Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S.C.Carlson · 04-10-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It is an odd coincidence that Paul writes that his speeches were rather unimpressive in contrast to his writings, and Luke's rendition of Paul's speeches are in fact rather unimpressive or at least not equal to his epistles.

:notworthy:

noble savage · 04-10-2007, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

It is an odd coincidence that Paul writes that his speeches were rather unimpressive in contrast to his writings, and Luke's rendition of Paul's speeches are in fact rather unimpressive or at least not equal to his epistles.

This may not be a coincidence. Which speeches in Acts do you think are better than Paul's, or better than Paul's epistles?

NS

Gamera · 04-11-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

This may not be a coincidence. Which speeches in Acts do you think are better than Paul's, or better than Paul's epistles?

NS

Well, compare 1 Cor 13 (to my mind, the greatest stuff every written by anyone at any time) or the soaring certitude of Romans 8:35-39 with the speech to the Athenians, the speech to Felix in Acts 24 or the speech to the Roman Jews, Acts 28: 25-31.

The former verses are superb; the latter rather humdrum.

The speech to Agrippa is, I think, very moving, but then it really is a unique occasion involving an address to a govenor in a formal setting, so it isn't too surprising Paul would pull out some of the rhetorical stops.

noble savage · 04-12-2007, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Well, compare 1 Cor 13 (to my mind, the greatest stuff every written by anyone at any time) or the soaring certitude of Romans 8:35-39 with the speech to the Athenians, the speech to Felix in Acts 24 or the speech to the Roman Jews, Acts 28: 25-31.

The former verses are superb; the latter rather humdrum.

The speech to Agrippa is, I think, very moving, but then it really is a unique occasion involving an address to a govenor in a formal setting, so it isn't too surprising Paul would pull out some of the rhetorical stops.

I was asking which of the non-Pauline speeches in Acts were as or more impressive than the writings in Paul's epistles. In order for it to be an "odd coincidence" that Paul's epistles are more impressive than his speeches in Acts, you would have to show that some of the speeches in Acts were as or more impressive than Paul's epistles, but that Paul's were not. Otherwise, you don't have an "odd coincidence". Luke may have been writing speeches for Paul that were as good as he knew how to make them.

Julian · 04-12-2007, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Not at all. For numerous reasons, none of which boils down to we have some:

1. Paul himself writes: For they say: His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and... [snip] ...Pauline epistles. We also have the so-called Marcionite prologues.

7. 2 Peter 3.14-16.

Hmmm, very good points, all. I must ponder this some more but it does seem, when shown in a bulleted list like this, that his epistolary impact was greater than I considered.

Quote:

I do not take Marcion to represent the original Pauline writings. Harry Gamble Jr. made a splendid argument, for example, in favor of the originality of Romans 15-16 (absent in Marcion) to that epistle; but if that is the case then Paul is almost certainly a Jew (see Romans 15.15-16).

Do you have a specific reference?

Quote:

I disagree. I think he is spot-on at times, parallel at times, and off at other times. It is not a clean break from Pauline thinking any more than it is a perfect reflection of it.

I think they is quite far apart but I have not read Acts in Greek so my viewpoint is skewed. I will endeavor to compile some sort of concise comparison that is more organized than what I currently have.

Julian

Ben C Smith · 04-12-2007, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Do you have a specific reference?

Yes. Sorry about that. Harry Gamble, Jr., The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans (or via: amazon.co.uk).

All I can say is that I know a lot more about the text of Romans now than before I read it.

Ben.

Gamera · 04-12-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

I was asking which of the non-Pauline speeches in Acts were as or more impressive than the writings in Paul's epistles. In order for it to be an "odd coincidence" that Paul's epistles are more impressive than his speeches in Acts, you would have to show that some of the speeches in Acts were as or more impressive than Paul's epistles, but that Paul's were not. Otherwise, you don't have an "odd coincidence". Luke may have been writing speeches for Paul that were as good as he knew how to make them.

I see your point. Though it's possible the non-Pauline speechifiers were in fact no better than Paul, which wouldn't be Luke's fault. But I'll have to look at the non-Pauline speeches and try to respond.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.