction, and Galatians an equally fictional reaction.

mountainman

This is simply Eusebian bombast, which riddles all the canonical christian literature, and the Eusebian pseudo-histories. If Detering wants to get serious about the analysis of anti-canonical polemics, he should take the non canonical christian literature texts out of his too hard basket. These texts exhibit such a serious and dedicated anti-canonical polemic that the minds of mainstream christians (and BC&H scholars at present) have not yet come to terms with the very real possibility that the authors were non-christian pagan priests. Nag Hammadi provides evidence for such a possibility. In the fourth century, they were attempting to oppose the newly implemented christian agenda, but targetting the characters mentioned in Constantine's monstrous tales -- the polemic was both political and religious. The religious polemic is seen in the authors (of the non canonical texts) repeated use of ascetic themes, which was the basis of the Hellenic "pagan priests" religious activities.



Best wishes,



Pete Brown

spamandham

I'm no expert on Detering, so I don't know what all he has considered. I'm about 1/3 of the way through his book (referenced in the OP) and ran across his claim that Galatians contains obvious polemics against Acts, but he doesn't expand on that (I did a quick scan of the remaining 2/3 to determine this).

IMHO, if he's right, then Paul really is (mostly?) a fictional character, regardless of the pages of argument I posted against that idea in the 'Jesus the 12 and Paul are fiction' thread.

(...to the extent there is a kernel of real history in Paul, if Detering is right, we would not know it, and Paul would be rightfully delegated to the same scrap heap as Jesus).

From what I can see, a serious skeptical approach to all the evidence was undertaken 100+ years ago and then summarily dismissed. It's being resurrected today (a bit more than 3 days, but better late than never )

schilling.klaus

Of course he is, and all those who still believe in authentic Paulines lack understanding of the origins of Christianity.
The canonical epistle to the Galatians is of course manipulated in order to harmonise with the Acta Apostolorum, and only a bunch of linguistic oddities show that this is the the result of avoiding the conflict as far as possible.
Also, The Acta Apostolorum can't be seen as set in stone in Marcion's time, but was subject to many later emmendments, which makes everything more complicated.
Reading history in either the Acta Apostolorum or the epistles of Paul (falsely so-called) is hilarious. They are all dogmatic patchworks.

Klaus Schilling

spamandham

I guess I was hoping for a bit more meat that drives the point home.

mountainman

Once there were fourteen letters. The trend is towards zero
and the assessment of forgery and fraud.

]Additionally, there is the issue of further information. The Syriac texts, the Nag Hammadi codices, the discovery of the gJudas, etc have all contributed to a state that the opinions of 100 years back concerning the non canonical christian literature need to be entirely superceded.

Once we had a box full of canonical texts, but now we seek a full solution to the entire phenomenom of christian literature. It is an interesting epoch.


Best wishes


Pete Brown

andrewcriddle

One argument that Acts is later than the Pauline letters is that of the Christian vocabulary in both. That of Acts appears more developed than in Paul.

For example Acts knows that followers of Jesus are called Christians and uses the word twice. Paul's letters never use the word.

Andrew Criddle

schilling.klaus

that's of no relevance as the epistles and apostolic acts both have gone through several redactions, and vocabulary may be assimilated

Klaus Schilling