Duvduv

Does Trobisch account for the possibility that all these epistles appeared AFTER the Book of Acts and not BEFORE?

DCHindley

As you may already know, NT manuscripts tend to be preserved in groups represented in NT critical apparatus as e, a, p & r:
e) The Four Gospels;
a) Acts + General epistles (John, Peter, James, Jude);
p) Pauline Corpus;
r) and finally the book of Revelation all by its lonesome.

Trobisch, in The First Edition of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), proposes that the NT manuscript tradition sticks doggedly to these divisions, meaning these divisions were actually published independently, more than likely by a single set of editors (possibly over a period of time), as "the" primo edition of approved "Christian" writings. The answer to whether Acts was written before or after the Pauline letters is pretty clear to me, as Acts is published along with letters with more than questionable origin, like 1 & 2 Peter, James & Jude, which suggests that these were grouped together at some point in time after the Gospels were written for sure, or Acts would have been transmitted along with them. The Paulines

It took a while for everyone to come on board, evidenced by mss that tack on the Epistle of Barnabas, the Letter to Mathetes, 1 Clement, even the Shepherd of Hermas.

Gotta go and tend to dinner.

DCH

Duvduv

Those who argue that Acts followed the epistles need to explain why Acts never mentions that "Pail" writes any epistles and why significant doctrinal ideas found in the epistles are never mentioned in Acts. Not to mention the well-known discrepancies. And of course there is the strong similarity in that neither Acts nor the epistles relate anything at all about the gospel stories.
The old apologists and historians conveniently ignored these problems.

On the other hand, those who argue that Acts was written BEFORE the epistles and gospels must wonder WHY the book was introducing Paul when the epistles had not yet been written, especially if Paul had never existed. What was the need for it?

Toto

No one ignores these problems. It is quite common to contend that Acts was written to contain Paul and make him subordinate to the orthodox Petrine faction. His theology is ignored; his letters are never mentioned directly, but the author of Acts has clearly taken some information from the letters to weave into his basically fictional story.

I have recommended Richard Pervo to you - have you actually done any reading on Acts?

It is possible that some Pauline letters were written before Acts, and others after Acts, or that some letters were revised after Acts was written.

Instead of posing these questions again and again, I think you might find some answers if you did a bit of background reading.

Duvduv

Thanks. Generally I find I need to find the time for extensive reading and appreciate summaries by others.
I suppose that if certain epistles were in fact written before Acts.the question would still be there as to why writers would be introducing this new person out of the blue.

aa5874

The word is COMMEND not command.

In any event, apologetic sources have claimed the Pauline author was AWARE of gLuke. That is, whenever gLuke was written, the Pauline author was ALIVE.

It has been deduced that gLuke was most likely written WELL after the Fall of the Jewish Temple so this would mean that the Pauline writer was ALIVE at that time. This also appears to be corroborated by Justin Martyr, the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22, Aristides and Arnobius.

The actual Pauline writer is NOT the Saul/Paul in Acts.

There was NO physical or celestial Jesus Christ before the Fall of the Jewish Temple. There was NO Galatians community before the Fall of the Temple that believed in the NT Jesus as a Savior, and Messiah.

Well, you should notice that the story started with the name SAUL and then later it was changed to Paul.

It does NOT appear to me that Acts of the Apostles was initially about Saul/Paul. The name Paul may have added to Acts of the Apostles after the Pauline writings were composed.

Duvduv

That's a very interesting line on inquiry.
I have long thought that Saul was someone else. Of course we can wonder why he was so important and why he was morphed into a different person. And if it was changed because of the epistles what was going on.

Toto

I realize we all have to conserve our time, but you seem to lack even a basic framework for asking meaningful questions. It would really help you to do a bit of background study.

Duvduv

I have been doing that already for the past 2-3 years.

Toto

What exactly have you studied?