Toto

Accurate information? How do you know it was accurate?

Layman

Because it is confirmed, supported, or corroborated by an independent first hand account.

But there are two issues here: Accuracy and Correlation with Paul's epistles.

Maybe Paul did not have a travelling companion named Timothy. Maybe he did not ministry in Troas. Maybe he did not take a gift to the Jerusalem Church. Maybe he did not have a long-standing relationship with the Church in Philippi. Maybe Paul was not a Jew. Maybe he did not persecute Christians. Maybe he had never been to Damascus.

Geoff Hudson

Was it Peter? Was it Antioch? Who were the “certain men”? Was it James who sent the "certain men" from Jerusalem or Annas the high priest and father of Ananus? Did “he” separate from “Gentiles” or was “he” ashamed to be seen in the presence of believers in the Spirit? Was it Jews who were being led astray or gentiles? Were Gentiles the target of a rival mission mounted by the high priests of Jerusalem? Was this mission trying to control the conversion of Gentiles?

PAUL (JOSEPHUS) APPOSES [PETER] {ANANUS}

[] Read out
{} Read in

(11)When [Peter] {Ananus} came to [Antioch] {Rome}, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

(12)Before [certain men] {his older brothers} came from [James] {Annas}, he ate with [Gentile sinners] {us}. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from [the Gentiles] {us} because he was afraid of those who belonged to the [circumcision group] {Sadducees}.

(13)[The Jews] {Some Gentile believers} joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by [their] {Ananus’} hypocrisy [even Barnabas was] {they were} led astray.

(14)When I saw that they were [not acting in line with] {disobeying} the [truth] {Spirit}, I said to [Peter] {Ananus} in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you act like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you [force] {lead} Gentiles {astray} to follow Jewish customs?

(15)“[We] {You} who are [Jews] {Gentiles} by birth [and not Gentile sinners] (16)know that a man is not [justified] {purified} by observing the law, but by [faith in Jesus Christ] {believing the Spirit}.

Geoff

Sauron

Not if the two accounts ultimately have the same source standing behind them.

If it is your contention that there is an amazing amount of similarity and correlation between the two written texts, then the easiest explanation for that is both look backwards to a common source. Whether that is a document, a human being, or an oral tradition.

And if that is the case, then you do not have independent corroboration; all you have is two different reflections of what the original source would have recorded.

Radorth

If Paul wrote Acts, Doherty's theory is wrong because Acts speaks often about a histoical Jesus. And it is also obvious that Paul would then have believed in a historical Jesus. Right?

Criminy. Midrash is plenty popular today.

Shall we apply Occam's razor here, or shall we apply conspiracy theory number 56?

Well I'm comforted by the thought that these amazingly complex and esoteric theories will never sell like Durant.

It's like my Dad said:

"OK son, this whole thing here is a forest."

"And these things here are called trees."

Rad

Toto

Well, Layman, you must be in hog heaven. You've got three threads going on the historical basis of Acts.

I notice that you like to appeal to scholarly consensus when you think it goes your way, but not otherwise. In particular, on the question of whether aLuke had read the gospels, I have just come accross a reference to a book, The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, edited by Richard Bauckham, in an article, "Toward Tracing the Gospels' Literary Indebtedness to the Epistles," by Thomas Brodie, in Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity) edited by Dennis R. MacDonald.

Brodie argues that Paul's letters were available to the author of Luke (based on the Bauckham book); that it is rather inconceivable that aLuke would not have used the letters, that there are similarites beyond the normal range of coincidence between the Gospels and Paul's letters, and these similarities have a coherent pattern. He then analyses a passage in Luke and in 1 Corinthians to show how he thinks Luke used Paul.

So your 56 points of similarity between Paul's Epistles and Acts may just be part of a pattern showing how the writers of the gospels used Paul, not exactly as they used Mark, by copying blocks of text, but by at times reworking the text or even changing the villain, as with the escape from Damascus.

At this point, I still need to do more reading. A non-specialist reviewer on Amazon says that the Bauckham book will overturn NT scholarship going back to Bultman. There is also a Biblical Studies Bulleting review.

Vorkosigan

Actually, Acts does use the term "Apostle" differently than Paul does. Very clearly. Yet another reason that so many scholars doubt Acts used any of Paul's letters as a source.

How do you mean this? Different Greek words? Or the context of the word?

General comments: it's really a useful post even if, as Toto pointed out, some of the similarities are rather strained. Also, you have a couple of points from the apocryphal letters, like the reference to Titus (#31, which is also pretty strained), and Timothy's mother being Jewish.

On the other hand, some seem impossible to accept without accepting that the writer of Acts knew Paul's letters (which he does not mention):

• In Acts 20:3, Paul records that Paul traveled to Greece and spent three months there, which accords with his stated intention in 2 Corinthians to spend the winter in Corinth.
  
  Acts 20:3 ("He came to Greece, and stayed three months. And when the Jews plotted against him as he was about to sail to Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia.") and 1 Cor. 16:5 ("But I will come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way
  wherever I may go.").

Some statements don't strike me as correct:

• Basically, Paul's Hebrew name -- Saul -- is known only from Acts

Not true. Saul is a well-known mystery actor from Josephus whom some have identified with Paul.

In 40:

• 40. Ephesian Riots
  
  Acts reports a riot concerning Paul in Ephesus, which aligns with specific mentions of the significant tribulations Paul's Corinthian correspondence discusses enduring while in Ephesus.
  
  Acts 19:23-41 and 1 Cor. 15:32 ("If, in the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage is it to me?") and 2 Cor. 1:8-10 ("For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us.").

This correspondence does not strike me the way you put it. Rather, 1 Cor 15:32 refers to an incident also found in Acts of Paul and Thecla, where Paul fights beasts in the arena. This may be referenced in the 2 Cor passage you cite above, where "sentence of death" may refer to that. In Acts 19 Paul does not actually do anything resembling fighting. His traveling companions are seized, and the disciples of Paul do not permit him to confront the crowd.

Also, I think the Jerusalem's Church's admonition to its members to "to refrain from sexual morality" was certainly a notable advance over the repressed view it had advocated priorly. Also, I think it's terrible to treat a manuscript this way: "Acts and 2 Corinthians report that Acts suffered beating by rods" I imagine you plan to put this on the net somewhere....

I'm more interested in how you view the relationship between the letters. Do you think that the "authentic" letters and Acts had a common source (shared also by Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Recognitions?)? A common redactor? A common writer? I known Hemer thinks that Acts dates from before 70, but that won't wash. Since the writer of Acts did his homework, it wouldn't suprise me if he had in front of him several of Paul's letters, including the forged ones, which he might have written.

What is the relationship between each letter and Acts? It seems that 1 Cor and Gal are more represented here than the other letters. Why is that?

I know you advocate that Luke was an actual companion of Paul. A possible point in favor might be to see if Luke gives us rich additional and different information, beyond the letters, about the individuals that are mentioned in Paul's letters. Because it looks like to me that the writer of Acts simply cribbed the names and bare bits of info from the letters. Luke certainly does not discuss any of these people as if he had known them, as far as I can see. For example, can we get a physical description of any of them from Acts. Perhaps you see different??

Toto

I think we're on to something. We have the writer of Luke-Acts using as his sources, according to at least some scholars: the Septuagint; Mark; either Q or Matthew; Josephus; Euripides’ The Bacchae (four clear allusions, according to Randel Helms); the Odyssey (the scene where Paul revives Eutychus, according to MacDonald.) And now we have Paul. This author feels free to modify his sources when it suits his theological purposes.

Which authorities claim that the author of Acts did not use Paul's letters, and why? I suspect that they assume that the letters were not used because they clearly were not used as authority. There are theological differences between Acts and Paul. But this does not rule out their being used as source material.

Vorkosigan

Yes, we know from his treatment of Mark that Luke was not averse to editing and re-arranging material as s/he saw fit.

Vorkosigan

Geoff Hudson

Rad,

I would simply say that Jesus was introduced into Acts (and all the other NT dcuments for that matter) by a later editor. The original NT documents were about the Spirit, not Jesus. I have yet to see what other explanation there is of the "new covenant, not of the law, but of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3.6). Eisenman mentions it in his writings, but along with most other scholars he buries his head in the sand, and has no explanation. A new covenant is a new big deal for getting right with God. It was a new covenant of the Spirit, not Jesus. Right?

Geoff