Recommendation for critical analysis of Acts of the Apostles?

[rgprice]

I'm looking for a good critical analysis of Acts of the Apostles. There are many out there, but I don't want to waste my time reading some crap. Anyone have a good recommendation?

[Bernard Muller]

My work into using Acts with Paul's epistles (http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html) in order to define Paul's 2nd & 3rd journeys (places & dating) would be considered crap for you.
But you'll be delighted by that web page https://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-f ... s-seminar/.

For the few interested, this is what I found for the third journey:

a) Spring 52: Paul's trip to Jerusalem from Corinth (fourteen years (Gal2:1) after the one in 38). The "council" of Jerusalem takes place then (See Appendix B for explanations).
b) Summer and early fall 52 (or earlier): Paul spends time in Antioch (dispute with Peter: Gal2:11-14) and departs (alone).
c) Fall 52 to winter 53: Paul becomes sick on his way NW and recuperates in "northern" Galatia where he makes converts (Gal4:13-15; Ac18:23,19:1a).
d) Winter 53: Paul's arrival in Ephesus. He learns Apollos & Peter had visited Corinth and each one got followers at his detriment (1Co1-4).
e) Winter 53 to spring 55: Paul preaches in Ephesus for two years and three months (Ac19:8,10). He feels partially abandoned by the Corinthians (1Co9). But, later, the situation improves greatly.
f) Spring 55: Paul's trip to Macedonia and then Corinth (2nd one here: 1Co16:5-8; 2Co13:1-2), where Paul is rejected. Likely no collection (as planned in 1Co16:1-4) is done.
g) Summer 55 to spring 56: Paul stays in Ephesus (about nine months).
h) Spring 56: Paul's short trip to Troas and Macedonia (where Paul hears the good news from Titus) then back to Ephesus (2Co1:15-24,7:5-7). Meanwhile a collection has been on-going in Corinth since late 55 (2Co8:10b-11).
i) Late spring 56: The "riot" in Ephesus.
j) Late spring 56 to fall 56: Paul is imprisoned in Ephesus. The collection in Corinth is aborted (2Co8:10b-11).
k) Fall 56: Paul is freed and goes to Macedonia (probably Philippi first).
l) Fall 56 to early spring 57: Paul visits the Macedonian Christians and then stays in Corinth (for three months (Ac20:3a); the third trip to that city). The collection is restarted and completed in Corinth (Ro15:26).
m) Late spring 57: Paul's arrival in Jerusalem and arrest (Ro15:25-26,31; Ac20,21)

Cordially Bernard

[rgprice]

I find that interesting. Certainly I want something that fully explains why most scholars think that the writer of Acts didn't know Paul's letters.

[robert j]

... I want something that fully explains why most scholars think that the writer of Acts didn't know Paul's letters.

Apologetics.

[Bernard Muller]

I find that interesting. Certainly I want something that fully explains why most scholars think that the writer of Acts didn't know Paul's letters.

I got a web page on that: http://historical-jesus.info/75.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I find that interesting. Certainly I want something that fully explains why most scholars think that the writer of Acts didn't know Paul's letters.

Possible counterpoint to Bernard's take: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2037. Just for the sake of completeness.

[Bernard Muller]

For the record, I always considered Acts as mostly fictional, just like the gospels. That's why I made little use of Acts, including for Paul's travels. For example, the discourses of Peter are trash because Peter & James never became Christians: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

I'm looking for a good critical analysis of Acts of the Apostles. There are many out there, but I don't want to waste my time reading some crap. Anyone have a good recommendation?

Westar Institute's Seminar on Acts of the Apostles (?) -

https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

( clicking on the image top left -> https://www.westarinstitute.org/store/a ... eginnings/

• $10 on Kindle https://www.amazon.com/Acts-Christian-B ... 00FY441M0/ )

[rgprice]

I guess I'm obligated to read the Westnar report, although I already see a number of problems with it, just as with The Five Gospels. I'm generally quite unimpressed with their conclusions.

For example, the reports comments on the exitance of an early Jerusalem church are quite absurd.

In Galatians, Paul refers to the existence of a Christian group in Jerusalem three years after his “conversion” experience, thus up to four or five years after the death of Jesus (Gal 1:17–18). How long had that community been there? Since Luke’s version of events is historically unreliable (see cameo essay, “Deconstructing the Resurrection Narrative in Luke-Acts,” p. 29), it seems more likely that Mark’s allusion to a flight to Galilee is closer to the truth. Jerusalem would have become a dangerous place for Jesus followers in the immediate aftermath of Jesus’ execution. They most likely fled Jerusalem at that time and then returned at a later point after things died down. This is the version accepted by the Fellows as the most likely historical version.

Where to begin with how ridiculous this is?

Wait what? Paul is the most reliable source. Paul attests to a group of prior apostles existing in Jerusalem. But because Luke starts with a clearly fictional telling of the apostles in seeing Jesus in Jerusalem, let's just assume that Mark is accurate!!? WTF!? Nevermind the fact that Mark itself is entirely made up? Nevermind the fact that Mark is built chiastically, with Jesus' ministry starting in Galilee and ending there as well, just as Jesus tells SIMON - Peter to follow him in the beginning of the story, but SIMON Peter abandons him to have a different Simon carry his cross for him at the end. OMG, the fact that anyone would say, "Nah, let's go with Mark instead," is just mind blowing.

I mean it may well be that the Jesus ministry did not originate in Jerusalem, but this is a horrible justification for such a view.

This view also assumes the reliability of the Markan crucifixion generally, assuming that following the real crucifixion of Jesus there would have been some kind of manhunt for his followers, forcing these real people to flee Jerusalem for their own safety. How ridiculous!

I certainly trust Paul's letters more than Mark, and Paul's letters seem to indicate that the Jesus movement originated in Jerusalem among Jews, with Paul later going out to spread the word to God-fearing communities associated with the Jerusalem community.

[perseusomega9]

An oldie but goodie
https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Acts-Apo ... B0007ITJ8O