Layman

Why is this interesting?

Are you sure you are getting Eisenman right? Sounds like you are claiming that he asserts that Paul helped stone James in the 60s? Please give me a reference for that?

And I'm confused. Sounds like you are grasping at whatever straw you can find. First, Acts names Paul "Saul" because he is a descendent of King Saul. Now, you've abandoned that and claim that Acts names Paul "Saul" after a figure that most of Luke's audience would never have heard of?

Funny again.

Oh please. Most Jewish scholars actually accept Paul's Pharisiac and Jewish background. What "other Jewish scholars" are you referring to?

Here's a list of mine:

Alan Segal, Paul the Convert.

Burton Visotzky, Chair of Midrash & Interreligious Studies, Jewish Theological Seminary.

Jacob Neusner.

Daniel Byarin, A Radical Jew.

J. Klausner, From Jesus to Paul.

C.G. MOntefiaore, Judaism and St. Paul.

H.J. Schoeps, Paul: The Theology of The Apostle in the Light of Jewish Religous History.

One serious deficiency with Maccoby's work is that he relies on writings from a couple hundred years after Paul's time to conclude how a former Pharisee who had converted to a different sect decades earlier should write correspondence. The fact is that Paul provides very strong incidential affirmation that he had a pharisiac background:

The association of Paul with formal rabbinic education seems likely, for in his writings Paul manifests signs of 'rabbinics'. He does midrashic exegis of the Hebrew Bible; he demonstrates a clear perception of the Law as the heart of Judaism; and the contrast he draws between Christ and the Law shows his dissavowal of human, systemic righteousness which he had once practiced with confidence and contentment. These features of Paul's writings locate him within the stream of first-century Pharisiac Judaism.... it is clear that Paul's past was in Pharisiac Judaism... he was certainly a Pharisee."

Paul, Marion L. Soards, Acts and Paul, lxiii.

Actually, there is plenty of evidene to support the overwhelming majority position that Acts did not use Paul's letters as a source. Indeed, it is remarkable that the author of Acts does not even seem to be aware of what made Paul most famous in the second century and beyond: that Paul was a letter-writer at all. This whopping omission indicates that Acts was written independently of Paul's letters and earlier than the first century, when Paul's letters became generally circulated. As the Introduction of Paul and Acts notes, "the author of Acts shows no knowledge of Paul's letters or even that Paul wrote letters." And, as Brown makes clear, the opinion that "Acts betrays no knowledge of Paul's letters" is one that is "widely held" by scholars. Raymond Brown, Intro. to the New Testament, at 324.

Geoff Hudson

A lack of reference to Paul's (imo James') letters in Acts does not prove that the writer of Acts was unaware of the letter writing. This could have been a detail that was removed from Acts (and Acts is very sketchy in places) by an editor, especially if the editor knew that the letters were written by someone (like James) who he wished to eliminate from the story. With Acts fixed first, the letters could then have been published later under the pseudonym of Paul.

Geoff

Toto

Who are “you guys”? Scholarly and non-scholarly opinion (aka “the conventional wisdom”) holds that aLuke-Acts did not use Paul’s letters, but I did not take that position, and early in this thread I cited a scholar who produced a documented argument that aLuke-Acts in fact must have had Paul’s letters to use as a reference.

And it’s not like you have any evidence on your side. You start out conveniently with the assumption that aLuke-Acts did not know about Paul’s letters, and then produce, like a rabbit out of a hat, the conclusion that aLuke must have learned of similar details from an independent source.

My alternative theory explains the evidence much better than yours. aLuke-Acts belonged to a different theological faction from whoever relied on Paul’s letters. aLuke-Acts read the letters, used the details, coopted the character of Paul in a fanciful allegory/Hellenistic adventure story with little or no historical basis, all for the greater good of Christian unity between the followers of Peter and Paul.

The only evidence either of us has is the text that is in front of us, a text that has been copied, interpolated, forged, massaged, etc., so that we can only guess at what it first said, or use the tools of literary analysis.

This means that we have to consider the possibility (as the Dutch Radicals claim) that Paul’s letters were early 2nd century forgeries. If aLuke-Acts knew that there had been an early missionary named Paul, and knew that some rival faction was busy writing letters using Paul’s name, he or she would probably feel free to take whatever details were in the letters, while ignoring the theology.
. . .

aLuke did much less straight copying than Matthew, and made more creative use of what s/he did copy, so the disjunction is not so radical. In addition, aLuke may have considered Mark a more compatible thinker than the person who wrote or edited Paul’s letters.


I have asked you before to give me a reference of a contemporary scholar who has examined Mason’s theory and rejected it. Kummel’s Introduction seems to have a translation date of 1973, so he doesn’t qualify (whether or not he is a liberal.)

And what are those disagreements that are so hard to explain?

Perhaps aLuke-Acts didn’t “ignore” Paul’s theology so much as intentionally disagree with it or overlay it. Perhaps because Paul’s letters were propaganda from a competing theological faction.


. . . {snip discussion of anti-Semitism}




What basis is there for claiming that Jews did persecute Christians outside of Acts? Paul’s own statements, even if true, lack the details of Acts.

{snip literary analogies, since Layman doesn’t believe in literary criticism anyway and life is too short.}

It is up to you to show that there is any historicity in Acts. Most of the proof of Act’s historicity seems to rest on how closely it follows Josephus, which can be better explained by aLuke-Acts copying Josephus.

A correlation that does not show that it came from an independent source.

. . .
Witherington is a master at these apologetic legal loopholes, isn’t he?


Paul’s theology was that Jesus’ sacrifice replaced the old commandments of the law. Is there a single instance in his letters where he followed a Jewish ritual? He stood up to Peter on the question of table fellowship with Gentiles. Does this sound like someone who would circumcise another person himself? It sounds like rhetorical overkill to me.

But we have no indication from his letters that he did. The connection with Canchea is explained by the author of Luke-Acts reading Paul’s lettes.

{snip old discussion of the escape from Damascus}

{I will save the name change for later}

Toto

He does speculate that is a possibility. I will have to find the reference tonight.


{save question of Paul the pharisee for later}

What "plenty of evidence?" Merely the fact that Acts does not mention that Paul wrote letters? The author of Acts may very well have preferred to ignore those letters, with their gnostic ideas that didn't fit in with the current theological line.

Layman

You and Volk.

In previous posts you have voiced acceptance of the strong majority position that Luke did not use Paul's letters. You only changed your opinion when you realized the implications of what that meant.

And calling it "conventional wisdom" is very misleading. This is the overwhelming conclusion of expert opinion. It's not just what some people happen to think.

You did not cite a "scholar." You cited some guy with a website. And what the heck do you mean when you claim his article was "documented"? Does that mean peer reviewed? Published? Or that he included some citations?

Actually, there is no evidence that Acts used Paul's letters. There is no literary evidence for such a proposition, unless you can point out otherwise. Can you? There are factual and theological divergences that preclude such an explanation.

Your theory does not fit the facts and ignores inconvenient evidence. What evidence is there that Luke-Acts belonged to a "theological faction" that rejected so completely Paul's letters? There is none. Indeed, there is not even any evidence that Luke rejected Paul's theology. As I pointed out in my initial post, the actually places some of Paul's theology in Paul's mouth in Acts. It is clear, therefore, that he has no objection to Paul's theology whatsoever:

Your entire theory falls apart right here. The most that can be said is that Acts was not aware of the value and weight placed on these theories by Paul's letters. Evidencing unfamiliarity with those letters, but acceptance of Paul's theology re: salvation by faith.

You guess. I'll study.

Why? It has no merit.

The author obviously had no objection to the theology represented by Paul's letters. Nor is it clear why he would take anything from their letters if he knew them to be forgeries. Indeed, it would have been incumbent on him to expose them for the frauds they were.

Of course, another huge whole in your "theory" (are you planning on publishing this?) is that Luke-Acts and Paul's letters were accepted very early by the same "theological faction."

And might I point out another Toto flip-flop. You used to defend Knox's theory that the early Church wrote Acts and transformed Paul's letters into the present day status as an effort to combat Marcinonism. Now you are inventing yet another theory that expressly rejects the idea that Acts and Paul were the product of the same group, and indeed are now arguing that they were produced by opposed factions (for which there is no evidence).

All convenient and imaginative speculation, Toto. And you are wrong. While Luke did modify language to make the Greek better and clarify some geographical ambiguities, he tends to conservatively copy chuncks of source material and plop it down into his own work.

Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, at 168.

Other scholars that agree with the basic assesment of Luke's use of preexisting sources include Gerd Ludeman, Early Christianity and A. Lamouille, The Sources of Acts.

And you are wrong to suspect that Luke had some special affinity for Mark. The theological focus of Luke bears no greater similarity to Mark than it does to Paul's letters. Indeed, given that Luke rejects Mark regarding the Last Supper and instead relies on a tradition more similar to the one Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians shows that, if anything, Luke would lean towards Paul or the traditions associated with Paul. Moreover, Luke's use of material is not just illustrated by his use of Mark, but by his use of Q and L as well.

The disjunction you pose is quite radical. And unsupported by any good reason.

See Toto, you don't get to set the terms of the debate all by yourself. I do not follow this strange rule you seem to have that the last one to the presses wins the argument. The idea is nothing new and has been and continues to be rejected by most scholars. And why does this "last one to the presses" rule of yours not apply to Robbins? Who has avoided the presses for over 25 years in the face of sustatined and diverse opposition to this theory.

There's the obvious one of Theudas' rebellion, its timing, outcome, and the numbers involved. There is also the cryptic reference by Acts to the "beautiful gate" to the Temple when Josephus only mentions the "bronze" gate and the "Corinthian gate." There is Luke's apparant unfamiliarity with the geogrpahy of Samaria and especially Galilee, which is well-known to Josephus. Indeed, Luke's knowledge of Palestinian geography seems restricted to Jerusalem and the coastal towns, which fits in with where he claims to have travelled in Acts, but not with basing his knowledge on the greater wealth of knowledge available from Josephus' writings.

As for similarities in how he describes Jewish schools of religious thought, there is no reason to think that this was peculiar to Josephus. No doubt Jews had come up with a way of explaining Jewish factions to Hellenistic cultures as long as they had lived in the Diaspora.

And you ignore the possibility that the author of Acts could have caught a discussion or two in Rome, which was a common practice for authors before publishing their works.

Fanciful speculation. But I've already shown that the author of Acts was not afraid of Paul's theology.


Are you being obtuse? Paul makes it clear that he had engaged in sustained and substantial persecution of Christians. What does it matter that he did not give as many details as Acts? Of course, we also have Josephus describing how the Jewish leaders murdered James in 66 CE.

Pretty weak ground here Toto.

I believe in literary criticism when it is critical. The 2 Macc. comparison was extremly weak. Indeed, it was misleading. Did you even bother to read the account in 2 Macc. before posting that hilarity?

You keep saying this but have yet to demonstrate it. Acts shows a great familiarity with geography outside of Palestine that has no relation to Josephus. He also shows a great familiarity with historical details and political information about areas not convered by Josephus. And much of his knowledge of Palestine and Jewish History is also not to be found in Josephus.

But most of all here you are simply trying to distract attention from how much of a failure these "literary elements" really are. Even if the historicity of Acts were unestablished, that does not make your rather genereically described "literary elements" stand up to any real criticism (since its obvious you applied to critical thinking to them before posting them).

You were the one trying to 'refute' my parallels. You failed.

Unless you can show where it says that Paul was granted the legal right extradite Jewish Christians Witherington's point stands.

Since Paul expressly states that he would be a "Jew to the Jews" the answer is that yes, this is something that Paul would do. Remember, Timothy was, by Jewish law, a Jew and not a Gentile. If Timothy was not circumcised, it is unlikely that he would have been useful to Paul when dealing with Jews. So this fits right into his stated practice of being a "Jew to the Jews."

What do you think Paul meant by that remark?

Your theory of the author of Acts having read Paul's letters is without merit. How many scholars have you read that accept this idea?

But I was responding to your previous (now abandoned argument) that there was no correlation at all here. Obviously there is.

I am also waiting expectantly for you to:

1) provide the list of Jewish scholars that reject Paul's Jewishness,

2) defend your argument that no Jews during Paul's time knew what tribes they were from (something more current than 1901 or a cryptic reference to Eusebius),

3) articulate which of my points were "padding,"

4) explain how all the other examples showed "anti-semitism,"

5) demonstrate that Acts "enhances" Paul's role as a persecutor,

6) explain why the authof of Acts would create a fictional character named Aananias to demonize and then later create another fictional character named Ananias to "save" that name,

7) explain how a Nazarite vow would violate Paul's theology,

8) defend the idea that the author of Acts placed some significance on Paul's name change when he offers no comment on it,

9) explain where Acts said Paul was a "descendent" of Saul, explain why the use of the name "Silas" is "interesting," and

10) offer any evidence of these competing "theological factions."

I'm sure I missed some, but you get the idea.

Toto

I had cited the online Jewish Encyclopedia:

Layman said:

The reference is to this:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250101.htm

Book I: Chapter VII. The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in Regard to the Genealogy of Christ.


Eusebius is generally reckoned an unreliable source, even by his fans, so it's not clear how much of this is trustworthy. He may be explaining why the geneology of Jesus is so disputed.

Layman

Eusebius's reliability is different on different subjects. Here I have no idea what he bases them on. But even if what he wrote was 100% true, I never imagined that Paul/Saul would have learned of his descent from the tribe of Benjamin from official records maintained by the government. I imagine his family would have told him. Afterall, his father was no doubt a contemporary of Herod. And I'm rather skeptical that every Jew born, especially in the diaspora, was listed in the books and/or had to go to Herod to learn his lineage.

This the best you got on this?

Toto

I changed my opinion based on an article I recently read (not with me now.)

You are being silly. I don't attach enough importance to this issue to change my opinions of the historical value of Acts based on the implications.

It is conventional wisdom. Are you implying that there has been enough research on Luke-Acts so that everyone agrees on most issues? You might think that if you only read conservative apologists.

Quote:

You did not cite a "scholar." You cited some guy with a website. And what the heck do you mean when you claim his article was "documented"? Does that mean peer reviewed? Published? Or that he included some citations?

This quote has become disconnected from its origins. My cite was to an article in a book, not a website. What I cited (on page 1 of this thread):

Quote:

Actually, there is no evidence that Acts used Paul's letters. There is no literary evidence for such a proposition, unless you can point out otherwise. Can you? There are factual and theological divergences that preclude such an explanation.

Every piece of coincidence that you listed is evidence that Acts used Paul's letters. Except perhaps the coincidences between Acts and the Pastorals, where some experts think that the author of Luke-Acts was in fact the author of the Pastorals, and intended them to be the third part of the Luke-Acts trilogy.


I will do more on this later.

I don't understand this. Paul was Marcion's favorite apostle. Marcion did his editing of Paul's letters, and other factions added their counter edits. These theories fit together. But I don't have much more time today for the issue. I may be able to get back to it later this week.


. . .


So do you get to set the terms of the debate? Mason produced a significant amount of new research showing the relationship between Josephus and Luke. You claim it "continues" to be rejected by most scholars. I am just asking for one scholar who has read Mason's book, which appears to be very popular in academic circles, and has "continued" to reject the idea, and gives reasons. Finding one German who wrote 20 years ago who dismisses the theory that Luke relied on Josephus with a wave of his hand doesn't answer my question.

You are misrepresenting the state of Robbins response to his critics. And if you look at the quantity of material that he has published, you can't say that he has been avoiding the presses.


Paul's letters, which we do not have the originals for, claim some unspecified persecution of Christians. When did this happen? Was he galivanting around Judea in th 30's persecuting Christians who weren't even known as Christians at that point, and why? Haven't we read that Christians gathered in Jewish synagogues up until some time after that? Weren't most of the Jews busy agitating against the Romans at that time? Are there any extra-Biblical references? Why should we believe it happened?

Josephus does not imply that James was murdered because he was a Christian. If a Christian had been a high priest, it would seem to be unlikely that the Jewish establishment was engaged in wholesale persecution of Christians.

. . .



I was not trying to refute your parallels, only the conclusions that you draw from them.

. . .

How could Timothy be considered Jewish if he had not been circumcised on the 8th day?

I assumed that Paul meant he would speak as a Jew to a Jew. But you have already said that Paul had a special mission to the gentiles, and in his letters he said that the pillars of the church in Jerusalem went along with this. Why did he need Timothy to be circumcised?


I have read one who is explicit about the issue so far. I have read a lot of scholars who say that Luke obviously didn't have Paul's letters, or didn't rely on them, but no one who has figured out how that fits into an overall theory of Luke-Acts. (How could aLuke not know about Paul's letters? Most sources just seem to shrug their shoulders. It's very unsatisfactory.)

I do not recall having argued that there was no correlation.

But that's all the time I have today. I did indicate that I was putting some issues on hold. Since you took a couple of weeks to respond to this, I'm sure you can wait a little bit longer.

Layman

Well, I'm glad we can get you to admit that much.

If time and effort is any indication of how much importance you "attach" to this issue, then you are misleading us here.

I wasn't talking about most issues. I was pointing out that almost all of the experts disagree with your self-serving new-found theory that Acts used Paul's letters as a source.

Ah, I remember. This was the guy who based his theory on Bauckham's "The Gospel for All Christains?" I book which I have read and you have not. Correct?

Not hardly. Unless you are willing to count every difference as evidence against that theory.

Take your time.

The theory is that the early Church produced Acts and refined Paul's letters to rebut Marcion.

Your question irrelevant. You haven't shown what startling new evidence Mason has produced that no one else has ever considered.

Fortunately, I did not say that he has been avoiding the presses. I said he's yet to publish any substantive response to critics of one of his theories.

This reminds me of when you claimed that Peter and Paul had not met until their disagreement in Galatians.

Paul is very specific that he persecuted Christians as a Jew. He is also very specific that he has been persecuted by Jews for his preaching as a Christian. There is nothing ambiguous about this and its powerful first hand confirmation of Acts.

What difference does it make that Christians were not known as Christians at that time?

Yes, his persecution of Christians occurred in the mid to late 30s. And, yes, he was persecuted by Jews as a Christian after the 30s.

Which references to Synagouges are you referring to?

What evidence do you have that "most of the Jews" were agitating against Rome at the time? Are you claiming that the High Priest and the Sanhedrin, whose power depended on Rome, were to busy fighting Rome to encourage persecution of Christians?

Yes, Josephus is an extra-biblical reference.

You should believe it happened because we have first-hand observances and participation of such activities.

The only reason to deny it is to promote your own baised and completely unsupported opinion.

To which Chritian high priest are you referring?

What does Josephus imply was the reason for James' death, Toto?
[/b]

Sure Toto. But for the record, it was statements like, "There is no confirmation here" that threw me off.

The whole point was that most Jews (even Christian Jews), even those who may not have favored imposing the entirety of the law on Gentiles, would expect Timothy to be circumcised.

And Toto, it does not say that Paul would "speak to the Jews" as a Jew, it says he would be as a Jew to the Jews. Desperate measures once again Toto.

And nowhere does Paul say he would not associate or evangelize with Jews, but that he had a special call to the Gentiles. Just as Peter, though focusing on the Jews, associated and concenred himself with Gentile Christians, as Paul himself makes clear.

You mean no one has figured out to fit that conclusion into a theory that reduces any historicity in Acts to ashes, which is obviously the only conclusion you will accept.

The author would not know to use Paul's letters as a source because they weren't widely distributed until after he wrote Acts. That's how.

Right. See above.

[quote]

I was the guy who used to say, "Take all the time you need Toto, this isn't a contest." Until you started heckling me for not responding to your "arguments" fast enough.

So, hoping for some change in your own attitude, Take All The Time You Need Toto.

I'm especially interested in finding out where Acts claims Paul was 'descended" from Saul.

Thanks

Toto

Layman, if I took this really seriously, I would be learning Koine Greek in my spare time, and I would be more careful about getting all my details straight (James was not the high priest; I was thinking of the argument that he was actually the brother of the high priest). But obviously I don't have that kind of dedication, and I do have a job and several other interests. If Acts is somewhat historical, it still doesn't begin to prove the truth of Christianity as a religion. You, on the other hand, have bet your soul and your life on the validity of certain unprovable theories of history. That's why you can't afford to read too widely in infidel or even liberal Christian works without at least stuffing metaphorical fingers in your ears to keep the new ideas from contaminating your brain.

But I will say this on Mason's theory that Luke relied on Josephus: it is not worth debating with you if you are not going to read Mason's book. You can read Carrier's article for a summary, but there is much more in the book. I say this not to be snobbish or one-up, but just as a statement of fact - it would be a waste both of our times. I already typed a few summary paragraphs in another thread somewhere, but I cannot and will not type in the pages of closely reasoned arguments with examples that he makes. And if you don't read the book, it is your loss.

And I have now read the article in Bauckham's book that Brodie used in support of his idea that the author of Luke-Acts had read Paul's epistles. Brodie did not misrepresent the article; it does not explicitly refer to Paul's letters, but the principles seem to carry over.

You say:
No, no, no, it is not powerful first hand confirmation. It is hearsay based on hearsay. It is language in a document that cannot be verified. If you think there is some proof that Paul actually wrote those letters, and that he never lied, you could begin to make an argument; but that is part of what you are trying to prove. First century documents are not proof of any external facts, and you don't even have the original first century documents here. You can't prove anything.

But in any case, I am done for the day. I am reading several new books, and it may be a while before I get back to this thread.