Amaleq13

I'm currently reading Michael Goulder's book on the subject, St. Paul versus St. Peter and it certainly seems like an excellent resource so far.

It is quite short (196 pages) was written a decade ago but he mentions, at the beginning, that he intended to write a more lengthy (800 pages) scholar's version but I don't know if he did. Anybody else?

Toto

I referenced Baur as the origin of the idea that there were competing Pauline and Petrine versions of Christianity, not as the definitive proof.

If modern scholars think that he is "terribly" overly simplistic and much too Hegelian, this does not justify reverting to the even more simplistic idea that Acts represents actual history.

CJD

Portions of it do. You'll be hard-pressed to find any scholar worth her salt who thinks otherwise.

gregor

Matthew seems patently anti-Paulian in its internicene polemics. Acts seems the logical synthesis between Matt and Galatians.

And Acts certainly has some history - Josephus' history that is copied without attribution.

Amlodhi

Hi Toto,

I agree that the Acts narrative cannot be described as "actual history". I also agree that this narrative is an attempt to justify the transition from Petrine to Pauline theology.

And yet, I think it is extremely important precisely because: one cannot attempt a synthesis without pointing up the very issues one is attempting to reconcile.

Thus, for instance, in dismissing the charges against Stephen as "false accusations" (Acts 6:13), he also candidly informs us that these were indeed the charges. And, to me, this candid revelation likely reveals far more truth than the subsequent grandiose oration that he puts in the mouth of Stephen.


Amlodhi

fta

How much did Baur/Tubingen actually get right, and how much did they get wrong?

Vorkosigan

Sure. The only problem they have is proving it. From my vantage point Luke is simply ripping off contemporary and classical writers, most importantly Josephus, in assembling a narrative whose primary job it is to reconcile the competing visions of Christianity. The whole thing stinks of fiction from one end to the other.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I can't agree. Here is the whole pericope:

8Now Stephen, a man full of God's grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people. 9Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)--Jews of Cyrene and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia and Asia. These men began to argue with Stephen, 10but they could not stand up against his wisdom or the Spirit by whom he spoke.
11Then they secretly persuaded some men to say, "We have heard Stephen speak words of blasphemy against Moses and against God."
12So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin. 13They produced false witnesses, who testified, "This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. 14For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us."
15All who were sitting in the Sanhedrin looked intently at Stephen, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

It is clear that Luke has simply draped this story over the skeleton of the Jesus legend. Stephen argues with local worthies, they can't beat him, so they drum up a plot against him, have a trial before the Sanhedrin, and kill him. Sounds just like Junior. Stephen even copies Jesus' last words as he dies, and during the stoning, borrows Jesus son of man coming on the right hand of power comment. There's no historical data in there whatsoever -- the entire thing is a creation off the Jesus legend.

Vorkosigan