Funny thing about Acts... (Paul's trial)

[neilgodfrey]

The issue is not whether the underlying source is itself historically accurate, its whether there is an underlying source that was written prior to the first Gospel. The narrative may well be fictional, but but even so, its a fictional narrative created without a view of a crucifixion of Jesus at the order of the Sanhedrin in mind.

I think its a bit preposterous to simply explain away Paul facing Jesus' would-be executioners and not even make any refences to the prior deed. These people had just recently killed Jesus, the guy that Paul is now supposedly worshiping. Doesn't Paul know what they just did to him? Isn't he terrified for his life, now facing the very people that just executed his savior?

But what if Paul is simply a story character being set up to make the author's point?

[neilgodfrey]

And the idea that this was simply not a matter of interest is absurd. The legitimacy of the resurrection was absolutely in question at the time that Luke was writing. Here the writer has them in a court of law, the perfect place to make his case. But the case is not made because the writer is following close to his sources, just as he did in his Gospel, which is why he followed Mark over Matthew. He was a stickler for following sources when he had them. He followed his source here, his now lost "Acts of Paul", in which the trial of Paul took place before the idea that Jesus had ever been on trail even existed.

I should add that I understand your point and it is a most reasonable one based on what we would expect of a real Paul in such a situation and if the author was relying on historical sources for Paul's trial and wanting to inform readers of his life then yes, you have a point.

[GakuseiDon]

I think its a bit preposterous to simply explain away Paul facing Jesus' would-be executioners and not even make any refences to the prior deed. These people had just recently killed Jesus, the guy that Paul is now supposedly worshiping. Doesn't Paul know what they just did to him? Isn't he terrified for his life, now facing the very people that just executed his savior?

If Paul is terrified for his life, wouldn't that actually be a reason for Paul to NOT bring up Jesus? Not really the time for: "Hey, remember that Jesus that you crucified as a criminal? Well, I'm just like him! Now free me."

Assume that Jesus was crucified because he caused a ruckus in the Temple and he upset the Jewish authorities. Assume that Jesus' immediate followers weren't also crucified, because the charges were against Jesus only, and not against the group. So for the judges, Jesus wasn't relevant to Paul's trial, and for Paul, defending Jesus wasn't relevant in defending himself. Here is Paul's defence, according to the author of Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 25:
[7] And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove.
[8]While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all.

If Paul had a good lawyer, that's the kind of defence the lawyer would have encouraged Paul to use: "For Christ's sake, don't bring up Jesus!"

Someone once criticised Christ mythicism as "using 19th Century reasoning to disprove 4th Century myths." Acts is a made-up story to reconcile Paul and Peter, and to show that the early Christians were never against Caesar or the Temple. The author isn't interested in the historical Jesus. Trying to draw conclusions from a Second Century author's story about Paul's trial using the author's lack of references to Jesus seems overly ambitious. The recent death of Jesus wasn't brought up because the author didn't need to bring it up.

[rgprice]

If Paul is terrified for his life, wouldn't that actually be a reason for Paul to NOT bring up Jesus? Not really the time for: "Hey, remember that Jesus that you crucified as a criminal? Well, I'm just like him! Now free me."

...

Someone once criticised Christ mythicism as "using 19th Century reasoning to disprove 4th Century myths." Acts is a made-up story to reconcile Paul and Peter, and to show that the early Christians were never against Caesar or the Temple. The author isn't interested in the historical Jesus. Trying to draw conclusions from a Second Century author's story about Paul's trial using the author's lack of references to Jesus seems overly ambitious. The recent death of Jesus wasn't brought up because the author didn't need to bring it up.

This is rationalization, not evidence. This is the main claim of essentially all theological NT scholars. "Oh, we don't find descriptions of Jesus the man in the pre-Gospel writings because people simply weren't interested in him."

There is zero evidence of that. In fact, as soon as the Gospels came out, all that anyone was interested in was Jesus the man. There is nothing in the pre0Gospel writings that says, "We know Jesus to have been a man who provided wise teachings to us, but he is now in heaven, and now that he has been killed and gone to heaven our interest is in his heavenly nature."

Nothing says that. NT Scholars want to believe that the NT works say that, but they don't. That would be evidence, but there is no such evidence.

The thing about 2nd Acts is that while you can come up with reasons why some real Paul may not have wanted to bring up Jesus in his real trial, there is no question that any account of a trial of Paul in any narrative would had to have been made up. The trial of Paul is fiction. There may be parts of Acts narrative that are based on real events. I think it is possible that the "we passages" are based on real notes from a real companion of a real Paul. But even if so, that person couldn't have had knowledge of what was said or thought by Felix and Festus. He wouldn't have known what was said during Paul's questioning by the Sanhedrin. The only possible way he even could know would be if Paul told him, which is far more doubtful that that it was just made up and filled in with details conceived by the writer.

So, if there is some underlying source to 2nd Acts, its something that's a mix of fact and fiction, at best a work like Josephus' in which Josephus repeatedly fabricates speeches from people he never knew and couldn't possible have gotten details from. Are the works Of Josephus based on reality? Yes. Are all of his details historically accurate? No.

So at best that's what a potential source for 2nd Acts would be. Its also possible that a source for 2nd Acts could be an entirely made up 100% fictional story about Paul. It's also possible that there is no source for 2nd Acts and the writer of Acts just made it up entirely out of thin air himself.

I don't think 2nd Acts is made up out of thin air, I think it was based on a source for a number of reasons. Maybe that source is semi-historical and maybe its 100% made up. Either way, while a trial of Paul is potentially historical, there is little question that the details of the trial are completely made up.

My contention is that, if someone were making up the details of the trial in light of the Gospel narrative about the execution of Jesus at the order of the Sanhedrin, then surely they would have addressed the execution of Jesus in some way when they had Paul standing in front of the very body that had just executed Jesus, presumably some 10-20 years prior. In the post-Gospel world, the unjust execution of Jesus at the hands of the Jews was at THE HEART of Christian theology. It was the center of the universe. It was the single most important element of the entire story! The unjust execution of Jesus at the hands of the Jews was both in doubt (did they really do it?) and central to explaining why the favor of the Lord had been transferred from the Jews to the Gentiles. So now here is Paul, "in the Lion's den", and we're presented with confused lambs?

The trial of Paul reads far more like a pre-Gospel narrative, a likely source used by the writer of Mark when he created his trial, than something invented as a sequel to the Gospels.

Again we've got NT scholars trying to walk the tight-rope between the claim that Jesus the man was so beloved and so worshiped by his followers that they deified him and searched through scriptures to piece together references they could use to interpret his death, and simultaneously that they thought so little of Jesus the man that they never bothered, anywhere, in any of over a dozen sources, to write a single thin about him, and that, even when making an account of the primary person responsible for brining his message to the world, even in that account they didn't think to work in any information about how the deeds and teachings of Jesus the man related to Paul's experiences in Jerusalem at the hands of the people who killed Jesus.

So the explanation of the NT scholars is, "Christians just didn't care about Jesus."

[davidmartin]

well, maybe Acts is a bit earlier than thought, maybe even as late as 100AD the gospels (and maybe Matthew and Luke were not written then) were not in wide use or circulation. Why should Acts mention Jesus much when Paul doesn't in his letters?
Of course..... that would make Luke and Acts not by the same author...... or my point would fall to bits
what i'm saying is in Pauls letters (and even the later pseudographical ones) are very skimpy on Jesus, Acts follows the same pattern
The question asked about Acts then blows out wider into Pauline style Christianity in general, which is light on Jesus info
That does not have to mean a historical Jesus did not exist if another reasonable explanation was possible for this

[GakuseiDon]

This is rationalization, not evidence. This is the main claim of essentially all theological NT scholars. "Oh, we don't find descriptions of Jesus the man in the pre-Gospel writings because people simply weren't interested in him."

Not just pre-Gospel writings, but also going into the Second Century. Here is the list of early Christian writings that don't mention "Jesus" or "Christ":

1. Tatian: "To the Greeks" (160s CE)
2. Theophilus of Antioch: Book I (180 CE)
3. Theophilus of Antioch: Book II (180 CE)
4. Theophilus of Antioch: Book III (180 CE)
5. Athenagoras of Athens: "A Plea for the Christians" (180s CE)
6. "Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus" (130 / 200 CE)
7. Minucius Felix: "To Octavius" (160 / 250 CE)
8. Tertullian: "Ad nationes" (200 CE)
9. "Odes of Solomon" (100-200 CE)
10. "Shepherd of Hermas" (100-160 CE)

Further, if you look at the epistles in the NT, even the ones that Dr Carrier and Doherty have identified as being by historicist writers, there are few if any details about the man Jesus. "We were eye-witnesses to his glory" (2 Peter 1:16) for example. Nothing about Jesus the man. Nothing about "Jesus was a wise teacher who performed miracles." And these are by supposedly HISTORICIST writers.

So something is going on. Maybe it's evidence of mythicism. But something is going on. The bottom line is that there are lots of examples of apparently historicist early writers -- from before and AFTER the Gospels were written -- who are not particularly interested in Jesus the man. "Acts of the Apostles" is simply another example.

In fact, as soon as the Gospels came out, all that anyone was interested in was Jesus the man. There is nothing in the pre-Gospel writings that says, "We know Jesus to have been a man who provided wise teachings to us, but he is now in heaven, and now that he has been killed and gone to heaven our interest is in his heavenly nature."

How about 2 Cor 5:16:

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

Combine that with:

Phil 2:7-8

"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

Rom.1:3-4:

"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead"

There is a pattern that can be traced through Paul where Jesus was a man of no reputation, like a servant, and then through obedience to death by crucifixion, became Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. The Christians used to know Christ "according to the flesh", but now they know him that way no longer.

Not even wise teachings, I'm afraid, but a man of no reputation whose obedience to God culminates in elevation to Son of God after death.

The thing about 2nd Acts is that while you can come up with reasons why some real Paul may not have wanted to bring up Jesus in his real trial, there is no question that any account of a trial of Paul in any narrative would had to have been made up. The trial of Paul is fiction. There may be parts of Acts narrative that are based on real events.

The point I have been making is that it is a HISTORICIST author has decided to not include details about Jesus the man in the trial of Paul, where you are saying that this is unlikely. An author whom we agree was including fiction about the trial.

For you, this is unexpected, since you'd expect to see such details about Jesus in Paul's trial. Your conclusion is that the author was closely following his source, which lacked details about Jesus the man.

My point is that the HISTORICIST writer made a DELIBERATE choice to NOT add details about Jesus the man into the trial in his/her FICTIONAL story. If it wasn't something that you'd expect from a 'historicist' author, AND the author did it anyway, then what I'm arguing is that perhaps it's your expectations that are in error. Add to that is that there are arguably examples of the same thing in other early Christian writings where Christian writers are making DELIBERATE choices to exclude details about the human Jesus, to the point of not even using the names "Jesus" and "Christ".

My contention is that, if someone were making up the details of the trial in light of the Gospel narrative about the execution of Jesus at the order of the Sanhedrin, then surely they would have addressed the execution of Jesus in some way when they had Paul standing in front of the very body that had just executed Jesus, presumably some 10-20 years prior. In the post-Gospel world, the unjust execution of Jesus at the hands of the Jews was at THE HEART of Christian theology. It was the center of the universe. It was the single most important element of the entire story!

In the post-Gospel world, perhaps. Not sure it was ever "the centre of the universe", but after the Gospels came to be seen as revealed literature from about 160 CE, more focus was placed on the orthodoxy towards the human Jesus.

Again we've got NT scholars trying to walk the tight-rope between the claim that Jesus the man was so beloved and so worshiped by his followers...

This is where you lose me. I don't give a cr*p about what "NT scholars" as a group claim. Give me names and arguments please. It's been a long time since I called myself a Christian, and even when I did, I never thought that Jesus was virgin-born and Son of God or that the Gospels were anything other than stories. I was like a Spong-Christian, I guess. In short: where NT scholars have it wrong, then more power to you!

[davidmartin]

i think the whole point of Paul and Acts being short on historical details (but as pointed out above, mentioning a few) is due to the Paul going around with 'his gospel' that was kind of different and separated from the primordial followers (and by extension the man himself and his deeds)
Paul didn't want to go over that stuff or quote his sayings cause that would impair his gospel he's projecting.
So in other words the classic "Jesus was a man of no reputation, like a servant, and then through obedience to death by crucifixion" is a pre-gospel idea of Paul - nothing to see here Jesus did nothing move along, before the gospels became accepted
There is a giant difference between this Pauline/Hebrews view and the gospels, it's just that Acts is following suite with the pre-gospel phase in a lot of places (if he really did write Luke he's dishing out two very different documents). So Acts kind of captures the time the Pauline based churches are just starting to accept gospels maybe

[GakuseiDon]

i think the whole point of Paul and Acts being short on historical details (but as pointed out above, mentioning a few) is due to the Paul going around with 'his gospel' that was kind of different and separated from the primordial followers (and by extension the man himself and his deeds)

Whatever the reason, for me it is about setting expectations. If you or rgprice are interested, here is my "expectations" challenge:

Using the epistles in the NT that are thought to be by 'historicist' writers:

1. Before reviewing, set your expectations about how much information about the historical Jesus you'd expect to see in each epistle
2. Review the epistle to see if your expectations are met.

If they are not met, then it may be your expectations need to be reset.

[Giuseppe]

How about 2 Cor 5:16:

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

Carrier addresses that passage as reference to the knowledge 'according to the flesh', not to a carnal Christ. Therefore you can't use it to make the point that Christians ignored deliberately Christ. If something, in 1 Cor 2:6-8, Paul ascribes to only Perfects the full knowledge of the Christ's mission in outer space, as a motive to be glad, against the ignorance of the Rulers. Usually, when one is glad about X, he isn't going to eclipse X.

[GakuseiDon]

How about 2 Cor 5:16:

"Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

Carrier addresses that passage as reference to the knowledge 'according to the flesh', not to a carnal Christ. Therefore you can't use it to make the point that Christians ignored deliberately Christ. If something, in 1 Cor 2:6-8, Paul ascribes to only Perfects the full knowledge of the Christ's mission in outer space, as a motive to be glad, against the ignorance of the Rulers. Usually, when one is glad about X, he isn't going to eclipse X.

I'm not sure what you mean, I'm afraid. This is what Dr Carrier writes in OHJ, page 571:

...when Paul says, 'although we have known Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know him that way' (2 Cor. 5.16), he is not excusing the fact that he did not know Jesus personally as the other apostles did, because he is referring not to himself but to all Christians, including the Corinthians he is writing to (as the context indicates: 2 Cor. 5.1-15). This is therefore a reference to our living no longer 'according to the flesh' but according to the spirit (Romans 8). So it is not Christ's fleshly existence Paul is referring to here (because even on historicity the Corinthians can't possibly have known Christ that way), but our fleshly existence, and our choice to live 'in' the flesh or out of it-and the fact that Christians begin in it, and ascend out of it. Thus, we all know Christ when we are in the flesh, but then we evolve beyond that. As Paul says in the very next line (2 Cor. 5.17).

Can you explain what Carrier means here, please? According to Paul, Christ was a man who was of the seed of David according to the flesh. When the Christians knew Christ according to [all Christian's] flesh, what did Christians know? And how do Christians no longer know Christ?

(ETA) This is 2 Cor 5:16-17 according to Young's Literal Translation:

2Co 5:16 So that we henceforth have known no one according to the flesh, and even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no more;
2Co 5:17 so that if any one is in Christ -- he is a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things.