Clutch

Vorkosigan mentioned that Luke seems to have worked from pseudo-Pauline letters as well as the real thing. I don't know the foundation for this claim, but if true it weighs heavily against the possibility that he was Paul's companion.

Anyone?

Geoff Hudson

ACTS WRITTEN BEFORE PAUL'S EPISTLES?

It seems to me that many of the events in Acts have been taken from a travel diary that was kept over several years.

It is my view that the keeper of that diary was Paul (the young Josephus) himself. Paul is recording the exploits, not of himself (although he was involved as implied by the "we" phrases), but of James. It would then make perfect sense, for example, for James to be going into synagogues to preach to Jews before "shaking the dust of them off " and going to Gentiles. If Paul was in this relatively junior role of recorder under James, then Acts is about the early missionary journeys and would have been written before Paul's letters when the latter had more responsibilities.

I am intrigued by this mysterious character called Silas, Paul's {James'?} companion, who only appears in Acts. Why doesn't he appear in the epistles when he seems to be an important character in Acts?

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

I should have said, some of Acts would have been written before some of Paul's letters. This is because Acts would have been produced over an extended period.

Geoff

Toto

It seems to be agreed that James was centered in Jerusalem, the head of the Jerusalem church, and was executed about 62 CE. It seems improbable that he would have traveled all over the Mediterranean. He was not noted as a missionary, but as someone who kept the law and lived a pure and aescetic life. His knees were reputed to be thick as camel's from the time he spent on them in prayer.

Josephus .

How do you reconcile these dates with the presumed dates of about 50 CE for Paul's letters, when he was presumably in at least the middle of his career, but Josephus would have been a raw teenager?

Saint Silas :

Vorkosigan

Layman's list of correspondences points out several from the psuedo as well as the real. This suggests (1) that the writer of Acts was not a companion of Paul and (2) that Acts dates from well after the composition of those letters, since some time would have been necessary for them to be accepted into general use as letters of Paul.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

The name "Silas" is a shortened form of "Silvanus",


Is there some kind of independent Hellinic testimoney for this, or has the writer presumed a relationship that does not exist in order to more closely link Acts and the Epistles?

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Hmm, you stumped me for a moment with your logic there.
For those other logicians out there who were wondering why Vork's cites these two conclusions when they don't actually follow from the established premises:
You need to understand that the posibility that agreement both Acts and the pseudo-Paulines is due to them both being based on the truth is a priori ruled out by Vork, as the the possibility that Acts is early and that the pseudo-Paulines are dependent upon it.
If you accept that as basic truth, it's then quite easy to see how Vork's two conclusions follow from the established premises in this thread.


Btw, is it just me who finds the lack of a "laughing" emoticon on these boards incredibly annoying?

Clutch

I can't speak for all the logicians out here. But for this logician, the real gap is logic is yours: Vorkosigan is assuming here that the pseudo-Paulines are unlikely to be true; therefore he is assuming this a priori.

All that's missing from this inference is an argument for it.

Would it be an a priori assumption that anyone who wrote a history of WW2 from sources including the "Hitler diaries" was probably not actually a companion of Hitler?

Radorth

My my my. And I'm not a liberal critic, so there's certainly no reason for me to listen to one, since you can just blow them off.

So it seems we shouldn't take seriously anyone who might disagree with us, even if they are friendly in general.

Rad

Toto

I know I swore I wouldn't answer another Radorth post, but here I go again. . .

There's a difference between listening to someone and treating them as an authority. Layman has told me that a certain Kummel, who he alleges is a "liberal", has said that the consensus is that Luke did not rely on Josephus - but he hasn't told me what the basis of any of their opinions are. Does he (or do you) really thing that this is an argument? It's an appeal to authority once removed.

Against this, I have quoted extensively from a reputable scholar who specializes in Josephus, Steve Mason, who gives the foundation for his conclusion that Luke probably relied on Josephus, and also indicated that more research is called for. I would say that trumps a second hand reference to what most scholars think.

But that distinction may be beyond you.