If my reply looked confused to you (and that was not my intent), why didn't you look to my web pages http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html for clarification?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.
No, Paul did not have to provide a list of places he already went. And Paul never said he went ONLY in Syria and Cilicia during these 14 years.
Why did he mention Syria & Cilicia? Because Paul visited these places at the very beginning of his "ministry" (with Barnabas): it was at that time the members of the Churches of Judea learned about the new Paul, the one in Christ.
And I do not know why you think Christianity did not begin from Jerusalem (among the "Greek" proto-Christians) and propagated all the way to Rome (as specified in 'Romans' and Tacitus' Annals. The same Annals passage also says Christianity started in Judea.
I see Titus in 2 Cor 2:13, coming in Macedonia from Corinth (2 Cor 7:5-7). Titus is said to be very acquainted with the Corinthians (2 Cor 8:23). In Galatians, it is very probable that Barnabas, according to directives from the Church of Jerusalem, went to Corinth in order to fetch Paul, who brought Titus along. I don't see where Titus is associated with the Church of Antioch, and even if he went to Antioch.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.
In 1 Thessalonians written in the 2nd journey, Barnabas is absent. Sylvanus/Silas And Timothy are the companions of Paul. So there was a split before that. The reason of the initial split with Barnabas? I really don't care, that does not affect my timeline. "Luke" reason (about John Mark) is as good as any and I don't see why it cannot be as in Acts.Do you accept Acts over Paul with regard to why there was a split between Barnabas and Paul?
According to Paul's Galatians, (in 52) Paul went (from not indicated location) to Jerusalem, and then to Antioch.Paul seems to have travelled from Antioch to Jerusalem and returned there.
I have no problems with that.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.
Why do you think Paul was not in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned (which I date in 35, the year of the persecution of "Greek" proto-Christians in Jerusalem and Paul's conversion) and not in Corinth during Gallio (51-52)?
In Galatians, Paul said he went to Jerusalem twice.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.
These proto-Christians (and not Jesus' disciples) founding churches in Judea and Antioch is not what Christian writers in the 2nd & early 3rd century were happy with. That was not the idealistic way they wanted Christianity to be propagated. Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus & Origen have Jesus' disciples going all over the known world, right after the alleged resurrection, in order to preach Christianity.
Please consult http://historical-jesus.info/64.html for details and quotes.
In Galatians, Paul first activity as a missionary is in Syria & Cilicia.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”.
- "So Paul leaves Antioch after he gets back from Jerusalem and has had his split with Barnabas and goes to Macedonia (Philippi and Thessalonica)": Yes I agree.
- "The following spring he goes to Achaia (Corinth and Athens)": I don't agree: the same year in the fall.
- "then the next spring to Galatia finally ending up in Ephesus": That was after Paul's stay in Corinth (1.5 years according to Acts) and then coming back from Corinth to go to Jerusalem. That's when I put the Council of Jerusalem.
Also, after leaving Jerusalem, Paul, after the big split in Antioch, went to Northern Galatia in the fall (where he got sick but manage to make converts). In the next spring he was in Ephesus for a long sejourn (in 53 according to my study).
True, early part of Acts (with the disciples right away creating the church of Jerusalem) is not truthful and I demonstrated that in the first part of http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html. But, as I already stated, the creation of Christian churches outside Jerusalem by non-disciples of Jesus goes against the grain.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.
And I certainly did not accept everything for the rest of 'Acts' (like the time of the council of Jerusalem). "Acts is to be used with extreme caution and as little as possible. And this is what I did.
And I find myself basically agreeing with scholar James Tabor on these comments on pages 229-230 of "Paul and Jesus " (2012), but with some reservations:
"Many historians are agreed that it merits the label, 'Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.' As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:
1. Never accept anything in Acts over Paul's own account in his seven genuine letters.
2. Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases.
3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use."
So you don't think Acts is all crap. Yes, "Luke" was making Paul more Jewish than he was and good buddy with Peter & James and other members of the church of Jerusalem (which is not true).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.
I already told you I have no reason to dismiss the Gallio's episode. And why would "Luke" add up Gallio not intervening against those who beat up Sosthenes (Acts 18:17)?
"Luke" seems well aware of what went on then.
- "Paul was in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned": Probably, because Paul participated to the persecution right after that.
"That Paul persecuted Christians in Jerusalem and Judea": In Jerusalem for sure.
- "Paul's message was the same as other Christians": Definitively not, according to Paul's own epistles, such as 2 Corinthians and Galatians.
- "Paul didn’t have a disagreement with James and Cephas": Paul had a disagreement with Cephas and James' men in Antioch according to Galatians.
- "Paul preached in Jerusalem soon after being converted": NO, he did not.
"Paul could do miracles": In the Corinthians letters, Paul said some of his converts were miracle workers (1 Cor 12:10). What kind of miracles? I do not know. But I don't think Paul made that claim for himself.
- "Paul could cast out demons": No. Where does it says in Acts Paul casted out demons: I don't recall anything like that.
- "Paul circumcised Timothy": Likely
- "Then there are the three versions of Pauls’ vision on the road to Damascus": Yes, I noticed that also, which lead me to believe that's "Luke" invention.
About "not reliable":
Something or somebody not reliable does not mean not to be trusted in any circumstances.
A car not reliable can work well for many miles before breaking down,
A person not reliable can obey directives or follow through his own promises most (but not always) of the time.