Diogenes the Cynic

I would cite the lack of any reference in the Epistles to the destruction of the Temple as well as any awareness of such theologically/mythically developed ideas such as the Virgin Birth, the empty tomb, anything about the Passion or about any miracles aside from the Resurrection. Paul doesn't even make any claims that Jesus was a healer or an exorcist. These are all aspects which were certainly important to the author of Luke-Acts and Luke was Marcion's favorite Gospel. Even if we posit, for the sake of argument, that Marcion's Gospel has priority over Canonical Luke, even Marcion portrays Jesus as a miracle worker, a healer and an exorcist. I think Jesus as a miracle worker is far more likely to have been a post-Pauline development than that Paul (or a Marcionite posing as Paul) would have ignored that aspect (or indeed virtually any narrative aspect at all of Jesus' life).

There's also the fact that Paul is not nearly anti-Jewish enough to be Marcionite. Paul accepts Jewish scripture, Marcion did not.

gstafleu

I see, thanks for that. But it is a bit of an argument from silence, isn't it? It would be nice to have something a bit more decisive, but if it ain't there it ain't there. So if we follow the idea that Paul represented a particularly mystic strain of Xianity, then we still don't know who's on first. After all, as has often been pointed out here, writing in someone's name ("pseudo Paul") was a quite accepted practice in those days.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

There is only one reference in the epistles that "Paul" was alive somewhere between 34CE-40CE, during the reign of king Aretas. It is not known whether "Paul" was 15 or 105 years old when he was in the basket outside the window when King Aretas or a governor in Damascus tried to arrest him.
The epistles have no information about the age of "Paul" whatsoever, and "Paul" is not a figure of any known history, outside "his epistles"

Diogenes the Cynic

And I am defining Paul, somewhat tautologically, as nothing more than the author of the Pauline Epistles. I am not necessarily crediting him with any of the exploits attributed to the character of that name in Acts. I take it for granted that Acts cannot be regarded as a reliable source of information about the author of the Epistles.

Solitary Man

I'd almost be willing to push it to 30-50 years. There are problems with the idea of eyewitnesses with Paul. a) Paul doesn't say there were any eyewitnesses, so it's not likely there were, or at least we cannot say so without further evidence, b) Communal memory often trumps eyewitness account.

To the second, I'd like to refer to Kloppenborg's paper at the Bauckham session in San Diego the other week about a story where the community misremembered what happened, embellishing greatly, though their memory became authoritative, yet the character involved in the story (in particular a woman whose fiancee died), still alive, told it without embellishments. When confronted, the community, some of them eyewitnesses themselves, said that the woman herself was delusional. I wish the actual paper was available to read - I'll email Kloppenborg about it later.

Mythra

Is there even any evidence that whoever wrote Acts knew about Paul's account in Galatians? It sure looks like the two accounts of what happened right after the conversion are different:

from Acts 9:
Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God. All those who heard him were astonished and asked, "Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name? And hasn't he come here to take them as prisoners to the chief priests?" Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Christ. After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him, but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him. But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall. When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple

From Galatians 1:
I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days

I suppose it could be argued that three years is many days. I've seen worse apologetics. But why would the writer of Acts have presented an account that clearly was not consistent with Paul's own version?

Toto

Various learned scholars have proposed that Acts was written to counter Marcion's version of events, or alternatively that Galatians was written by Marcion on someone like him in opposition to the Acts version of events.

aa5874

"Paul" has another vague incoherent account of an encounter with "a man in Christ" in 2 Corinthians 12.2-4, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, ( whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether out of the body, I cannot tell,) God knoweth, such an one caught up in the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, ( whether in the body or out of the body I cannot tell, God knoweth).
How that he was caught up into paradise...."

So, based on "Paul's" epistles to the Corinthians, he actually cannot recall whether this "man in Christ" was real or not, whether a spirit or not, but God knows whatever. And after fourteen years "Paul" still cannot get his story straight.

Now, this explanation is so bizarre, "Paul" encountered an unidentified form that ascended to heaven and God knew that. God knew what?

The epistles of "Paul" have no useful information on "Paul" himself, his "man in Christ is a disaster, unidentifiable and shrouded in oddity. I see no history in "Paul's epistles, just vague repitition of words.

Roland

Does anyone know when the first unambiguous reference to Acts occurs outside the NT? Did Justin or Irenaeus, for instance, ever make mention of either the book or the "facts" contained therein? If not, what reason do we have for dating it so early?

Ben C Smith

Irenaeus discusses parts of the book of Acts at length in book 3 of Against Heresies. Some of the snippets are available on my Acts page.

Irenaeus competes, I believe, with the Muratorian canon and the Latin prologues, both harder to date (especially the prologues) than Irenaeus, for the honor of supplying the first unambiguous reference to the book of Acts. Very shortly after Irenaeus, we find Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria clearly referring to the book.

Ben.