Sauron

Indeed. I often think that, when reading your source quotations.

Layman

From the "internet source" king.

At least I read my sources before claiming they disprove a point they actually affirm.

Toto

Actually, Layman, Conley makes a lot of sense. I haven't read enough of the Dutch Radicals to want to undertake a full defense, but what do you object to in what he says?

Sauron

The majority of which you've failed to deal with.

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate a linkage between loss of forest canopy and extinction of poisonous snakes, by the way.

So do I. Yawn.

Layman

Right. Like that internet article that confirmed that Josephus discussed military actions by Herod against the Nabateans? And the one that affirmed that Roman citizens retained legal privileges even into the end of the first century.

Yeah. Cute.

Sauron

I already discussed this. Next whine.


Uh, gotcha there.

The article did not confirm that; only the contrary, it indicated that such privileges were on the wane. You and your source were left trying to claim that such privileges were beneficial and useful to Paul's missionary journeys, yet neither you failed to account for that claim, in light of the evidence.

Cute, indeed.

Layman

And?

Awww. :boohoo:

Can't bring yourself to admit what the article actually said? It affirmed the continuation of Roman privileges even into the end of the first century. Although it did discuss a decline in prestige of citizenship, it specified that this ocurred late, not early, in the first century.

Sauron

Lamenting your inability to justify your date for the nativity?

I know what it said - that citizenship fell in value, while personal affluence became the most important point.

No, it didn't. It indicated that Roman citizenship declined in important, and personal wealth emerged as the key to social status and legal privileges.

Perhaps you need to read the quotation again - you seem to be confusing its contents with your own personal desires.


The time period we are talking about (Paul's missionary journeys) were the middle to late middle of the 1st century. So your comment about "early" in the first century is historically wrong. Wish I could say I was surprised.

And, of course, in order for them to be in decline by the latter part of the century, that decline had to start earlier. During the same time period as Paul's journeys.

And since:

a. you've failed to elaborate in any way or through any concrete example how the benefits of citizenship would have helped Paul, nor have you
b. established that those same privileges would have been routinely denied to non-citizens,

your entire argument is still rather "half-baked"; you need to finish the details of it before asking others to take it seriously.

Layman

While I can apprecaite your desire to focus on other issues, what we were discussing is how you tend to grasp at internet articles you happen upon. And how those sources tend to turn out to completely contradict your point.



Certainly claiming that Josephus never mentioned any military action by Herod against the Nabateans, and then relying on an article that clearly states that Josephus specifically discussed such action, dwarfs Sherwin-White's
purported inpetness--for which you completely write off anything he has to say.



Any my "date" for the nativity is backed up by the vast majority of scholars: 5-7 BCE.

Layman

While that is my opinion, that was not the purpose of my initial post. Rather, at that time most of you accepted the wide-spread and diverse scholarly consensus that the author of Luke/Acts did not use Paul's letters. You guys only switched your position when I pointed out how much the two had in common. Now you seem to want to swing back to the other side and claim they are very different but that Luke/Acts is obviously based on Paul's letters. In other words, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Even without any evidence on your side.

What kind of logic is this?

Regardless, its irrelevant. I do accept that there are "major differencs" between Acts and Paul's letters.

Umm. How do you explain the radical disjunction between the practice of the author when writing Luke (who, like Matthew, copied text from Mark, Q, and L) from his writing of Acts (which you seem to think is a rather free creation)? Very incongruent.

As for Mason's theory, it is nothing new and is rightly rejected by most scholars. The similiarities between Acts and Josephus are easily explained by common audience, subject matter, and genre. There are also important disagreements between Acts and Josephus which are very hard to explain if Acts used Josephus. Moreoever, even if some other explanation is required, since the case for Acts' author being in Rome is a good one, and Josephus likely gave presentations of his material in Rome before discussing it (See Streeter's The Four Gospels), there is another, plausible explanation which explains both facts (similarities and disjunctions).

As the liberal scholar F.B. Kummel holds, "the dependence on Acts upon Josephus has rightly been given up." Introduction to the New Testament, at 132.


You for got to explain why Toto. Again. Why would the author of Acts ignore Paul's theology? How does that indicate he actually had Paul's letters? And the irony is that you spend most of this point arguing that Acts differs factually from Paul's letter to a great extent. Which is it?

Gratuitous assertion. Meet gratuitous denial.

As I always say, take all the time you need. So long as you extend the same courtesy.

Another irony is that you only provide one example of plausible anti-semitism. And even that one is less than clear.

But what is clear is that Acts portrays many Jews in a good light, including Pharisees (many of whom had joined the Jerusalem Church) and Gamiliel, a well-known and respected Jewish leader.

You are already off track. Nothing here suggests anti-semitism. And the "point" you do try to make completely misses the mark. I pointed out two correlations between Paul's letters and Acts. The first was that Paul had engaged in substantial persecution of Christians. The second is that he converted to Christianity.

You argue that of course Paul quit persecuting Christians when he converted. That is quite true. But it does not follow that all Jews who converted to Christianity had been well-known persecutors of that faith. And it also does not follow that all persecutors of the Christian faith converted to it.

Both points stand. You are contending with a strawman.

What does this have to do with your point? It does not detract form the two initial correlations. And there is nothing particular anti-Jewish here. And why do you say that Paul had "recently" been persecuting Christians? Most chronologies have Paul's trip to Jerusalem a few years after his conversion.

Yes it does. What's the problem?

Are you saying that Acts enhanges Paul's role as a persecutor? If so, you are mistaken. Paul and Acts both suggest that Paul engaged in substantial persecution of early Christians. As your own quote from Paul shows, Paul was feared by reputation among Christians and was characterized as "now preach(ing) the faith which once he destroyed.." Phil. 3:6 notes that he "persecuted the church" with "zeal." Galatians notes that he "intensely persecuted" the church of God and tried to destroy it." Gal. 1:14. First Corinthians notes that Paul was the "least of the apostles" because he had "persecuted the church of God." 1 Cor. 15:9.

So on what basis do you claim that Acts is exaggerating Paul's persecution? Or claiming that Christains were not persecuted by Jews in the first century? Evidence please.

First, it is misleading to claim that none of the details of the conversion story are not in Paul's letters. Both Acts and Paul agree that Paul was engaging in persecution against the church. That he had a powerful spiritual experience near Damascus. Through that experience Paul converted to Christianity and felt called to be a missionary to the Gentiles.

Second, the only way to claim with a straight face that Acts based this episode on 2 Maccabees is to engage in wishful speculation. And misleading, highly selective argumentation.

Helidorus does not "consult" with the High Priest. Nor does he act on his behalf in any way. In fact, Helidorius is a foreigner represnting a foreign government who "consults" with the High Priest to demand that all the Temple's treasure be turned over to him. The High Priest refuses.

Saying that a "great apparation" appeared before Helidiourius is already different than what happens in Acts. But the difference is actually much greater than Helms selective parsing suggests. While in Acts only a light is described during Paul's Damascus road experience, in 2 Maccabes, a horse and rider and two strong young men appear before Helodius and proceed to physically beat him to a pulp.

"For there appeared to them a magniciently caparisoned horse, with a rider of frightening mien, it rushed furiosly at Helidorus and struck at him with its front hoofs. Its rider as seen to have armor and weapons of gold. Two young men also appeared to him, remarkably strong, gloriously beautiful and splendidly dressed, who stood on either side of him and flogged him continuously, inflicting many blows on him."

2 Mac. 3:25-25.

Any comparison with Acts is clearly inappropriate.

The fact that both of them fell down is hardly a compelling point. Heliodorus had just been kicked by a horse and flogged by two strong men. Most of us would fall to the ground in such an event. Paul, on the other hand, falls to the ground because of the presence of Jesus/God. This is hardly a novel idea, as falling to the ground in the presence of God is well-attested in Jewish literature. Assuming that it came from 2 Macc., therefore, is completely baseless.

Nor does 2 Macc. statement that Heliodus was encompassed by darkness all that surprising given the beating he just endured. In any event, it does not indicate that he became blind as Paul did. Additionally, Heliodus could not "help himself" because he'd been beaten so bad. He was carried away in a stretcher. Paul suffered no physical beating but had to be lead by the hand because he could not see.

And yes, the High Priest did intervene on Heliodus' behalf. But in Acts, the High Priest is the enemy.

Well, that is not unlikely, given that Onias was a part of Jewish History and Ananias was a popular name at that time. Josephus mentions 11 different Ananias and that name appears as many times on ossuaries as well. So perhaps his parents named him for the high priest.

See what happens when English professors purport to do New Testament scholarship?

This argument makes no sense. If Acts was inventing heroes, why does he use the names of people he had helped to cast in such a bad light? Especially Ananias, who I suspect you believe is a creation of Luke. It is more likely that the author would avoid using these names, which he himself had so associated with displeasing God.

Right. Which has about as much basis as the previous butchery.

Face it guys, there are just going to be similarities in some literary works that are not a result of copying.

These "literary elements" are contrived and fail to make any case against Acts' historicity.

Once again you are erecting a strawman. My point remains. Paul places his Jesus appearance experience after that of Peter and the others. The author of Acts agrees. Indeed, Paul refers to his own belated exerience as being as one "abnoramlly born." I did not claim that Paul and Acts contain identical lists of Jesus' appearances.

Yes, they are different. So why do you insist that Acts based his account on Paul?

And the key word above is "speculation." Imaginative speculation at that. Unaccepted, rejected imaginative speculation.

I'm not sure what your ultimate point is here. You agree that Paul and Acts agree on the nature of the appearance to Paul. Yet another correlation.

Again, the correlation remains. Paul places his conversion near Damascus. And Acts places his conversion near Damascus.

As for the old canard that Paul could not have had letters from the High Priest, that argument is unpersausive.

"Probably too much ink has been spilled on whether the high priest actually had such a right of extradition during this period. In the first place our text says nothing about a legal right; the impression is left that the high priest was providing letters requesting permission for such actions by Paul."

Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 316.

You agree with the correlations I mentioned. Both Paul and Acts note that Paul was specially called to a Gentile mission.

Your claim that there is "no indication" that Paul would "ever do such a thing" is completely without merit. There are plenty of indications in Paul's letters that he continued to practice much Judaism, including counting time by reference to Jewish festivals relying on the Old Testament. Additionally, your argument is expressly refuted by Paul's clear words that he would "be a Jew to the Jews."

This fits in snuggly with the reason that Acts gives for Paul's circumcision of Timothy. I explained this very point in detail in my initial post. Perhaps you overlooked it:

Since Timothy's mother was Jewish, so was he. And the Jews whom Paul would encounter or try to evangelize -- even allowing that Gentiles need not be circumcised -- might find Timothy's lack of circumcision too offensive. Paul is clear that such things should not obstruct the gospel.

There is no confirmation here. Acts has Paul cutting his hair, evidently after letting it grow as part of a Nazarite vow (Numbers 6:1-21); his letter does not confirm this, it merely references Cenchrea. Here Acts has Paul acting contrary to his stated philosophy in his letters, which rejected Jewish sacrifices and rituals.[/quote]

The correlation is that Paul associated with a Christian church in Canchea. Both texts support this point, which is by no means to be taken for granted.

As for the Nazarite vow, see above. Paul did not abandon all of his Jewish heritiage. Nor did Christianity, who retained Jewish practices such as prayer and fasting. The Nazarite vow is not something "under the law." It is voluntary and not done to absolve someone of sins. It's no surprise that Paul would continue to engage in such practices.


We discuss this before. As I said then:

The agreements I pointed out stand. Luke chooses for his own reasons to leave out Paul's ministry in Arabia. Both agree in the purpose, point of departure, and destination of this journey. They also dramatically agree on how Paul left town: under pursuit having escaped by being let down a window outside the city wall.

Again, there is no dispute that Jews persecuted Christians. Paul provides first hand testimony of that fact. Nor is it bizarre that the disciples would have been wary of Paul. Even Paul notes that his reputation as a persecutor preceded him. There is no shame or "cluelessness" implied or stated in the text. Nor is it unusual that Paul, having dramatically switched sides, would himself become the focus of Jewish persceution. He himself recounts how he'd been physically punished by Jewish leaders on many different occasions. And you do realize that Barnabas is a Jew, don't you? Yet he is cast in a positive light.

It's all quite reasonable and fits in well with how we might expect the parties to act. These claims are not extraordinary.

That's quite an imagination you have there.

I know you go on to explain some elaborate purpose that is somehow served by using the name Saul for Paul. But the fact is that Acts gives it almost no prominience at all. When the name change occurs, it is very inoccuous and no comment is made as to its reason. Nor is either name explained to have any particular meaning.

Ahhh, yes. When the evidence is against you, try and conjure up a reason to ignore it.

Paul makes it clear that he is a Jew, a Pharisee, a Hebrew, and of the Tribe of Benjamin.

Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendents? So am I.

2 Cor. 11:22-23.

As for your source, it is about 100 years out of date. And its cited evidence is extaordinarily flimsy. Are you really relying on Eusebius' defense of the geneologies of Jesus to prove this point? I read two versionf of Eusebius' last night and couldn't see how on earth they support this point.

You are going to have to prove this one Toto. Please do so. For now, I'll stick with Paul's first century awareness of first century history over Eusebius'.

Your conclusion does not follow from your assumptions. If the author of Acts had some theological interest in changing Saul's name, he would have at least inferred what that might be. He does not do so. It certainly does not follow that because he makes little of the issue that it served an important theological interest for him.

Yes, I'm sure Paul's parents had the same idea. Being aware as they certainly were of the OT as well.

What earlier persona? Most of what Luke says about Paul's past is confirmed by Paul's own letters. There was no need to invent a persecutor of the Church, Paul actually was one.

And if Acts thought it was so significant that Paul was of the tribe of Benjamin, why does he nowhere make note of that? It's not very likely that most of his hellenistic Greek audience would have been very familiar with the nuances of Jewish names.

You think this is clear? There doesn't seem to be any real connection between "Saul" and King Saul. Saul is mentioned here only in passing so that Paul can focus on David, the true focus of the story.

Very imaginative. And you managed to do this without any help from the text? And did you notice that Acts nowhere mentions that Paul is a descendent of Saul? Nor does Paul's letters for that matter. And Acts fails to even note that Paul is of the Tribe of Benjamin. And, are you assuming that everyone in the Tribe of Benjamin was a descendent of Saul? Funny.

Here is the most likely explanation. Paul started using his Greek name on his missionary efforst into Greek speaking and cultured lands. There is no special significance to this fact, which is why Acts makes no special mention of it. He just notes the change and moves along:

"It is therefore appropriate that on this occasion -- and in a Roman setting -- Paul would slip into the Roman cognoman, since as a Roman citizen he would already have three names.... His Jewish name, Saul, would have suited the circumstances of his life until this point...." Alanna Nobbs, Cyprus, The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, Vol. 2, Graeco-Roman Setting.

"As a Roman citizen Palu would have borne three names, the third of which (his cogmomen) would have been the Latin 'Paullus'. What his first two names were, we do not know. A Roman citizen could have a fourth name (his signam or supernomen) given at birth and used as a familiar name; in Paul's case, this would have been his Jewish name 'Saul', which he would use in a Jewish environment." I.H. Marshall, Acts of the Apostles, 220.