Duvduv

But Justin makes NO mention of anything specific, his books, teachings, whatever. Anyway, C.P. Sense has some interesting views about all this.

Kent F

It would only be possible if Acts and the Epistles were in agreement but they aren't. What Paul taught in the Epistles can not be seen as a refinement or an evolvement since the teachings are in direct opposition to Acts. In the Epistles, Paul's Jesus is a spiritual being, in Acts he believes that Jesus was of flesh and blood and that he was crucified by Pilate. In the Epistles Paul has his own gospel, as created by him, in Acts he's a subordinate of Peter and James. Paul's gospel in the Epistles is a new law, a new covenant, and it's his law. In Acts, Paul instead upholds the old law and seeks constant approval of everything he says and does. In the Epistles, Paul belittles Peter, the very founder of the Roman church. In Acts, Peter is the first apostle to the gentiles and Paul is instead belittled, by his name (the small one) and by the fact that he's not even among the twelve. Instead he's a former persecutor of their faith, an outsider.

If Acts was written first, then we must accept that the Roman church in the later Epistles elevated Paul above their own founder Peter, and that they made Paul say that the old mosaic law was obsolete when they to this very day hold that the old law is part of their beliefs. Apologetic as well as non-apologetic scholars agree that there are interpolations in the Epistles and that the Pastorals were not written by Paul at all. Why the need to ”correct” their own inventions?

Truth is, the Roman church stole the old scriptures from the Jews, just as they stole the Epistles from the Marcionites.

As I said, Justin did not mention the Epistles because they were part of a rival church, the Marcionite church which at this time was the bigger and stronger one. Justin did, however, refer to "chrestoi" and not "christians" and there are some ”pauline” beliefs in his writings. Clement of Alexandria also used "chrestoi". And the Codex Sinaiticus has "chrestianoi" as the name for the first believers in Antioch.

He didn't get his collection, he wrote them! Paul=Marcion. These writings were not questioned until the Roman church rose as a formidable opponent late in the 2nd century when Paul/Marcion, a failed Messiah, was dead.

The synagogue inscription dating 318-319 CE is very hard to deny. It's real. This inscription confirms that there were followers of Jesus Chrestos who called themselves after Mark, i.e. Marcionites, and this is before the supposed invention of christianity by the Roman church later in the same century.

Kent F

Peter is before Paul in Acts. In Acts, Peter is the first apostle to the Gentiles. Peter and James are the ones calling the shots. Paul just obeys them and teaches what they have told him (despite the fact that he in his epistles claimed that his gospel was of no man, nor through men.) Now matter how you twist and turn, there no way of getting around the fact that Peter is first, Paul is secondary. Who's considered as the founder of the Roman church?

I don't care what the author of Acts wrote. He's a liar. He says that both Peter and Paul raised people from the dead and healed the sick. He says angels liberated Peter from prison. Do you believe this to be true?

sotto voce

Who's considered as the founder of the Roman 'church'?

Constantine. Satan. Mammon.

All three?

Duvduv

Kent, what this all amounts to is WHY the author of Acts then bothered to include an unknown supposed author of a few letters that the author of Acts may or may not have believed were even authentic, as compared with the "holy Peter" who was the foundation of their "apostolic succession." They could have chucked out Paul and his letters with all kinds of other things they rejected. Who needed him?! The author of Acts seems to have gone to a very great effort on behalf of a guy who he wasn't crazy about anyway, EXCEPT that he felt obliged to write the whole story about the "revelation" to Paul on the road to Damascus. Why did he even bother?

I still don't understand the view that Marcion wrote all the epistles given the requirement of providing contradictory stories and ideas among them, not the least of which is the fact of his exclusive gospel and revelation that only the Galatians are privy to, EVEN if the epistles were presented as a collection. And it doesn't explain sufficiently why the "orthodox" would accept such letters from someone like Marcion UNLESS the narratives about Marcion as presented in the apologetics are not true.

As far as Justin is concerned, I still find it unusual that Justin doesn't mention a single thing about Marcion's teachings or texts.

Paul isn't all that subordinate in Acts considering the author gives importance to a "revelation" that no one else claimed to have and which could not be verified altogether. That would put Paul on something of a pedestal in and of itself. I am also not sure that he is really subordinate to the guys in Jerusalem as much as he is a partner. I concede that it is strange that the Jerusalem crowd don't give him the awe he would deserve for his revelation of his own gospel, and on the other hand he does not show any reverence and awe for people he believed to have walked with the Christ.

aa5874

Again, your reasonning is flawed. If the Pauline writer later CHANGED the story by the author of Acts then the Pauline writings would NOT be in agreement with Acts of the Apostles.

The author of Acts claimed Saul/Paul went DIRECTLY to Jerusalem from Damascus after the blinding bright light event and his escape in a basket, and met the apostles (Acts 9)but the Pauline writer later CHANGED the story and claimed he did NOT go Jerusalem but FIRST went to Arabia and after three years went to see Peter.


It is completely erroneous that Paul is belittled in Acts. You are promoting Propaganda.

Let us go through Acts of the Apostles chapter by chapter--After Acts 15.11 there is NO MORE PETER.

From Acts 1 to Acts 15.11--Peter is mentioned 56 times.

From Acts 1 to Acts 15.11--Saul/Paul is about mentioned 31 times.

From Acts 15.12 to Acts 28--Peter is mentioned 000 times.

From Acts 15.12 to Acts 28--Saul/Paul is mentioned about 120 times.

The author of Acts will claimed he traveled all over the Roman Empire with Paul from Acts 16.

The author of Acts ELIMINATED Peter from Acts 15.12 to the very end of the book.

Again, your claim is erroneous. The Roman Church does not accept the mosaic Laws regarding sacrifice for sins by bulls and goats.


That is NOT the truth. That is a PRESUMPTION which is contradicted by Apologetic sources. Hippolytus, supposedly a Bishop of Rome, claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

Your claim is an invention.

Justin mentioned so-called heretics as the Basilidians, the Valentians, the Saturnilians, the Marcosians, Simon Magus, Menander and Marcion so there is no evidence that he would NOT mention Paul as an heretic.

The three prose "Against Marcion" attributed to Ephraim of Syria does NOT show that Marcion was aware of the Pauline writings and Hippolytus of Rome claimed Marcion used the writings of Empedocles not Paul.

aa5874

Well, no matter how you twist and turn Acts of the Apostles did NOT belittle Paul. It was Peter who was ELIMINATED from Acts. By the time Peter was ready to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles Paul was about to make his SECOND WORLD TOUR.

Acts 15.36
Well, you MUST care what you say about Paul. Paul did claim that he was in a basket by a wall in Damascus just like it is found in Acts of the Apostles.

Paul did claim that he was in Jerusalem with Barnabas as stated in Acts of the Apostles.

Paul is a liar when he claimed he witnessed the resurrected Jesus and that he received information about the Last Supper from the resurrected Jesus.

I care about the evidence from Apologetic sources and both the authors of Acts and the Pauline writers are LIARS.

Even the Church writers claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

Paul and the author of Acts are NOT historically credible based on the available apologetic evidence.

Duvduv

This is a very interesting exchange and should be expanded upon in relation specifically to whether Acts was the first written "Christian" text and whether or not the author was the same as that of the epistles. Can part of the discussion be addressed in terms of whether Acts itself is a COMPOSITE work, i.e. partly involving a guy named Saul and partly a guy named Paul (aside from "Peter")??

I cannot find the references from Hippolytus on Marcion in relation to Empadocles or in reference to the pauline writings and Marcion. I found information about Empadocles, that he lived in the 5th century BCE.

Toto

This seems highly unlikely, although Acts might incorporate some earlier material. But the final product is a well integrated composition.

This is the overwhelming consensus. There is a book I have not read, Rethinking the unity of Luke and Acts by Mikeal Carl Parsons and Richard I. Pervo (or via: amazon.co.uk) or (on google books)

Acts is clear that Saul's name was also Paul. The character of Saul-Paul in Acts does not appear to be historical, but might be a composite character of some sort.

However, there is no clear break in the narrative that would indicate that two separate works were joined together. Acts is a well integrated composition.

There's probably no point in discussing this without reading the book by Parsons and Pervo.

In particular, aa's idea that Acts does not denigrate Paul, just because it pays so much attention to him, is laughable. The portrait of Paul in Acts is of a humble subservient preacher of orthodoxy. The portrait of Paul in the epistles is of a boastful preacher who believes in his own link to Christ and his own revelation.

rlogan

You seem to have very little capacity for understanding the Bible as a political instrument.

If you wish to conquer the Marcionites, who represent a vast political and economic force, you can't just march into their region and demand they drop their sacred texts and replace them with yours.

But if there is a commonality to both, and in this case it is the Christ concept, then it is much easier to merge them and blunt the edges with redaction.