Westar finally releases Acts Seminar Report

[Solstice]

So.... Did Polycarp write it?
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... _first.htm

And can we plausibly date Luke to about this time? (if it shared authorship w Acts)


Also, that EM Cooper guy is probably a good insight to attitudes of the days when Blasphemy/Heresy laws were enforced by capital punishment. Go to the American Amazon.com and his subsequent posts contain stuff like:
You will know, I think, that it is no light matter to disparage the Word of God and to portray its Author as either a liar or a fool. Those who do such things stand in immense peril of their souls. They laugh now and mock those who believe the Scriptures, but their time is very short

[andrewcriddle]

I think it would be very difficult for a 2nd century writer to produce a account of Paul's life as plausible as the one in Acts with no other sources whatever than the letters of Paul.

Either Acts is earlier or the author had other sources for Paul's life.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

I think it would be very difficult for a 2nd century writer to produce a account of Paul's life as plausible as the one in Acts with no other sources whatever than the letters of Paul.

Either Acts is earlier or the author had other sources for Paul's life.

Andrew Criddle

To explore the other half of that dichotomy, what sources would he need?

[andrewcriddle]

I think it would be very difficult for a 2nd century writer to produce a account of Paul's life as plausible as the one in Acts with no other sources whatever than the letters of Paul.

Either Acts is earlier or the author had other sources for Paul's life.

Andrew Criddle

To explore the other half of that dichotomy, what sources would he need?

One possibility is that the 'we' sections of Acts are from a contemporary account of Paul's travels to which the author of Acts had access.

The author probably would also have to have access to an account of Paul's dealings with the Jerusalem church leaders written from their viewpoint. If Paul's letters were his only source for these events one would expect the accounts in Acts and Galatians to be easier to reconcile.

Andrew Criddle

[Peter Kirby]

To explore the other half of that dichotomy, what sources would he need?

One possibility is that the 'we' sections of Acts are from a contemporary account of Paul's travels to which the author of Acts had access.

Why is something like that needed? Because of geographical verisimilitude?

The author probably would also have to have access to an account of Paul's dealings with the Jerusalem church leaders written from their viewpoint. If Paul's letters were his only source for these events one would expect the accounts in Acts and Galatians to be easier to reconcile.

I'm pretty sure the most common argument regarding dependence either way (Acts to Galatians, or Galatians to Acts - the latter must be the book's position) is that the "irreconcilable differences" between the two are intentionally such, i.e., redactional corrections in a struggle over who can claim Paul's legacy. Galatians for the independent validity of Paul's mission and calling, and Acts for its dependence.

[stephan happy huller]

Either Acts is earlier or the author had other sources for Paul's life.

Nonsense. Would you say the same thing about the Acts of Paul?

[Bernard Muller]

Acts could not have been written around 125, because it would have clashed with texts written about the same time or after:

'Acts' has the disciples (former companions of Jesus) staying in Jerusalem while Christian preaching outside Palestine were made by others (foremost Paul). That goes against the idealistic picture of the twelve, immediately after the ascension, going all over the known world in order to make converts and essentially creating the Christian world:
 
a) Mk16:20a (interpolation made after other gospels were known) (early 2nd century?) "And they [the disciples, right after the alleged ascension] went out and preached everywhere ..."

b) Aristides (120-130) Apology "... ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world ..."

c) Justin Martyr (150-160), in his 1Apology XLV "His apostles, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere".
Also from Justin's works:
- 1Apology XXXIX "For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking"
- 1Apology XXXIX "But the Gentiles, who had never heard anything about Christ, until the apostles set out from Jerusalem and preached concerning Him"
- Trypho LIII "For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths."

d) Despite attesting 'Acts' in 'Against Heresies', Irenaeus (180) wrote in his 'Demonstration apostolic':
"His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection----these were the apostles, who after (receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles"

e) Also acknowledging 'Acts', Origen wrote (246-248), in 'Commentary of the gospel according to Matthew' X, 18:
"And the Apostles on this account left Israel and did that which had been enjoined on them by the Saviour, "Make disciples of all the nations," and, "Ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." For they did that which had been commanded them in Judæa and Jerusalem; but, since a prophet has no honour in his own country, when the Jews did not receive the Word, they went away to the Gentiles."

Furthermore, Acts greatly embellished above the Pauline on common items such as:
a) Paul wrote he got converted because "it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen" (Gal 1:15-16a) while 'Acts' indicates it was the resurrected Jesus who revealed himself instead (9:4-6, 22:7-8 & 26:14-18).
b) For the same two meetings in Jerusalem, Paul wrote he did not meet the members of the Church of Jerusalem (except a few "pillars"), when 'Acts' says he did! (Gal1:18-19 <=> Ac 9:26-27; Gal 2:6,9-10 <=> Ac 15:4-21).
That tells me Luke's community could not have known Galatians.

There are also potential external evidence about Acts in the writings of Papias and the epistle of Barnabas.
And I concluded that "Luke" did not know about Josephus' Antiquities because if she did, she would have avoided some big errors, many of them originating from absence of related data in Josephus' Wars or fast browsing of this text.
Everything is explained on my website and I can direct you on the relevant parts on request.

By the way I have more arguments about the dating of Acts here:
OOPS, my Blog is down at this time. I'll give the URL later.

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

Acts could not have been written around 125, because it would have clashed with texts written about the same time or after

What kind of an answer is that? Really? Do you imagine that early Christianity was like Happy Days where there could only be one Fonzie? I don't understand your argument other than it reflects the presuppositions of someone who tried to reinforce his own prejudices.

Acts could have been written at any time in the first two centuries of Christianity. It is only our knowledge of the context of that document in that culture (1st - 2nd century Christianity) which will determine when it was written. Acts is alleged to have been written by Luke but I am not even sure of that. Certainly the Catholic canon makes it seem as if the two texts are related and there obvious signs of this planted in the text. But I am not sure for instance if Acts knows about certain historical details which go back to earlier sources (the stoning of Stephen for instance).

All that I am sure of is that the portrait of Paul is fake and probably derives from the second century. I can't say anything with complete certainty because I am not divine or do not possess absolute knowledge of history the way a divine being does. But since the idea that it clashes or agrees with certain texts does not determine in itself whether something is or isn't possible. At the core is the question of whether Marcion or Irenaeus is right about Christian history. If you don't accept Marcion and prefer Irenaeus that is cool but Marcion was historically 'first' and any knowledge that Irenaeus gives us about earlier traditions than Marcion necessarily become problematic because he is writing from a period much later than Marcion.

Again, I can accept that Acts goes back to earlier material - some theoretically extending into the late first century - but the portrait of Paul is no better or worse than the Acts of Paul another second century Catholic portrait of a foreign cult leader.

[Bernard Muller]

One possibility is that the 'we' sections of Acts are from a contemporary account of Paul's travels to which the author of Acts had access.

Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16):

A) The first two (out of three) "we" passages keep going when the "we" travel by land and even after arriving at destination (Philippi & Jerusalem).

B) In Acts20:1-6, the "we" member(s) are not named (as in the two other "we" passages) but are those who reached Troas with Paul, ahead of the "we":
Ac20:4-6 "And Sopater of Berea accompanied him [Paul] to Asia--also Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. These men, going ahead, waited for us at Troas. But we sailed away from Philippi after the Days of Unleavened Bread, and in five days joined them at Troas, where we stayed seven days."

C) The first "we" "appears" with Paul at/near Troas (which had no Christians then) as a Christian missionary close to him:
Ac16:10 "Now after he [Paul] had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them."
Then "we" goes to Macedonia with Paul. However it "disappears" when staying in Philippi (as a guest, not a resident --Ac16:15), before Paul & Silas get in trouble & go to jail, but after a Christian community has been created among Gentile women (Ac16:13-15).

Notes:
a) Since Paul traveled with Timothy & Silas only (according to Ac16:1-3), with the former, a new addition from "southern" Galatia, the lesser one of the trio then, the "we" is most likely Timothy. At least, that's what "Luke" wanted his/her audience to believe.
b) In the first "we" passage (Ac16:10-17), Timothy is never named but resurfaced later in Berea (Ac17:14-15), when he & Silas stay behind while Paul goes to Athens.
c) According to my research, "Luke" was a Gentile Roman Christian woman from Philippi; see this page (http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html#lk) for explanation. That would explain "Luke" using Timothy as a witness for the "historic" crossing from Asia to Macedonia (because of the vision & God!) and the way Christianity started in Philippi (among women, one of them named & mentioned prominently!).
d) Timothy was well known to the Philippians, more so because later he visited them (without Paul): Php4:15 + Ac18:5, Ac19:22, & Php2:19-22
Php2:19-22 "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, ... For I have no one like-minded, who will sincerely care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are of Christ Jesus. But you know his proven character, that as a son with his father he served with me in the gospel."

D) On the second "we" trip (Ac20:6-21:17, from Philippi to/in Jerusalem), Timothy is named among Paul's companions and consequently cannot be one of the "we" (20:4). Because this "we" starts from Philippi, there is a good chance they were from Corinth or/and Philippi: these cities harbored important Christian communities then, but do not have named representatives with Paul (but Berea and Thessalonica have some! Ac20:4, previously quoted).

E) For the third "we" travel (Ac27:1-28:16, from Cesarea to Rome), the "we" starts as apparently being with Paul in Cesarea, according to:
Ac27:1-2 "And when it was decided that we should sail to Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to one named Julius, a centurion of the Augustan Regiment. So, entering a ship of Adramyttium, we put to sea, meaning to sail along the coasts of Asia. Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, was with us."
But no other Christian is reported to be a prisoner then with Paul, according to 'Acts' itself! However, Ac24:23 suggests Paul's friends were allowed to visit him.
That could be one of those or "Aristarchus", a close associate of Paul (Ac19:29,20:4 (already quoted), Phm1:24), who would follow his boss wherever he was staying or going.
It is possible; but what about "was with us" (better translated as "being with us")?

Notes:
a) Here "us" can mean all people on board, as the preceding "we" and the other "we" & "us" in Ac27:4-7:
Ac27:7 "When we had sailed slowly many days, and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, the wind not permitting us to proceed, we sailed under the shelter of Crete off Salmone."
b) In ancient literature, it was customary to use first person plural when on board a ship.
c) It seems "them" (in Ac27:2) would have been out of place in the "we" overall context and would wrongly associate Aristarchus with "they", that is the Roman authorities of Cesarea.

F) It is clear there is no general rule about the "we". In the first case, it is implied the "we" is from the perspective of (allegedly!) Timothy; in the second one, from the one of unnamed companion(s) of Paul from Corinth or/and Philippi (but NOT Timothy or Aristarchus; see Ac20:4-6). And finally in the last case, the "we" is probably some companion(s) of Paul in Cesarea, such as Aristarchus.
The "we" word is therefore loosely used and does not indicate a same "we" person (such as the author) participated in the three journeys, but rather different ones. And it appears "Luke" used "we" to suggest a certain passage is quoted directly from eyewitness(es) when the rest would be collected/compiled from various second/third hand sources.

Note: these eyewitnesses might have died before 'Acts' was written, allowing the author to embellish their story (more so on the journey to Rome!).

Cordially, Bernard

[Leucius Charinus]

If you apply that nonsensical "innocent until proven guilty" criterion to Homer or Gilgamesh it immediately becomes ridiculous. Why the special privilege for the Bible?

.... Also, that EM Cooper guy is probably a good insight to attitudes of the days when Blasphemy/Heresy laws were enforced by capital punishment....

What are the implications for the name of the "Christians" (Acts 11:19). Looks like a reshuffle of chronology is in order