No Christology in the Q community

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:15 pmThe first "modern" inquiry into the historical situation in Asia Minor was J B Lightfoot's St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians: A Revised Text with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations (1865, I think). Anyone can find a new or remaindered reprint for maybe $5.00 US, and all four of his commentaries are often bundled together as a set for something like $25.00 US.
The fourth, sixth, and ninth editions, at least, are also available at the Internet Archive.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 9:24 am Paul never called any member of the church of Jerusalem to be "brothers" or "in Christ". And that's only one argument among many against those being Christians.
I found 35 for Paul's conversion,
52 for the council of Jerusalem, and Paul's dispute with Peter in Antioch, and the start of the 3rd journey.
57 for Paul last letter (Romans) (and 50 for his first one: 1 Thessalonians).

No assumptions here, just hard work.

Cordially, Bernard
I think you will find that the whole structure of your dating rests on your assumption that Luke’s account in Acts is true and verse 18:12 which gives you a date of 51 for Paul being in Corinth when Gallio is proconsul of Achaia. If verse 18:12 is a Lucan addition then the main assumption for your dating falls down. Luke does get historical references wrong - the order of Theudas (c. 44) and Judas the Galilean (c. 6) (Acts 5:36-37). Also the events being described are meant to have happened before 44 CE. I date Paul’s conversion in 36 and you in 35 but it hasn’t happened yet, it will follow at Acts 9 after the death of Stephen.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Michael BG,
About Theudas and Judas: no contest, "Luke" was wrong. I deducted from that (http://historical-jesus.info/59.html), and other multiple things (http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html), that "Luke" did not have Josephus' Antiquities.
However that does not mean the Gallio's passage in Acts is wrong or invented.

BTW, I have a very interesting theory in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html about dating of events in early Christianity (every 7 years after Jesus' execution). Theory, maybe, but it fits well with the other data.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@Bernard
About Theudas and Judas: no context, "Luke" was wrong. I deducted from that (http://historical-jesus.info/59.html), and other multiple things (http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html), that "Luke" did not have Josephus' Antiquities.
Not that I hold a brief for Josephus as an influence on Acts, but it's a tricky inference to go from a factual error with anachronism to independence of a partiuclar source. Jerome managed to place the "Temple voices" incident at the time of Jesus' crucifixion (actually a generation later), and Origen to recall a lengthy discussion of James the Just in Antiquities (where there are, at the most enthusiastic, only a few words about a capital trial). Both scholars cited Josephus as their source.

There's "having" Josephus in the sense of ever having read him, which I fully believe that both Origen and Jerome did at some time in their lives. Then there's "having" Josephus in a searchable edition sitting on one's work bench, which I fully disbelieve for either Origen or Jerome. Whoever wrote Acts might be similarly situated with Origen and Jerome, except without the accountability of writing under one's own name, and without any acknowledgment of sources.

Other factors may well carry the day. This one, however, seems shaky.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:18 pm to Michael BG,
About Theudas and Judas: no context, "Luke" was wrong. I deducted from that (http://historical-jesus.info/59.html), and other multiple things (http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html), that "Luke" did not have Josephus' Antiquities.
However that does not mean the Gallio's passage in Acts is wrong or invented.

BTW, I have a very interesting theory in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html about dating of events in early Christianity (every 7 years after Jesus' execution). Theory, maybe, but it fits well with the other data.

Cordially, Bernard
If your seven year theory was meant to be in seen in Luke-Acts that is a very good reason for not accepting any dates from Luke-Acts because the author has created them all to achieve your seven year time-frame between events.

To state that Luke might not have created Paul being in Corinth at the time of Gallio is a long way from stating that it is a certainty on which your whole time-frame for Paul should be based. We know Luke likes to create false history so the likelihood is that this is false too.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Paul the Uncertain,
I do not think that Origen & Jerome use of Josephus (wrongly or from interpolation) should be used to discredit Acts.
As for Acts, I know that "Luke" is dead wrong (or better lying for a purpose) many times.
For examples:
The reappearances of Jesus to his disciples and his followers (they had to be extended from the one apparently short of the gospel!), the creation of the church of Jerusalem (it had to be started by Jesus' disciples, and right away!), the discourses put in the mouth of Peter & Paul (they had to sing the same tune, with Peter (and James) looking as a Christian!), the relative position in time of the council of Jerusalem (it had to be before Paul went to Philippi the first time!), etc. etc. etc.
I have a long list of those, plus many in the grey area.
Actually, I used few elements from Acts for my sequencing and dating of events in early Christianity (up to 57 CE). And I used Acts mostly for that, and not without critical analysis and comparing with what Paul wrote on the matter (Including the fact that each canonical Corinthians were made up by the combination of authentic epistles into one, which is done without looking at Acts).

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by robert j »

I just couldn't let this one go by without a response ---
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:33 pm
To robert j,

It is strange that you have so little trust in 'Acts', and then think the discourses of Peter genuinely describe his Christian Beliefs.
You have miss-characterized what I wrote. I certainly did not write that I thought that the discourse genuinely described what a Peter believed. I only wrote about what the author of Acts did ---
robert j wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:28 pm
... The author of Acts put all the following words in the mouth of Peter early in the narrative ... (Acts 2:14-36, NASB)
At least we can agree on this portion of what you wrote ---
Bernard Muller wrote: Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:33 pm
... I think these discourses were fabricated ...

While I'm at it, I'm curious about this more recent post ---
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:10 am
... As for Acts, I know that "Luke" is dead wrong (or better lying for a purpose) many times.
For examples ... I have a long list of those, plus many in the grey area.

Actually, I used few elements from Acts for my sequencing and dating of events in early Christianity (up to 57 CE). And I used Acts mostly for that, and not without critical analysis and comparing with what Paul wrote.
About your "critical analysis", do you have a methodology, a set of consistent objective criteria that you use to determine what portions of Acts are historically reliable and what portions are "dead wrong"?

And on a related note, if one only used information in Acts that is clearly and unequivocally also found in Paul's letters, then one really wouldn't need Acts at all for events about Paul.

ETA: I generalized my last sentence above to apply to anyone. I really do need to move on now, so I will have to leave any reply without further response from me, at least for a while.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller »

to robert j
I exposed on this forum my methology many times. Consult that post viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3445&p=74623&hilit= ... ogy#p74623
About your "critical analysis", do you have a methodology, a set of consistent objective criteria that you use to determine what portions of Acts are historically reliable and what portions are "dead wrong"?
First I was looking at only portions of Acts which affect my reconstruction of events, sequencing & dating. I did not go systematically over everything. I always explained, how, as an investigator, I accepted some relevant items in Acts and rejected others. A lot has to do is how these items matches the relevant items in the original Pauline Corinthians epistles (which I uncombined without the help of Acts) minus interpolations. All of that is fully explained on my website, in particular http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html, http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html.
Actually, most of my website is about explaining what I accept and reject from the early Christian literature.
And on a related note, if one only used information in Acts that is clearly and unequivocally also found in Paul's letters, then one really wouldn't need Acts at all for events about Paul.
Unfortunately, this not the case: Acts is needed to provide some data on some critical events about Paul, which are missing in the Pauline epistles, in order to get a fairly accurate timeline about Paul's travel & events affecting him, c/w with the evolution of his christology/theology.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Michael BG,
If your seven year theory was meant to be in seen in Luke-Acts that is a very good reason for not accepting any dates from Luke-Acts because the author has created them all to achieve your seven year time-frame between events.
How can you assume that? The timeline of the events I mentioned in that 7 years theory comes mostly from Paul. Did 'Luke" knew about the main Pauline epistles? My answer is NO. Details here:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html, http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
To state that Luke might not have created Paul being in Corinth at the time of Gallio is a long way from stating that it is a certainty on which your whole time-frame for Paul should be based. We know Luke likes to create false history so the likelihood is that this is false too.
Why would the Gallio's passage be invented? I do not see here any religious propaganda, Gallio's action makes sense (not interfering about dispute within members of a same religion) and Paul wrote he had conflict from Jews. I don't see any embellishment either.
Even if "Luke" created false stories, that does not mean everything in Acts is false.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@Bernard Muller
I do not think that Origen & Jerome used of Josephus (wrongly or from interpolation) should be used to discredit Acts.
No, that's fine. I was just concerned with the narrower issue of whether its author might be acquainted with Josephus despite making a hash of some matters which Josephus discusses. Origen and Jerome did; maybe the Acts author did, too.

Apparently, artistic license with speeches was "trade practice" at the time, even among the elite ancient historians. Beyond that, the Acts author may well have considerably cleaned up the story of the early years, rather than tell what happened, warts and all. Even so, that would still leave you free to decide whether some specific element was reliably recounted.

I think you and I are at peace here.
Post Reply