No Christology in the Q community

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:41 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 1:39 pm
to Michael BG,
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
Do you think that Jesus was born in 6 CE and Luke 2:1-2 is historical? If so why?

You have already accepted that generally Luke is not very accurate.

Was Cornelius a centurion of the Italian Cohort (Acts 10:1)? The cohors II Italica civium Romanorum didn’t arrive in Palestine until 69 CE.

Why would Luke make Cornelius a member of this cohort?

If Luke added a reference to an actual cohort in Palestine which is unhistorical why couldn’t he add a reference to a historical governor of Achaia?

The alternative view is that Luke liked to add links to historical events and people into his story even if they served no other purpose that making his story seem more historical. (When considering language we often recognise that Luke liked certain words and put down their use to his editorial work even where the change does not affect the meaning of what is being said).

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:17 pm

to Michael BG,
Do you think that Jesus was born in 6 CE and Luke 2:1-2 is historical? If so why?
The answer, NO for 6 CE, & YES for Lk 2:2. For LK 2:1, very likely NO (but I don't use that). Everything is explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html
You have already accepted that generally Luke is not very accurate.
Absolutely, to be used with extreme caution.
Was Cornelius a centurion of the Italian Cohort (Acts 10:1)? The cohors II Italica civium Romanorum didn’t arrive in Palestine until 69 CE.
Why would Luke make Cornelius a member of this cohort?
Don't care. Did not use that as marker for time or a true event. I do think this whole centurion thing is an invention of "Luke". Having a Roman centurion as first Gentile convert (and the approval from James and the church of Jerusalem) is very much "Luke" propaganda.
On the identity of "Luke", see http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html. To be brief, a Roman woman from Philippi, Macedonia, which was a Roman colony originally populated by Roman army men.
If Luke added a reference to an actual cohort in Palestine which is unhistorical why couldn’t he add a reference to a historical governor of Achaia?
The first is pure Christian propaganda. The second is not. Gallio wanted to stay neutral in the whole dispute and not interfere. That was not part of his functions.
The alternative view is that Luke liked to add links to historical events and people into his story even if they served no other purpose that making his story seem more historical. (When considering language we often recognise that Luke liked certain words and put down their use to his editorial work even where the change does not affect the meaning of what is being said).
Yes, "Luke" did that pathetic thing many times. For example mining Josephus' Wars and at time making errors. I do not understand what you put in (...).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by andrewcriddle » Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:00 pm

Michael BG wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:04 pm
andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:22 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:53 pm
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:36 am
As a possible parallel, assuming the same author of Luke and Acts, there is more explicit Christology in Acts and in the first 2 chapters of Luke than in the main section of Luke. Early Christian writers IMO could distinguish between their Christology and their account of the earthly ministry of Jesus.
In Luke there is Christology and the word Christ appears 12 times, if we exclude chapters 1,2 and 24, it appears 8 times – 3:15, 4:41, 9:20, 20:41, 22:67, 23:2, 23:35 and 23:39. Acts I think is a little longer and the word Christ appears 26 times.

I don’t think Mark, Matthew, Luke or John distinguish their Christology between before crucifixion and afterwards.
See for example christology of Acts arguing that Lord is used as a title of Jesus much more in Acts than in Luke.

Andrew Criddle
In Luke Jesus is referred to as Christ and as Lord (even if it is the narrator’s voice). My point was Mark, Matthew, Luke and John do not clearly distinguish between a resurrected Jesus Christ and the earth Jesus with regard to titles. They use titles, which I would conclude were first used to refer to the heavenly resurrected Jesus, for the earthly Jesus. (I don’t find comparisons of Acts and Luke helpful especially as it seems that Moule and Conzelmann disagree on the point you are making.) What about Lk 6:46 for Lord? What about Lk 9:20 for Christ?

Can you set out the case that any of the four do not see Jesus as the Christ during his earthly ministry?

In Luke 6:46 Lord is a title of respect and authority, but I don't think it has the same meaning or implications as Jesus is Lord in early Christian proclamation.

I think it is reasonably clear that all four Gospels see Jesus as being the Christ during his earthly ministry, but in the synoptics particularly Mark Jesus is reluctant to openly claim to be the Christ.

Andrew Criddle

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:02 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:17 pm
to Michael BG,
Do you think that Jesus was born in 6 CE and Luke 2:1-2 is historical? If so why?
The answer, NO for 6 CE, & YES for Lk 2:2. For LK 2:1, very likely NO (but I don't use that). Everything is explained here: http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html
I went to your web page. I think there is an error there. You talk of Luke 2:1 I think you mean 3:1. “2:1-2 reads:
[1] In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
[2] This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. (RSV)
Please note that it is generally accepted that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was Legate of Syria from 6 to 12 CE.
Bernard Muller wrote:
You have already accepted that generally Luke is not very accurate.
Absolutely, to be used with extreme caution.
The alternative view is that Luke liked to add links to historical events and people into his story even if they served no other purpose that making his story seem more historical. (When considering language we often recognise that Luke liked certain words and put down their use to his editorial work even where the change does not affect the meaning of what is being said).
Yes, "Luke" did that pathetic thing many times. For example mining Josephus' Wars and at time making errors. I do not understand what you put in (...).
You are agreeing that Luke has a particular style. In this case adding historical references even where they serve no theological purpose. This parallels the fact that Luke changes words in Mark for no particular theological purpose except that he preferred some words over ones used by Mark. In both cases Luke has edited his story for no theological reason.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Was Cornelius a centurion of the Italian Cohort (Acts 10:1)? The cohors II Italica civium Romanorum didn’t arrive in Palestine until 69 CE.
Why would Luke make Cornelius a member of this cohort?
Don't care. Did not use that as marker for time or a true event. I do think this whole centurion thing is an invention of "Luke".
This is evidence for how Luke attaches historical events to his stories.
Bernard Muller wrote:
If Luke added a reference to an actual cohort in Palestine which is unhistorical why couldn’t he add a reference to a historical governor of Achaia?
The first is pure Christian propaganda. The second is not. Gallio wanted to stay neutral in the whole dispute and not interfere. That was not part of his functions.
I am not saying Luke has added Gallio for any theological reason. (He might just be there to put the Roman authorities in a good light against the Jews just like with the trial of Jesus.) I am saying that he has added it for the same reason Luke has added the name of the Italian cohort, the legate Quirinius, the Egyptian, and Theudas – it is just part of Luke’s style and can never be assumed to be historical; which you have done.
andrewcriddle wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:00 pm
Michael BG wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:04 pm
I don’t think Mark, Matthew, Luke or John distinguish their Christology between before crucifixion and afterwards.
I think it is reasonably clear that all four Gospels see Jesus as being the Christ during his earthly ministry, but in the synoptics particularly Mark Jesus is reluctant to openly claim to be the Christ.

Andrew Criddle
We agree here.

Earlier we have:
Michael BG wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:17 am
It would seem possible that the Q community:
a/ Believed that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ
b/ Did not hold that Jesus claimed to be the Christ during his earthly ministry.

In this case the Q material would not be expected to include claims by Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ, depite the Q comminity believing that Jesus was the Messiah.
While it might be possible for your a and b to be true. I am not sure that the conclusion follows. I would still expect the Q community to read back into Jesus’ life and sayings something about being the Messiah.
bold added.

We agree that the four gospel writers read back into Jesus’s earthy life Christological titles. Therefore I find my position supported by our joint conclusion, that it would be reasonable to expect the author of Q to do the same as the other four gospel writers. There is no evidence that any gospel writer did what you expect the author of Q to have done.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:05 pm

to Michael BG,
I went to your web page. I think there is an error there. You talk of Luke 2:1 I think you mean 3:1. “2:1-2 reads:
[1] In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
[2] This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. (RSV)
I don't see where I made that error. Please give me some indication where that error would be.
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 Paul not be in Corinth in early 52 CE?
Even if "Luke" created false history, that does not mean she never got it right.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Fri Mar 22, 2019 1:32 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Mar 21, 2019 8:05 pm
to Michael BG,
I went to your web page. I think there is an error there. You talk of Luke 2:1 I think you mean 3:1. “2:1-2 reads:
[1] In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled.
[2] This was the first enrollment, when Quirin'i-us was governor of Syria. (RSV)
I don't see where I made that error. Please give me some indication where that error would be.
It only appears to be an error because of the way I read it. My bad. Sorry.
Bernard Muller wrote:
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 Paul not be in Corinth in early 52 CE?
Even if "Luke" created false history, that does not mean she never got it right.

Cordially, Bernard
Paul writes:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. (Gal. 1:21-22, 2:1)
Therefore from the time of Paul’s conversion say in 35 CE for 17 years (52 CE) he was either in Palestine, Arabia, Syria or Cilicia and therefore not “Asia”, Macedonia or Achaia.

It is only after his break with Barnabas at Antioch which you date to after the spring of 52 (and I date to sometime after 52 CE and before 58 CE) that Paul turned to other areas – Galatia, “Asia”, Macedonia and Achaia.

If we assume that 1 Thessalonica is the earliest of Paul’s letters then we see that when Paul wrote it there were “churches” in Macedonia and Achaia (2:7) and that he had been to Philippi (where he had been treated shamefully) before going there (2:2). That Paul had been at Athens and might still be there when writing this letter (3:1-2, 6) and it had been some time since Paul had been in there (4:14).

It is likely that 1 Corinthians is written from Ephesus before Pentecost (16:8).

It is safe to assume that Paul can’t be at Ephesus straight after leaving Antioch because first he has to go to Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth. Paul could only be in Ephesus in 52 CE if you put back his conversion by four years from your date (five for me)! This is possible because we both are using Acts to date Paul’s conversion.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:04 pm

to Michael BG,
Paul writes:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. (Gal. 1:21-22, 2:1)
Therefore from the time of Paul’s conversion say in 35 CE for 17 years (52 CE) he was either in Palestine, Arabia, Syria or Cilicia and therefore not “Asia”, Macedonia or Achaia.
Where did you read Palestine? And I do not see where Paul wrote he did not go to Macedonia & Achaia (Paul's second Journey), after going with Barnabas through Syria, Cilicia, and Southern Galatia (Paul's first Journey). Where do you think Paul made Titus a convert? Most likely Macedonia or Achaia, probably Corinth because in 2 Corinthians 8:23 "As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you;". I have other arguments about that in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html under "When was the "council" of Jerusalem?"
It is only after his break with Barnabas at Antioch which you date to after the spring of 52 (and I date to sometime after 52 CE and before 58 CE) that Paul turned to other areas – Galatia, “Asia”, Macedonia and Achaia.
No, prior to 52, Paul went to Macedonia & Achaia with Silas (Silvanus --likely Silas-- is mentioned in 1 Thessalonians), and confirmed by Acts 18:40 (which marks the beginning of the narration of Paul's second Journey all the way to Macedonia & Achaia).
If we assume that 1 Thessalonica is the earliest of Paul’s letters then we see that when Paul wrote it there were “churches” in Macedonia and Achaia (2:7) and that he had been to Philippi (where he had been treated shamefully) before going there (2:2). That Paul had been at Athens and might still be there when writing this letter (3:1-2, 6) and it had been some time since Paul had been in there (4:14).
Agree, but I don't see why Paul is assumed staying in Athens, when then Corinth was a larger city and the big prize. Furthermore, there is no sign in Paul's letters he made converts in Athens. Paul's preaching in Athens is only mentioned in Acts, but I have serious doubts.
It is likely that 1 Corinthians is written from Ephesus before Pentecost (16:8).
1 Corinthians is a combination of 3 letters (as I already indicated and provided link for my arguments, in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html under "3. The Corinthians letters"). But yes I agree, the 3 of them were written in Ephesus, but at different times. 1 Cor 16:8 is part of the third letter (http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html)
It is safe to assume that Paul can’t be at Ephesus straight after leaving Antioch because first he has to go to Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth.
Yes I Agree. Paul's stay in Ephesus started in 53. That was after Paul traveled alone (no Silas, no Barnabas) and got sick in northern Galatia. Being alone, because of his split with the Churches of Antioch & Jerusalem (through Peter & James' men). Explanations in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html.
Paul could only be in Ephesus in 52 CE if you put back his conversion by four years from your date (five for me)! This is possible because we both are using Acts to date Paul’s conversion.
I put Paul's conversion in 35, right after he left Jerusalem as a persecutor of proto-Christians.
Then 3 + 14 years later, his second trip to Jerusalem as a convert. That would be in 52 CE.
That's where I put the Council of Jerusalem (according to Paul's epistles), between the second journey (up to Macedonia and Achaia) and the third journey (northern Galatia, then Ephesus, his base then, but with short trips to Corinth & Macedonia)).
"Luke" placed the Council of Jerusalem (very much embellished) between the 1st and 2nd journey WRONGLY (but also mentioned a trip to Jerusalem between to 2nd & 3rd journey: Acts 18:22), most likely to have the Church of Jerusalem agreeing with Paul's gospel to the Gentiles before he went to Philippi for the first time.
All of that explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:05 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:04 pm
to Michael BG,
Paul writes:
Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cili'cia.
And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. (Gal. 1:21-22, 2:1)
Therefore from the time of Paul’s conversion say in 35 CE for 17 years (52 CE) he was either in Palestine, Arabia, Syria or Cilicia and therefore not “Asia”, Macedonia or Achaia.
Where did you read Palestine? And I do not see where Paul wrote he did not go to Macedonia & Achaia (Paul's second Journey), after going with Barnabas through Syria, Cilicia, and Southern Galatia (Paul's first Journey). Where do you think Paul made Titus a convert? Most likely Macedonia or Achaia, probably Corinth because in 2 Corinthians 8:23 "As for Titus, he is my partner and fellow worker among you;". I have other arguments about that in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html under "When was the "council" of Jerusalem?"
Jerusalem is in Palestine or Judea if you prefer. Paul says he went to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).

I have not read in Palestine, but you are reading in Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia. Paul states where he has been. If he had been to Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia then some Galatians should have already known about it and would have thought it odd that he didn’t mention them. The logical conclusion is if he had gone there he would have named them and so as he didn’t name them he didn’t go there until after the split with Barnabas.

According to Paul, Titus is a Greek, therefore he could be from Antioch, some place in Syria, or anywhere in the region where Greeks had settled in the previous 700 years. The first reference Paul gives to Titus is that he was not at Troas, so Paul went to Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:12-13). It seems he was in Corinth (2 Cor. 7:5-6). Paul doesn’t write that he converted Titus. You keep assuming that Luke is writing history and he isn’t. It is possible that the only correct historical reference in Luke-Acts comes from Mark and refers to Jesus being crucified when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. It seems you have assumed that Titus was the companion of Paul when he went to Jerusalem and when he was in Macedonia. However, there is no evidence that these events happened close to each other in time. It is possible that Titus went to Jerusalem with Paul, then worked with others and then later joined Paul.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It is only after his break with Barnabas at Antioch which you date to after the spring of 52 (and I date to sometime after 52 CE and before 58 CE) that Paul turned to other areas – Galatia, “Asia”, Macedonia and Achaia.
No, prior to 52, Paul went to Macedonia & Achaia with Silas (Silvanus --likely Silas-- is mentioned in 1 Thessalonians), and confirmed by Acts 18:40 (which marks the beginning of the narration of Paul's second Journey all the way to Macedonia & Achaia).
Silas is only mentioned in Acts. Silvanus was with Paul when he wrote 1 Thessalonians maybe from Athens and with Paul when he wrote 2 Corinthians maybe from Macedonia. All of this is after the break with Barnabas.
Bernard Muller wrote: … but I don't see why Paul is assumed staying in Athens, when then Corinth was a larger city and the big prize. Furthermore, there is no sign in Paul's letters he made converts in Athens. Paul's preaching in Athens is only mentioned in Acts, but I have serious doubts.

1 Thess. 3:1-2, 6
[1] Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone,
[2] and we sent Timothy, our brother and God's servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you,

[6] But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love and reported that you always remember us kindly and long to see us, as we long to see you –
Paul while at Athens sends Timothy to Thessalonica and he is still there when Timothy returns.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It is safe to assume that Paul can’t be at Ephesus straight after leaving Antioch because first he has to go to Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens and Corinth.
Yes I Agree. Paul's stay in Ephesus started in 53. That was after Paul traveled alone (no Silas, no Barnabas) and got sick in northern Galatia. Being alone, because of his split with the Churches of Antioch & Jerusalem (through Peter & James' men). Explanations in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html.
It is extremely unlikely that Paul went to Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Galatia all in one year. This is why Paul can’t be in Ephesus in 52 CE if he went to Jerusalem from Antioch in the spring of 52 CE.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Paul could only be in Ephesus in 52 CE if you put back his conversion by four years from your date (five for me)! This is possible because we both are using Acts to date Paul’s conversion.
I put Paul's conversion in 35, right after he left Jerusalem as a persecutor of proto-Christians.
Then 3 + 14 years later, his second trip to Jerusalem as a convert. That would be in 52 CE.
That's where I put the Council of Jerusalem (according to Paul's epistles), between the second journey (up to Macedonia and Achaia) and the third journey (northern Galatia, then Ephesus, his base then, but with short trips to Corinth & Macedonia)).
"Luke" placed the Council of Jerusalem (very much embellished) between the 1st and 2nd journey WRONGLY (but also mentioned a trip to Jerusalem between to 2nd & 3rd journey: Acts 18:22), most likely to have the Church of Jerusalem agreeing with Paul's gospel to the Gentiles before he went to Philippi for the first time.
All of that explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html.
Paul does not tell us that he “persecuted” the “Christians” in Jerusalem and he implies he didn’t even persecute the churches in Judea as they had never seen him and he was only known to them via hearsay.

Gal. 1:22-23
[22] And I was still not known by sight to the churches of Christ in Judea;
[23] they only heard it said, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy."
As I said we are both using Acts to date Paul’s conversion and Acts in not reliable enough for us to have any confidence that Paul was even present when Stephen was stoned assuming that Luke didn’t make up the story.

We agree that the “Council of Jerusalem” was 17 years after Paul was converted. Therefore for there to be enough time between “Council of Jerusalem” and Paul being at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) before Pentecost, Paul will need to have at least visited Philippi, Thessalonica (from 1 Thess.), Corinth (maybe Athens) and Galatia before going to Ephesus. If you assume that Paul covers a province in a year and not just a city then you need four more years.

51-52 Ephesus
50-51 Galatia
49-50 Achaia (Corinth and Athens)
48-49 Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica)
Spring 48 “Council of Jerusalem” and later the break with Barnabas at Antioch
31 Paul converted.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3423
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:24 am

to Michael BG,
Jerusalem is in Palestine or Judea if you prefer. Paul says he went to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).
Does not matter, Paul did not preach in Palestine or Jerusalem then (and that was a short visit), so he was unknown by face to the Churches of Judea in Christ.
I have not read in Palestine, but you are reading in Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia. Paul states where he has been. If he had been to Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia then some Galatians should have already known about it and would have thought it odd that he didn’t mention them. The logical conclusion is if he had gone there he would have named them and so as he didn’t name them he didn’t go there until after the split with Barnabas.
Actually, at that time, Paul did not go to Northern Galatia yet. That would explain it.
Yes he went there after the split with Barnabas, Peter and the Churches of Antioch and James' men, after his visit to Jerusalem for the council (Gal 2:1).
BTW, Paul's converts were in Northern Galatia, the homeland of the (celtic) Galatians. One argument: "Luke" did not consider the so-called Southern Galatia as Galatia. "Luke" indicated that Galatia was further North (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html).
According to Paul, Titus is a Greek, therefore he could be from Antioch, some place in Syria, or anywhere in the region where Greeks had settled in the previous 700 years. The first reference Paul gives to Titus is that he was not at Troas, so Paul went to Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:12-13). It seems he was in Corinth (2 Cor. 7:5-6). Paul doesn’t write that he converted Titus
Titus appears late in Paul's epistles (in 2 Corinthians), after earlier mentions of Timothy and Sylvanus as Paul traveling companions. Paul was expecting to meet Titus in Troas after Titus' visit to Corinth, but that was after Paul had already gone to Corinth (twice). Titus was only active in Achaia & Macedonia. And since Paul was the first to make converts in Macedonia & Achaia, it is highly probable that Titus was one of those converts.
Sure, Paul had gone to Corinth already: 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians were addressed to Corinthians, whom Paul knew already.
You keep assuming that Luke is writing history and he isn’t. It is possible that the only correct historical reference in Luke-Acts comes from Mark and refers to Jesus being crucified when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea. It seems you have assumed that Titus was the companion of Paul when he went to Jerusalem and when he was in Macedonia. However, there is no evidence that these events happened close to each other in time. It is possible that Titus went to Jerusalem with Paul, then worked with others and then later joined Paul.
You keep assuming that Luke did not write history. Yes she did, concerning Paul's trips (sequencing & places where he preached), because I did not see major conflicts between Acts & Paul's epistles on this matter (except she misplaced for a purpose the time of the council of Jerusalem).
Why talk about possibility, when Acts tells what happened? Anyway, according to Galatians, after Titus went to Jerusalem with Paul, there was the big split in Antioch, leading Paul to complain that the understanding from the earlier council of Jerusalem had been betrayed by James' after-thought (probably under pressure from the members of his Church).
Then why would Paul narrate what happened in Jerusalem during the council with a few pillars?
Most likely, Paul wanted to be known to his Galatians, before making converts there, he had the OK to preach to Gentiles his gospel (which did not included any attempt of Judaization).
Silas is only mentioned in Acts. Silvanus was with Paul when he wrote 1 Thessalonians maybe from Athens and with Paul when he wrote 2 Corinthians maybe from Macedonia. All of this is after the break with Barnabas
Sylvanus is most likely the same person as Silas, his shortened name.
Thanks to Acts, I do not have go through "maybe". Silas was the companion of Paul (with Timothy) during the second journey (to Macedonia and Corinth for the first time). And that's what appears in 1 Thessalonians, with mention of Sylvanus and Timothy.
BTW, according to Acts, the initial break with Barnabas was caused by a disagreement about to bring (or not) John Mark along (for the 2nd journey), not really a break. The big break (Gal 2:13), under the influence of James' men, will happen later (at the start of the 3rd journey).
Paul while at Athens sends Timothy to Thessalonica and he is still there when Timothy returns.
OK, my bad.
It is extremely unlikely that Paul went to Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Galatia all in one year. This is why Paul can’t be in Ephesus in 52 CE if he went to Jerusalem from Antioch in the spring of 52 CE.
According to Acts, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth (all for the first time) was during the 2nd journey (which lasted about 2 years: 50 to early 52). Northern Galatia was part of the 3rd journey, right before Paul stayed in Ephesus starting in 53 (after a short visit in 52 on his way to Jerusalem from Corinth). I don't see any problem here. Acts, with the Pauline epistles, solved that for me.
BTW, the first journey was in Cilicia, Southern Galatia and Cyprus
Why only one year for Paul preaching in all Macedonia, Achaia and Galatia, I wonder?
And why Paul had to be in Ephesus in 52?
As I said we are both using Acts to date Paul’s conversion and Acts in not reliable enough for us to have any confidence that Paul was even present when Stephen was stoned assuming that Luke didn’t make up the story.
I got 35 for Paul's conversion by going backward from the dispute under Gallio's rule in Corinth (I did not addressed for my dating the fact that Paul was (or was not) present during the stoning of Stephen. I did not need it).
52 is the year when Paul went to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the pillars after the dispute between Paul and Jews in Corinth. Subtracting from 52 (14 + 3 = 17) give me 35 for Paul's conversion.
Paul does not tell us that he “persecuted” the “Christians” in Jerusalem and he implies he didn’t even persecute the churches in Judea as they had never seen him and he was only known to them via hearsay.
Paul did not say. But because the "Greek" proto-Christians were in Jerusalem then, that's where the persecution had to start. During that persecution, these proto-Christians fled to cities in Judea and beyond. All of that is in Act (8:1 & 11:19).
We agree that the “Council of Jerusalem” was 17 years after Paul was converted. Therefore for there to be enough time between “Council of Jerusalem” and Paul being at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) before Pentecost, Paul will need to have at least visited Philippi, Thessalonica (from 1 Thess.), Corinth (maybe Athens) and Galatia before going to Ephesus. If you assume that Paul covers a province in a year and not just a city then you need four more years.
I addressed that already. Why only one year? By that time (referring to 1 Cor 16:8) Paul had been in all the places you mentioned, but it was during a 3 years period (from 50 to 52).
1 Cor 16:8 is part of the third uncombined (original) letter to the Corinthians written in early 55. Anyway that's what I concluded from data from Paul's epistles and Acts.
51-52 Ephesus
50-51 Galatia
49-50 Achaia (Corinth and Athens)
48-49 Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica)
Spring 48 “Council of Jerusalem” and later the break with Barnabas at Antioch
31 Paul converted
I don't see how you can venture with this timeline when you work from the combined (canonical) epistles to the Corinthians and you consider Acts being all trash.
And why would Acts be all trash? Because of some obvious historical errors that you (and myself) found in the first half of it (not concerning Paul's travels).
That is certainly not enough for me to reject Act as not providing good data about Paul's trips.
Furthermore, this data, with the ones from the uncombined Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, fit very well together. And my 7 years theory would even cement my finding about Paul's trips even more.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:50 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Mar 24, 2019 10:24 am
to Michael BG,
Jerusalem is in Palestine or Judea if you prefer. Paul says he went to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18).
Does not matter, Paul did not preach in Palestine or Jerusalem then (and that was a short visit), so he was unknown by face to the Churches of Judea in Christ.
I have not read in Palestine, but you are reading in Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia. Paul states where he has been. If he had been to Macedonia & Achaia and Southern Galatia then some Galatians should have already known about it and would have thought it odd that he didn’t mention them. The logical conclusion is if he had gone there he would have named them and so as he didn’t name them he didn’t go there until after the split with Barnabas.
Actually, at that time, Paul did not go to Northern Galatia yet. That would explain it.
Yes he went there after the split with Barnabas, Peter and the Churches of Antioch and James' men, after his visit to Jerusalem for the council (Gal 2:1).
BTW, Paul's converts were in Northern Galatia, the homeland of the (celtic) Galatians. One argument: "Luke" did not consider the so-called Southern Galatia as Galatia. "Luke" indicated that Galatia was further North (as explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html).
I was quoting you and your Southern Galatia!

From your confused reply. I can’t tell if you agree with me. If Paul had been to Macedonia and Achaia during the 14 years he states he only went to Syria and Cilicia he would have said so in his letter to the Galatians. As he didn’t say so, he can’t have been there. There is no point in Paul being untruthful but we know Luke often makes things up, such as Christianity starting at Jerusalem and spreading in an ordered way ending up at Rome.
Bernard Muller wrote:
According to Paul, Titus is a Greek, therefore he could be from Antioch, some place in Syria, or anywhere in the region where Greeks had settled in the previous 700 years. The first reference Paul gives to Titus is that he was not at Troas, so Paul went to Macedonia (2 Cor. 2:12-13). It seems he was in Corinth (2 Cor. 7:5-6). Paul doesn’t write that he converted Titus
Titus appears late in Paul's epistles (in 2 Corinthians), after earlier mentions of Timothy and Sylvanus as Paul traveling companions. Paul was expecting to meet Titus in Troas after Titus' visit to Corinth, but that was after Paul had already gone to Corinth (twice). Titus was only active in Achaia & Macedonia. And since Paul was the first to make converts in Macedonia & Achaia, it is highly probable that Titus was one of those converts.
You have no evidence that Paul converted Titus. As I said the first time we hear about Titus he is in Antioch with Paul and Barnabas and goes to Jerusalem with them. I think it is just as probable that Barnabas converted Titus as Paul.
Bernard Muller wrote: You keep assuming that Luke did not write history. Yes she did, concerning Paul's trips (sequencing & places where he preached), because I did not see major conflicts between Acts & Paul's epistles on this matter (except she misplaced for a purpose the time of the council of Jerusalem).
Why talk about possibility, when Acts tells what happened?
We can only ever talk of possibilities and what is likely. Luke-Acts is not reliable.

Do you accept Acts over Paul with regard to why there was a split between Barnabas and Paul?

Luke has created the “first missionary Journey” and according to you has misplaced the “Council of Jerusalem”.

How many historical references does Luke-Acts have and how many are fiction and how many are likely true. I have set out that the only one which is likely to be true is from Mark and refers to Jesus being crucified when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea.
Bernard Muller wrote:
It is extremely unlikely that Paul went to Jerusalem, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth and Galatia all in one year. This is why Paul can’t be in Ephesus in 52 CE if he went to Jerusalem from Antioch in the spring of 52 CE.
According to Acts, Philippi, Thessalonica, Athens, Corinth (all for the first time) was during the 2nd journey (which lasted about 2 years: 50 to early 52). Northern Galatia was part of the 3rd journey, right before Paul stayed in Ephesus starting in 53 (after a short visit in 52 on his way to Jerusalem from Corinth). I don't see any problem here. Acts, with the Pauline epistles, solved that for me.
Paul seems to have travelled from Antioch to Jerusalem and returned there.

This second journey of Acts is after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts. However, you say it didn’t happen then but happened later, while I say it didn’t happen because it is part of Luke’s creation.
Bernard Muller wrote:
As I said we are both using Acts to date Paul’s conversion and Acts in not reliable enough for us to have any confidence that Paul was even present when Stephen was stoned assuming that Luke didn’t make up the story.
I got 35 for Paul's conversion by going backward from the dispute under Gallio's rule in Corinth (I did not addressed for my dating the fact that Paul was (or was not) present during the stoning of Stephen. I did not need it).
52 is the year when Paul went to Jerusalem to explain his gospel to the pillars after the dispute between Paul and Jews in Corinth. Subtracting from 52 (14 + 3 = 17) give me 35 for Paul's conversion.
You are relying on the information in Acts regarding Gallio and I am replying on the information regarding Stephen. It is very possible that both are not true. That Paul was not at Ephesus when Gallio was governor and Paul was not present in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Paul does not tell us that he “persecuted” the “Christians” in Jerusalem and he implies he didn’t even persecute the churches in Judea as they had never seen him and he was only known to them via hearsay.
Paul did not say. But because the "Greek" proto-Christians were in Jerusalem then, that's where the persecution had to start. During that persecution, these proto-Christians fled to cities in Judea and beyond. All of that is in Act (8:1 & 11:19).
Again you are making the error of accepting Acts as historical. To have Paul in Jerusalem fits Luke’s view of the development of Christianity.
Bernard Muller wrote:
We agree that the “Council of Jerusalem” was 17 years after Paul was converted. Therefore for there to be enough time between “Council of Jerusalem” and Paul being at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) before Pentecost, Paul will need to have at least visited Philippi, Thessalonica (from 1 Thess.), Corinth (maybe Athens) and Galatia before going to Ephesus. If you assume that Paul covers a province in a year and not just a city then you need four more years.
I addressed that already. Why only one year? By that time (referring to 1 Cor 16:8) Paul had been in all the places you mentioned, but it was during a 3 years period (from 50 to 52).
I am saying one year is too short a time. I am using I think your theory which is Paul travels in the spring and does missionary work for the rest of the year. So Paul leaves Antioch after he gets back from Jerusalem and has had his split with Barnabas and goes to Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica) which seems to be the earliest missionary activity Paul talks of in his letters. The following spring he goes to Achaia (Corinth and Athens), then the next spring to Galatia finally ending up in Ephesus during or just after the third spring since the “Council of Jerusalem”.
Bernard Muller wrote:
51-52 Ephesus
50-51 Galatia
49-50 Achaia (Corinth and Athens)
48-49 Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica)
Spring 48 “Council of Jerusalem” and later the break with Barnabas at Antioch
31 Paul converted
I don't see how you can venture with this timeline when you work from the combined (canonical) epistles to the Corinthians and you consider Acts being all trash.
And why would Acts be all trash? Because of some obvious historical errors that you (and myself) found in the first half of it (not concerning Paul's travels).
That is certainly not enough for me to reject Act as not providing good data about Paul's trips.
Furthermore, this data, with the ones from the uncombined Paul's epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, fit very well together. And my 7 years theory would even cement my finding about Paul's trips even more.

Cordially, Bernard
You seem to have a strange methodology. If early Acts is bad on history then it is likely the whole of Acts is. As early Acts is written with an over-riding view of the development of Christianity, then this over-riding view would also be applied to the rest of Acts.

I think there is some historical traditions behind some of the stories in Acts 1-12, but much less after this. Luke’s portrayal of Paul does not agree with Paul’s letters. Paul before Gallio is likely to be a Lucan creation to present the Romans in a good light, which Luke likes to do.

It does not seem that you have questioned whether the information about the journeys of Paul are historical in the light of all the information that Luke provides about Paul which is not historical:
Paul was in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned;
That Paul persecuted Christians in Jerusalem and Judea;
Paul's message was the same as other Christians;
Paul didn’t have a disagreement with James and Cephas;
Paul preached in Jerusalem soon after being converted;
Paul could do miracles;
Paul could cast out demons;
Paul circumcised Timothy;
Then there are the three versions of Pauls’ vision on the road to Damascus.

Post Reply