rlogan

Heh. No, you have demanded that whatever is offered be to your unreasonable straw man standard - finding proof two thousand years later that someone was noted for letter writing (and nothing more) in the first century. You insisted I could find at least twenty personages known for that were it true, and the demand by you to locate such persons has been made numerous times throughout the thread. That assertion and demand of yours is a completely bogus straw man.

Word games about "evidence", as opposed to "proof" are just that - word games.

Oh, and you made some remark previously about "my" estimate of 3% literacy. Here is a piece by Meir-Bar-Ilan,
Senior Lecturer at Talmud Department and Jewish History Department of Bar-Ilan University:

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

You will have to forgive me that the correct citation was less than 3%. Of course, to be a letter writer as opposed to merely literate would be a subset of that already small class of persons. Literacy to the level of Paul an even smaller class.

Now, I fully expect word games to be played regarding "note" or "acclaim". To avoid such dodges, why don't you tell us what level of "note" or "acclaim" a person who wrote letters would achieve then?

You know, stop playing the game where everyone has to prove things (alias give evidence) to your standard. Just describe to us how much note you expect a person would have at the time for writing letters. Perhaps we will actually have no disgreement whatsoever once you've actually laid some cards on the table instead of pretending not to be convinced that letter writing was a distinction at all.

I have provided scholarly evidence that writing letters is a capability of significantly less than 3% of the population of the time. I submit that evidence as precisely the level of distinction, note, or acclaim one would have at the time if nothing else were of issue. At the level Paul was writing we are certainly speaking of literacy above the upper 1% of the time.

Rick Sumner

No. Proof is unequivocal, which is the way you used it above. Further, you put it in quotation marks, indicating it is a cite, rather than your own words.

I didn't say it was yours. I said it was suggested. Crossan presents a similar argument for a three percent literacy rate. I think it was probably lower than that.

This, again, is a misrepresentation of my words.

That is exactly what I stated. Your arguing against imaginary positions.

Or, perhaps you will prove yourself able to engage in debate in a more appropriate manner, without shifting the burden of proof, issuing thinly guised ad hominems, and reshaping my argument such that it's easier to refute for you.. Past experience leads me to believe that this is unlikely.

When you have done so, perhaps we will be able to continue. Otherwise, this is a waste of both of our time, as nothing productive is going to come of it.

I submit that if people who wrote letters were distinguished for writing letters, we would find people who are distinguished for writing letters.

You need to provide a point of comparison--a reason to think that in situation Y, X will occur. In all other instances of situation Y, X has not occurred. Yet you insist that it should nonetheless. This is specious reasoning.

And I never stated that you were incorrect at three percent. I said three percent was probably generous. Yet another strawman.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

rlogan

Exactly as I said. More coy little word games to avoid the issue.


Wonderful. We can put this behind us and have you address why you believe such an achievement is not worthy of note.

You have repeatedly given the impression that writing letters was not worthy of note at the time. Let's try to stick with this point that you wish to avoid with red herrings.

And that too, is a misrepresentation of the issue as I have stated - writing inter-regional letters of religious nature to church groups is worthy of note. As opposed to writing Mom from summer camp.

positive evidence was submitted with 2 Corinthians 10:10.


One should look in the mirror.

Sure - it is well noted that when called upon for the description of what kind of note one should achieve for such literary accomplishment that you turn tail and run.


heh. In stating your position here you have avoided the most critical demand you have made of others - that they be noted in a manner that would two thousand years later give evidence of it.

So who won the biggest chariot race in 1 CE?
Who owned the biggest inn?
Who was the tallest?
The shortest?
The best musician?

Etc. ad infinitum.

By your reasoning nobody was acclaimed for any of these things in the first century because we have no record of it two thousand years later.


Haw! This is rich. Again avoiding the absurd nature of your demand.

Rick Sumner claims that evidence two thousand years after the fact is necessary to prove contemporary note strictly for the accomplishment of writing letters.

Again, there are countless things that people were acclaimed for at the time, and we have no idea of their names. Best swordsman. Hottest babe. Strongest man.

Your demand for evidence of 1st century note for any such thing based on what survived two thousand years later is absurd.

There are thousands of counter-examples to the pseudo-proof you demand. People who were famous at the time for one thing or another, and about which no record has survived.

Edited to add: Whereas Paul is famous two thousand years later precisely for writing the letters in question - yet we are to doubt that he had any contemporary notoriety whatsoever for so doing. Paul is the issue in question and the direct specific proof has been offered in Corinthians 10.



Not what I stated, and glad that is behind us.


Now waiting for you to offer more than coy word game dodges and absurd levels of proof.

Amaleq13

I think this is a flawed assumption predicated on the earlier flawed assumption that Acts should be understood, at least in part, as a biography of Paul. While there is certainly information about Paul that could be considered allegedly biographical, the primary purpose of the work appears to be an allegedly historical description of the early Christian community immediately following the resurrection. The inclusion of Paul in this story is not at all about Paul but about how Paul can be fit into the author's depiction of this early Christian community. Many scholars have discussed the significant differences between the depiction of this early community in Paul's letters and the depiction AActs provides. This includes F. F. Bruce in The Book of Acts (from Peter Kirby's website ):

"Certainly the impression he gives us of their relations is not the impression received from Paul's letters..."

And that, my friends, is what I consider to be the best explanation for the absence of any reference to those letters in Acts. They simply do not agree with the depiction of the early community the author wishes to convey.

Could a former companion of Paul have ignored his letters in favor of creating an account that depicted a united early community? I don't see why not so I also don't see how the absence of any reference to the letters can be considered evidence either for or against the author having been a former companion.

Howdaya like them apples?

Ted Hoffman

This supports my argument. Your alternative explanation doesn't, in any way, challenge my argument and can be considered a red herring.

False dichotomy.

Self-contradictory statement.

Whichever way you want to twist it, "Paul wrote letters" is more noteworthy than "The south wind blew" in Acts 27:13.

This is ok, the argument is, whichever way the author wanted to 'use' Paul to serve his apologetic purpose, if he actually travelled with Paul, a reference to Paul's letter writing would have necessarily found space in this work.
If the author's apologetic purposes were not consistent with giving a true picture of Paul, it can then be argued that the Paul in Acts is not the Paul that wrote the letters in the NT - as in AActs' Paul is another Paul. That much we can agree on. But it cant be the same Paul.

Dem apples taste real good. Yummy, yummy....

jbernier,
Then don't touch it. It could be a bomb!

Examples please.

This is laughable. He wasnt gonna give them Paul's letters. This is like arguing that, when talking about me, mentioning to vegetarians that I used to eat one goat daily is irrelevant because they don't eat meat.

Yeah, like when you write about Travolta, there is no need to mention he is a scientologist. Conversely, if you have no mysteries to reveal about someone, its pointless to write about that someone - as in the sole purpose of writing is to reveal secrets and mysteries right?

Amaleq13

It clearly undermines your early assumption that a former companion of Paul would be expected to mention Paul's letters. This would only be true if the primary purpose of the work was to talk about Paul. That does not appear to be the case. The actual primary purpose, in fact, appears to require that the author avoid any reference to evidence contrary to his depiction of the early community.

"Touching blue does not make it true." Now you're making me quote Rick. This is a very evil tactic.

Exactly how can this be considered a "false dichotomy"? A "false dichotomy" is an oversimplification of possible conclusions into two diametrically opposed options. I've explained why the original assumption that Acts should be understood as a biography of Paul is false. The contents of Acts indicate it should be understood as primarily an effort to describe a united early community. This new assumption is framed above as a question aimed at the secondary assumption that the author would be expected to mention the letters. This does not appear to resemble a "false dichotomy" at all. It is a replacement of your initial assumption with one consistent with the text and the subsequent falsification of your secondary assumption.

Again, you need to be more specific and actually defend these assertions with explanations. There is nothing obviously contradictory about noting that the presence of some biographical material about a specific character in a story is sufficient to understand the entire story as a biography about that character.

There is no "twist" involved. I'm only observing the apparent intent of the author and recognizing that referring to Paul's letters would be contrary to that intent. Therefore, we should not expect any such reference whether the author travelled with Paul or not.

Obviously this cannot be true if those letters were contrary to the apologetic purpose.

Clearly, the depiction of Paul in Acts is inconsistent with the self-depiction in Paul's letters but AActs just as clearly intends that his Paul be understood as the same guy.

Ted Hoffman

I do not agree that it undermines my argument. Its an alternative explanation but it does not challenge my argument.

I do not agree that Paul's letter writing would only merit mention "if the primary purpose of the work is to talk about Paul". The author writes pages and pages about Paul. In those several Pages, he/she writes extensively about Paul. In those pages, I argue, "Paul wrote letters" should have found some space since the author even gets time and space to talk about how the wind blew. That the phrase did not find any place in the authors work casts a shadow of doubt about whether AActs was actually Paul's companion.

Demonstrate how you have arrived at what the 'primary purpose' of the author was. Then demonstrate that stating that Paul write letters could have gone contrary to the achioevement of that purpose.

I responded 'false dichotomy to the following quote from you:
Here is the dichotomy:

1. Ignore Paul's letters in order to create an account that depicted a united early community.

2. Not ignore Paul's letters and be incapable of creating an account that depicts a united early community.

I demonstrate the falsity of this dichotomy by posing:

Not ignore Paul's letters and still create an account that depicted a united early community.

Your argument essentially was that AActs had to ignore mention of Paul's letters in order to create an account that depicted a united early Xstian community. This statement automatically implies that the contrary position (mentioning Paul's letters) would thwart the author's intention - hence you created a false dichotomy by arguing that the author had to ignore Paul's letters in order to achieve his own purpose or mention them and fail.

I hope we are clear on the falsity of the dichotomy.

About your earlier statement being self-contradictory:

A. You wrote that my "flawed assumption" was predicated on Acts being, in part, a biography of Paul.

B. You also wrote that there is certainly information about Paul that could be considered biographical.

In A, you imply that my assumption is flawed because of its basis. In B, you state that the basis is correct. In my view, these are contradictory statements.
I notice that you later write "the primary purpose of the work appears to be an allegedly historical description of the early Christian community immediately following the resurrection", but this is a separate argument.

You either think that Acts contains information about Paul that can be considered biographical, or you don't.

I get your overall argument. What you now need to demonstrate is how mentioning "Paul wrote letters" would have jeopardized what you claim was "the primary purpose" of writing Acts.

And Amaleq? You need to decide the path to take, or at least make it clear whether you are treading the two paths at the same time:
1. Either you agree that mentioning Paul's letter-writing was immaterial.
2. Or you agree that mentioning Paul's letters would have been relevant/important but the author consciously chose not to mention them because mentioning them would have thwarted his 'primary purpose' for writing Acts.

1 and 2 are not compatible but they are both attacks on my position. You wanna go by 2?

How do you like dem sugarcanes?

Amaleq13

It denies two of your foundational assumptions. Usually, denying one foundational assumption is all that is necessary to constitute a challenge to the entire argument.

Is any of the included information about Paul contrary to the general depiction of community unity? You need that to have a rational basis for disagreement.

Depicting how the wind blew creates verisimilitude which is clearly consistent with the apparent intent of the author to create the appearance of a credible history of the early community. Referring to Paul's letters that contain depictions contrary to the author's depictions would just as clearly call into question that credibility.

Reading the story should be sufficient but feel free to consult any commentary on Luke-Acts. I've read numerous scholars describe Luke-Acts as an attempt to depict the story of Jesus and the story of "the early church" as history. Most consider this depiction to be at least somewhat fabricated but most acknowledge this as the author's primary intent. On the other hand, I've read none who describe it as, even in part, a biography of Paul.

All of the following are from Kirby's website:

"No finding of modern New Testament study is more assured than that Luke and Acts are not two books, written at different times, but two volumes of a single work, conceived and executed as a unit...the preface of Luke's gospel is, upon closer scrutiny seen to be really the preface of the larger work. There is nothing in it to limit it to the gospel; it definitely aims at recording the development of the Christian movement from the very beginning." Edgar Goodspeed, The Work of Luke

In fact, Goodspeed agrees with me against you in his discussion about why Acts contains no reference to the deaths of Peter or Paul:

"...it is not a biography of Peter and Paul but an account of the progress of the Greek mission up to its establishment in the capital of the world."

"In Acts, Luke has provided a broad survey of the church's development from the resurrection of Jesus to Paul's first Roman imprisonment, the point at which the book ends. In telling this story, Luke describes the emergence of Christianity from its origins in Judaism to its position as a religion of worldwide status and appeal." NAB, Introduction - Acts

"It is our contention that Acts is both historical and apologetic, that Luke wrote the work both for Theophilus (as an apologetic piece) and for secondary readers (both for apologetic and historical reasons). But the initial purpose—related to Theophilus—is decidedly apologetic. Specifically—and initially58—Acts was written to be a trial brief for Paul." Daniel Wallace's Introduction

Wallace provides a good reason here for some biographical material about Paul here but never refers to "biography" as a primary purpose.

Wallace also quotes Guthrie's evaluation of the purpose of Acts:

"Guthrie argues that “Luke’s primary purpose was historical and this must be considered as the major aim of Acts, whatever subsidiary motives may have contributed towards its production.”Yet, Guthrie quickly adds five alternatives to the purpose of Acts (a narrative of history, a gospel of the Spirit, an apology, a defense for Paul’s trial, and a theological document [either written to address the triumph of Christianity or the delay of the parousia])."

Again we are given a good reason to expect some biographical details about Paul but no indication that creating a biography of Paul was intended.

J.W. McGarvey repeats the opinions of several scholars that Acts should be understood as primarily intended to read as a history of the church but argues that this is only what the author "performed". He argues that the work should be understood to be "that men might know how conversions were effected, and in what they consisted" or a "history of a case of conversion".

Again, we can see by this alternate explanation why some biographical details about Paul might be expected, specifically his conversion, but it is never suggested that creating a biography should be understood as the author's intent. IMO, McGarvey is missing the point that any attempt to depict the early community must, by definition, be about conversions. That is, after all, the primary "act" the apostles were supposed to accomplish.

In short, I could find no reference in any of the commentaries linked by Kirby nor in any of my personal books that suggest Acts should be understood as a biography of Paul.

Do you know of any scholars who agree with your assumption?

I've already provided the quote from F.F. Bruce that explicitly states they offer inconsistent depictions. Nearly every commentary mentioned above refers to the discrepancies between the two and how they tend to call into question the historicity of Acts (incorrectly in the view of apologetic scholars).

QED

How is that possible when Paul's letters contain a depiction that is inconsistent with that of Acts? Offering an implausible alternative does not establish the presence of a "false dichotomy" in my argument.

Yes, it is clear that there isn't one present in my argument.

As I already explained, your error is in generalizing the presence of some biographical details about Paul to the conclusion that the purpose of the story is a biography of Paul.

Nope, same argument. The above statement, according to my own reading of the text as well as that of the vast majority of scholars, appears to accurately describe the primary purpose of the author and a more specific description of that depiction is that he depicts a unified early community. An even more specific description is that he depicts Paul and the Jerusalem group as a unified community. These all say the same thing with varying degrees of specificity. Given the discrepant depiction contained in Paul's letters, all suggest that we should not expect any reference to those letters.

Speaking of false dichotomies, you are creating one when you assert that a story containing some biographical details about Paul must be considered a biography of Paul. That is clearly not the case with regard to Acts which, as I've already stated, does contain some biographical details about Paul but is not, according to the vast majority of scholars, a biography of Paul. Your oversimplification of the possibilities to two diametically opposed options (ie false dichotomy) ignores the fact that some biographical details about Paul would be expected in an alleged historical depiction of the early community. In fact, we would expect them given any of the suggested primary purposes offered by the scholars above. In addition, the only suggested purpose that might include the expectation of a reference to Paul's letters is the "legal defense" argument but I would have to see the specifics to be more certain. (IMO, assuming such evidence could be found, your argument would be stronger if this were assumed as the purpose of the story with specific examples of how Paul's letters would have supported that purpose) Regardless, there would appear to be no support for your assumption that Acts should be understood as a biography of Paul.

I think I made it pretty clear that I consider the argument to be flawed from its foundational assumptions.

I'm saying that the failure to mention Paul's letters in Acts is ultimately irrelevant to the question of whether the author was a former companion of Paul because the author has an obvious reason to avoid them regardless of his identity.

Too many bugs.

Ted Hoffman

You knocked down one strawman (that Acts is a biography of Paul) with a big weapon.
Mentioning that Paul wrote letters is not equal to sharing the contents of Paul's letters.

He could have said the letter's missed a point - or discredited them in some way.

Failing to mention them would not guarantee that People would not read them - unless.

Why would he want to 'create a picture' unless there was none? If there was none, he could have created his without any wilful omissions. If there was one (from Pauline epistles) he must have been a fool to write things people knew were false.

In short, there is no shortage of alternatives.

"presence of some biographical details about Paul"? I didn't write that Acts was a biography of Paul?

You really need to cut down on the strawman arguments. Otherwise, you will keep losing track of them.

Amaleq13

It is not a strawman but it is your fundamental assumption. Note that my argument is stated against the assumption of considering Acts to be, even in part, understood as a biography of Paul.

Your entire argument is founded on that assumption.

Mentioning Paul's letters makes no sense and can serve no purpose unless the contents were known.

Discrediting the letters discredits Paul which, given his important part in the early "unified" community, tends to discredit that community.

I agree but that is because I tend to consider Paul's letters more reliable than the story in Acts. There was no "unified early community" but the author of Acts clearly wants his readers to think otherwise.

If he knew that one of his characters wrote letters that described a divided early community, those letters would obviously have to be ignored. If he, somehow, did not know Paul wrote letters, the omission would not be willful.

I doubt he had to worry about his fellow Christians who were far more likely to be familiar with the contents of Paul's letters than his apparent primary audience of non-Christians. Remember that Luke-Acts, unlike the other two earlier Gospels, gives clear indication that it is intended to convince others of the truth of Christian beliefs. Whether they were intended simply as a general apologetic or specifically to support Paul's defense in his trial, they are meant to convince folks who lacked the faith of already-converted Christians. I see no reason to assume the faith of early Christians was any less than those today who have no problem with the many apparent inconsistencies of their sacred texts.

Even mentioning Paul's letters, however, risked inspiring his unconverted audience to seek them out and learn "too much" before they had their faith-blinders installed.

It is your opening assumption, Jacob.

"Even if it can be argued that AActs main theological reason for writing Acts was to glorify God and not Paul, he nevertheless included the details of Paul's Life and can be considered a biography of sorts." (emphasis mine)

As I already stated above, my argument includes the notion of considering Acts to be a biography of Paul only in part but, lest we be confused that the phrase "of sorts" changes the way you are using the word, your first premise refers to "biographies" with the clear implication that Acts is to be included:

"1. Biographies of people often include even minute habits of subjects like being an early riser and eating habits."

Your subsequent inference serves to drive this point home:

"Anyone who travelled with Paul, and later chose to write about Paul's life..." (emphasis mine)

To identify the author as having chosen to write about Paul's life is to claim that the author has chosen to write a biography of Paul even if that biographical text exists within the larger framework of the text of Acts.

This is clearly your foundational premise and just a clearly without sufficient support from the evidence to be sustained.