Vorkosigan

Everyone's talking about Acts these days, on XTALK, JM and here, so I thought I'd toss this out.

On p 521 of BoC, Crossan, discussing the issue of historicity and prophesy historicized, writes:

• The individual units, general sequences, and overall frames of the passion-resurrection story are so linked to prophetic fulfillment that the removal of such fulfillment leaves nothing but the barest facts, almost as in Josephus, Tacitus, or the Apostle's Creed. By individual units I mean such items as these: the lots cast and garments divided from Psalm 22:18; the darkness at noon from Amos 8:9; the gall and vinegar drink from Psalm 69:21. By general sequences I mean such items as these: the Mount of Olives situation from 2 Samuel 15-17; the trial collaboration from Psalm 2; the abuse description from the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16. By overall frames I mean the narrative genre of innocence vindicated, righteouness redeemed, and virtue rewarded. In other words, on all three narrative levels -- surface, intermediate, and deep -- biblical models and scriptural precedents have controlled the story to the point that without them nothing is left but the brutal fact of the crucifixion itself. (italics in original) Birth of Christianity, p.521

With respect to Acts, there seems to be the same construction going on. Speaking analogously, for of course the OT prophecy system was more culturally restricted than the sources Luke drew on, the individual units would consist of quotes and passages drawn from Hellenic literature and from the OT -- the quotes and scenes from Aratus, Thucydides, Euripedes, the construction of Eutychus from Homer, the use of Joshua's funeral speech in Stephen's mouth, and certain literary and artistic conventions.

Again, the general sequences consist of passages written to claim/counter specific theological and political issues. These would things like Paul's encounter with John the Baptist disciples in Ephesus in Acts 19, Peter's reception of the proper diet in a vision, Paul's vanquishing of the protean Simon Magus, Stephen's death over-writing James', the widespread appearance of females in the story, and so forth.

The overall frames would be those stories that Luke actually took from his sources to provide material and frameworks for his narrative. These would include the "authentic" and spurious letters of Paul, extensive borrowing from Josephus, including modelling Paul's career on that of Saul, and consultation of Roman historians, and so forth.

Vorkosigan

Old Man

I did post a reply to this post, but someone seems to have deleted it.

Greg2003

This is a terrific post Vork. You have struck a the real source material for Acts. It is not actual eye witness accounts, but rather taking the Pauline letters and other materials and creating a heroic epic out of it. Among the other materials that you do not list, I would have to include the Iliad and the Oddessey. Also, there may be other heroic epics that the Acts author could have borrowed from. My contention is that Acts is an attempt to show through a heroic epic that Christianity's founding figures are greater heroes than the greek heroes. I beg anyone, other than the true believers, of course, to differ with me on that.

Peter Kirby

Old Man, your post threatened to hijack the thread in a tangential rant against one man. It was not deleted but moved to "Elsewhere," where it was more appropriate.

I would PM or e-mail but you haven't enabled those options.

best,
Peter Kirby

Old Man

Anyway, the gist of my deleted reply, was that this guy Crossan is determined to prove that all religion is a myth, and so it is hardly suprising that he comes up with the formular that is stated.

Do the use of these formulae prove anything, except that the users of them are determined to prove the basis of all religion, and especially Christianity, is a myth? I can't see that it does myself, and I think that is a valid point worth making in the context.

"Although the basis of all religion and, indeed, of all human life is mythological...."

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Perio...ossan_bio.html

Greg2003

I don't believe the basis of all life is mythological. But the idea that mythology is the primary mechanism to explain spiritual and supernatural beliefs is widely held by scholars who are both christian and non-christian. Crossan is just one of them, not the first and certainly not the most eloquent. Read Joseph Campbell for example.

Old Man

The other part of my reply suggested that Christianity (as practiced by the early church) and belief in religion as "mythology" are a contradiction in terms. So whilst Crossan may "label himself" as a "Christian", that itself is proof of nothing except Crossan's own non comprehension of Christianity.

Vorkosigan

Perhaps you've simply confused the word "mythology" with the word "fiction."

In any case, do you have a substantive comment on the topic at hand, sources and historicity in Acts?

Vorkosigan

Toto

This could be too big a subject for one thread.

Randel Helms is a good source to start with, in Who Wrote the Gospels? He identifies a number of classical allusions and themes running through Luke-Acts. There is a lot of very recent research in this direction. (I have some notes at home that I might get around to later, some of which I posted on this thread.)

However, there is perhaps one important difference between the construction of Acts and the construction of the Gospels. We know that the early Christians deliberately read the Hebrew scriptures to find out more about Christ; they were not just using them as literary source material, but because they believed that Christ was described in the scriptures.

Luke 44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

What would be a comparable reason for the author of Luke-Acts to borrow episodes from Josephus or Euripides? Was this part of a deliberate strategy to sell Christianity to the classical pagans by invoking familiar words and stories, like Jesus Christ Superstar? Was it part of an effort to show the superiority of Christian personages to classical or pagan one? Or was there a deliberate effort to incorporate some of classical philosophy?

When the author of Acts takes Paul's conversion scene from the Septuagint, it looks more like a literary device than like midrash. And I don't know of particular theological reason to model Paul's preconversion persona on the Saulus described in Josephus - but there could be something more there.

Greg2003

I believe the author is trying to show that the christian heroes are greater than the classical or pagan heroes. I also think there is an effort to incorporate the classical philosophy as you say. This is a heroic epic meant to impress believers and nonbelievers alike.

Now a question. In Acts 19:13-16 there's a little story about a demon possessed guy who clobbers 7 men at once while shouting "jesus I know and paul I know, but who are you?" Could this be a variation on the Cyclops? The cyclops ate 6 of Odysseus' men. Also, the Cyclops asked Odysseus who he was and Odysseus told him noman, thereby tricking the cyclops' into shouting that no man was doing harm to him. The seven men in Acts where trying to caste out the demon, but are beaten as the man shouts that they are essentially nobodies. Seems like a possible parrallel between the stories.