Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 01-30-2003, 08:52 AM

Quote:

I think we're on to something.

Well two of us anyway.

Quote:

On the other hand, some seem impossible to accept without accepting that the writer of Acts knew Paul's letters

Or knew Paul? Maybe (perish the thought) traveled with Paul?

Peter mentions being with Jesus and some things Jesus said.

"It's a forgery."

Paul mentions the Lord's brother.

"It's probably just an interpolation, or who knows?"

Hebrews mentions an earthly Jesus, and makes absolutely no sense without him.

"We can't can't find it."

If Paul wrote Acts, Doherty is proven wrong again.

"Somebody stuck all that in there, I assume."

Scholars agree on XYZ.

"I found one who doesn't."

What a bunch of bull$*&%, which fortunately, will never outsell Schonfield. It's nice he's been trashed here I suppose. Every new skeptic's theory wipes out an old skeptic's theory. Not sure how they stay sane.

Anyway we're hearing the same old crap. "The similarities are suspiciously similar and the differences are suspiciously different."

Poor Layman. He thinks this is about facts, historical methodology, reason, interest in truth... He should have quit after composing his monumental list. Actually it's a contest to see who can come up with the most gratuitous conspiracy theories to keep the true believers in the fold.

I quit this thread.

(Clapping from front row)

Rad

Toto · 01-30-2003, 09:20 AM

Saying that the author of Acts knew Paul and/or traveled with him raises more problems than it solves. If the author knew Paul, why does s/he feel so free to change the details in his life history? Why does s/he never mention this important fact? Why is Luke-Acts such a pastiche of literary sources?

Layman · 01-30-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

You are right that if Luke used Paul's letters that the similarities are not very surprising. I accept the consensus that Luke did not do so. If you decide that Luke did use Paul's letters, then I think you are reasonable to disregard the significance of this post.

I have Baukham's book, so if you want to explore this topic we could probably make it an interesting one.

And I encourage you to do so. You have in the past spent all your time claiming that the letters of Paul are so drastically different from Acts that it is impossible that Acts' author was a companion of Paul. Now you seem to be saying that the two are so similar that it's obvious Acts copied Paul's letters.

Whatever floats your boat at any particular time I guess, eh?

Toto · 01-30-2003, 12:26 PM

I may get Bauckham's book, but it will take a while.

I don't see the problem with saying that the viewpoint of the author of Luke-Acts is so different from that of Paul that it is highly unlikely that s/he was a traveling companion, but that there are so many references that s/he used Paul's letters as a literary source - sometimes changing the details or the meaning.

The author of Luke-Acts also used Josephus and Euripides, but no one is suggesting that s/he was a companion of Josephus or Euripides, or for that matter a follower of Dionysios.

Paul · 01-30-2003, 12:33 PM

Quote:

I think Paul invented Christianity to try to end Judaism, or to find some kind of personal justification for what he felt were his sins.

And put his life in danger for something he made up?

Layman · 01-30-2003, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I may get Bauckham's book, but it will take a while.

Take all the time you need.

Quote:

I don't see the problem with saying that the viewpoint of the author of Luke-Acts is so different from that of Paul that it is highly unlikely that s/he was a traveling companion, but that there are so many references that s/he used Paul's letters as a literary source - sometimes changing the details or the meaning.

That does not surprise me.

Quote:

The author of Luke-Acts also used Josephus and Euripides, but no one is suggesting that s/he was a companion of Josephus or Euripides, or for that matter a follower of Dionysios.

It is unlikely that Luke used Josephus, as the majority of scholars affirm.

Where did Acts use Eurpidies?

Vorkosigan · 01-30-2003, 02:59 PM

You are right that if Luke used Paul's letters that the similarities are not very surprising. I accept the consensus that Luke did not do so. If you decide that Luke did use Paul's letters, then I think you are reasonable to disregard the significance of this post.

Disregard the significance of this post! <splutter> Layman, you forced me and Toto and probably several other readers as well to rethink our whole position on Acts! it was a great post. Highly significant.

I have Baukham's book, so if you want to explore this topic we could probably make it an interesting one.

Please do. I want to watch.

And I encourage you to do so. You have in the past spent all your time claiming that the letters of Paul are so drastically different from Acts that it is impossible that Acts' author was a companion of Paul. Now you seem to be saying that the two are so similar that it's obvious Acts copied Paul's letters.

Not quite. The kind of differences -- as well as Acts use of sources -- indicates that the writer of Acts could not have been a companion of Paul. That reasoning holds. The issue of whether Luke used Paul's letters is separate from that. The similarities you've uncovered appear to indicate the use of Paul's letters as a source. I'll post on it in a moment.

Whatever floats your boat at any particular time I guess, eh?

That's quite unfair. When confronted by evidence, Toto changes a long-held position. What more could you ask? Not merely a significant set of opening posts, but an influential one.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 01-30-2003, 03:02 PM

It is unlikely that Luke used Josephus, as the majority of scholars affirm.

Mason, however, is right. His position is, I think, methodologically unassailable.

Where did Acts use Eurpidies?

Paul's conversion scene appears to be drawn from The Bacchae.

Layman · 01-30-2003, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

Not quite. The kind of differences -- as well as Acts use of sources -- indicates that the writer of Acts could not have been a companion of Paul. That reasoning holds.

Maybe you are convinced, but I have never seen a convincing case of this made. How can the differences show he was not a companion of Paul? If you believe that he had access to all the information that we do about Paul, how can any difference between those letters and his writings be attributable to ignorance or mistake? They cannot. Perhaps they can be attributable to having a different agenda, theology, or purpose in writing, but there is no reason to assume that a companion of Paul writing 20 years later would have the same agenda, theology, or purpose in writing that Paul had.

Many of the arguments Toto has clung to are arguments that Luke got too many of the details of Paul's life wrong to have been a companion of Paul.

It cannot both be true that the author knew everything we know about but that the we know facts about the life of Paul that the author was ignorant of.

Quote:

The similarities you've uncovered appear to indicate the use of Paul's letters as a source. I'll post on it in a moment.

Actually no, I have uncovered no literary dependence.

Too many of the agreements are incidential or of no great significance to presume literary dependence. There are also too many ambugities or important points that are highlighted in Paul's letters but are missing in Acts.

Moreover, there is lacking a significant indicator of such dependence: linguistic similarities tending to show copying or use as a source.

Quote:

That's quite unfair. When confronted by evidence, Toto changes a long-held position.
What more could you ask? Not merely a significant set of opening posts, but an influential one.

As far as I can tell, Toto has not really changed his mind. To the extent it appears so, he's simply straddling the fence until he can think of which theory most likely means that Acts has the least amount of historicity possible.

Layman · 01-30-2003, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
It is unlikely that Luke used Josephus, as the majority of scholars affirm.

Mason, however, is right. His position is, I think, methodologically unassailable.

I'm not sure what this means. People can use the same methods and come to different conclusions.

Quote:

Where did Acts use Eurpidies?

Paul's conversion scene appears to be drawn from The Bacchae.

Could I get a more specific reference please? Or a thread that has discussed this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-30-2003, 09:20 AM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Saying that the author of Acts knew Paul and/or traveled with him raises more problems than it solves. If the author knew Paul, why does s/he feel so free to change the details in his life history? Why does s/he never mention this important fact? Why is Luke-Acts such a pastiche of literary sources?

01-30-2003, 12:26 PM	#24
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I may get Bauckham's book, but it will take a while. I don't see the problem with saying that the viewpoint of the author of Luke-Acts is so different from that of Paul that it is highly unlikely that s/he was a traveling companion, but that there are so many references that s/he used Paul's letters as a literary source - sometimes changing the details or the meaning. The author of Luke-Acts also used Josephus and Euripides, but no one is suggesting that s/he was a companion of Josephus or Euripides, or for that matter a follower of Dionysios.

01-30-2003, 02:59 PM	#27
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	You are right that if Luke used Paul's letters that the similarities are not very surprising. I accept the consensus that Luke did not do so. If you decide that Luke did use Paul's letters, then I think you are reasonable to disregard the significance of this post. Disregard the significance of this post! <splutter> Layman, you forced me and Toto and probably several other readers as well to rethink our whole position on Acts! it was a great post. Highly significant. I have Baukham's book, so if you want to explore this topic we could probably make it an interesting one. Please do. I want to watch. And I encourage you to do so. You have in the past spent all your time claiming that the letters of Paul are so drastically different from Acts that it is impossible that Acts' author was a companion of Paul. Now you seem to be saying that the two are so similar that it's obvious Acts copied Paul's letters. Not quite. The kind of differences -- as well as Acts use of sources -- indicates that the writer of Acts could not have been a companion of Paul. That reasoning holds. The issue of whether Luke used Paul's letters is separate from that. The similarities you've uncovered appear to indicate the use of Paul's letters as a source. I'll post on it in a moment. Whatever floats your boat at any particular time I guess, eh? That's quite unfair. When confronted by evidence, Toto changes a long-held position. What more could you ask? Not merely a significant set of opening posts, but an influential one. Vorkosigan

01-30-2003, 03:02 PM	#28
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	It is unlikely that Luke used Josephus, as the majority of scholars affirm. Mason, however, is right. His position is, I think, methodologically unassailable. Where did Acts use Eurpidies? Paul's conversion scene appears to be drawn from The Bacchae.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.