WinAce

I've checked that, and the phrase is indeed present in the KJV. However, other versions omit it or attach a footnote that "some manuscripts don't have verse 6". May I ask, what's the textual history of this verse? Obviously, if it was added in the 2nd or 3rd century it doesn't do much as an indictment of the original account. Paul's hinting that he had an "illness that was a burden to you", combined with the fact that his vision bears the hallmarks of an epileptic seizure, hint that that would be a better explanation.

Toto

Paul never says anything about a vision, or a voice, or kicking against the pricks. That is a later tale from the author of the Book of Acts. So you can't make out a case for Paul having lied based on whatever that verse says.

Edited to add: the phrase comes from Acts 16:14 (what is verse 6?) and is sometimes translated as "kick against the goads." It seems certain that the author of Acts wrote that speech for Paul. There is nothing like it in his letters.

HelenM

Please supply the passages in the New Testament which led you to conclude that the authors didn't believe what they wrote was literally true.

Helen

SLD

It's not the bible that says that no. But I think reading the story literally was simply not the way the ancients wrote. They wrote to illiterate mobs who were interested in a good story. That's why we see them borrowing from Greek Literature that predates them. Like Pentheus, paul is saved on the road by the persecuted god who complains about kicking against the pricks. Pentheus is on his way to harass Dionysis followers the same way Paul is on his way to Damascus to harass followers of Jesus. Both Acts and the Bacchae contain very similar jail break scenes with chains falling away and prison walls falling down.

Thus we have two conclusions: one, the author of acts (and I would argue that Paul was the oral author of Acts at least) had no idea about Euripides plays and actually experienced the play, or he copied the play for his own use. I think the latter is most likely and I think he knew what he was doing.

But again, I don't think he was deliberately deceiving people. I think both he and his audience would be much too clever for that and would have been all too familiar with Euripedes play.

There is also of course Matthew, 27: 26 "His blood be on us and on our children."

As many others have called it "the most heinous line of fiction ever penned."

But when we realize that it was written probably during the height of, or shortly after, the Jewish rebellion that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem, and right after the persecution of Christians by Nero, the story (along with Pilate washing his hands) makes sense for a different reason. The Christians were desperate to distance themselves from the Jews and prove that they were good allies of Rome. They are blaming the Jews for the Deicide of Jesus, and not Rome. But of course in reality, Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and all in that time frame would have understood that. If there was a Jesus, he was crucified by the Romans for sedition against the State like so many others of his compatriots of that era. And yes, I think the Gospel writers knew that; to argue otherwise makes them seem too stupid.

Again, we shouldn't look at the New Testament as if it is a deposition given under oath in a court of law. I don't see anything in it to suggest that was any of the authors intentions.

Respectfully,

SLD

P.S. Toto: I haven't heard anything about the kicking against the Goads (Pricks) line (IIRC, the New Testament Greek is the same line as in Euripides Greek), being a later interpolation. Has anyone else?

Ted Hoffman

Great post SLD :notworthy

Aerik Von

Paul is given way too much credence anyway, as in Jesus's time he did nothing but kill when he was told not to and bragged about being a Xian to no end.

I seriously think he "faith" and "pride" rants are seriously challenged by Jesus's own speech's and the book of James.

Paul only gets an appeal because he provides fodder for the "cop out" Xian.

I think the lies would be no different, as he often disoboyed Jesus and needed people to fix his bloody mess.

HelenM

SLD, with all due respect, it seems to me that your knowledge of the New Testament texts is too minimal for your opinions about the motives and audience and writing style of the authors to carry any weight.

By the way, your theory about the ancients writing to illiterate mobs doesn't even make sense since illiterate mobs can't read, by definition.

Did you know that ancient Jews were so careful about copying their sacred texts that they would count the letters in the copies and if the middle letter of the copy didn't match the previous copy they'd start all over again? That hardly sounds like 'illiterate mob' behavior to me.

Helen

Ted Hoffman

I believe he used "illiterate" to mean "Having little or no formal education" ie. ignorant. Not "inability to read and write".

And its plausible these people were only interested in a good story - NOT the truth or the veracity of what they were being told. Otherwise we could be having them asking questions, asking for evidence or expressing doubt at the incredulous claims. Remember, this was the time magic reigned and magicians held sway over communities - we have the story of Jesus' contemporary Apollonius of Tyana in Vita Apollini who performed great miracles including exorcising demons, and raising the dead and we have Josephus in Antiquities (a historian) talking of Onias making rain, an animal of one species giving birth to an animal of another species (heifer gave birth to a lamb) and we have talking donkeys in the scriptures etc and people accepted these stories. Uncritically. Maybe they only liked the stories for entertainment and did not believe them literally. But we have no evidence of that. In fact the crowds Paul is said to have drawn and his great influence on the early church means what he allegedly said was taken seriously.

In any case, he (SLD) wrote that Paul was the "oral" author of Acts. Someone else took upon himself to write Pauls experiences and story.

HelenM

It may be plausible a priori.

It's not plausible to me, having read the New Testament texts.

Here's just one example why not:

Luke 1:1-4 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

This is the introduction to both Luke and Acts since they were once one book. I don't see how you get from there to it being plausible that those people were only interested in a good story and not the truth or the veracity of it. It seems that either you're unfamiliar enough with the New Testament texts not to know this passage - in which case I suggest you study them more before offering opinions about them - or you don't really care whether the texts support your theories - which would be a strangely irrational position to take, as far as I'm concerned.

Helen

Koyaanisqatsi

HelenM, don't you think that qualifyer may be more due to the need to establish authority than anything else?

I.e., "I know all there is to know about this, so harken unto my word" kind of thing?

I bring this up, because christianity, especially, is all authority based (as opposed to evidentiary based). It is on "god's authority" that this is so and I am a humble servant of god's word and all that crap.

I've also noticed that a typical theist argument around these parts is the fallacy from authority.

Why, for example, include such a grandiose declaration; one in which a claim of totality has been made by the author that could not possibly have been met. The "certainty" of what you've been taught?

Note also that the author qualifies his own authority by pointing to the "many" who have undertaken this before him.

I put it to you that if anyone outside the bible had made such grandiose claims in order to self-justify their veracity, you wouldn't even think twice about believing him or her.

Can you imagine if a scientist simply proclaimed, "I have studied everything there is to study and can tell you with certainty that what I tell you is, therefore, all true. Take my word for it."

He or she would be immediately drummed out of the evil scientist conspiracy club .

I think the question has to ultimately come down to motive and intent combined with a careful deconstruction ("careful" meaning, unbiased) of what Paul has said. After all, why the need to so qualify himself to Theophilus? Does Theophilus have any reason to doubt the author's sincerity and/or knowledge of events?

It certainly appears that way from the inclusion of the claims to authority. Perhaps it's just a style of the times, but combined with other things attributed to Paul and the motive/intent Paul has in garnering followers to the cult, it certainly is curious that he would so carefully qualify the chain of his own authority; an authority Theophilus would, presumably, not question to begin with.