Recommendation for critical analysis of Acts of the Apostles?

[perseusomega9]

Richard Pervo has several books on Acts, just be forewarned he was convicted of possessing child porn

[perseusomega9]

another oldie but goodie
https://www.amazon.com/Acts-Apostles-Co ... 066420919X

[Bernard Muller]

Richard Pervo has several books on Acts, just be forewarned he was convicted of possessing child porn

From https://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-f ... s-seminar/
Bolding mine

2. The Date

Acts was written in the early decades of the second century. The significant point to note here is that the consensus had long held that the dual work of Luke-Acts was a product of the 80s. What overturned this view for the Seminar Fellows was the “foundational work of Richard Pervo and Joseph Tyler”. Some readers will know I have discussed the works of both these scholars in depth across many posts on Vridar. (See the Index of Topics in the right margin of this blog to locate the relevant archives.)

Among the implications of this new date is that we can no longer think of the author as a companion of Paul and the work itself cannot be considered reliable testimony of the mid first century.

This conclusion has significantly undermined a vast segment of Acts scholarship that has relied on the 80s dating. (p. 2)

Pervo & Tyler's dating of Acts was the starting point to make Acts not dealing with history of the first half of the 1st century.

3. Letters of Paul were used by the author

“Groundbreaking studies by William O. Walker and others” (some of which have been referenced in posts here) have demonstrated the likelihood that the author of Acts did indeed know of the letters and theology of Paul even though they are not made explicit (sometimes even contradicted) in Acts. This is even more likely given the second century date since the letter collection of Paul was becoming known from around 100 CE.

Pervo & Walker were members of the Acts seminar.

Cordially, Bernard

[perseusomega9]

is that supposed to be Joseph Tyson and not Tyler? Because Tyson definitely dates Acts in the mid 2nd century?

[MrMacSon]

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!? ...

Sure, some of the commentary is weird, eg. since Luke is unreliable Mark is more likely to be = disingenuous.

But sometimes points of difference can provide clarity or a basis for arguing clarity on a point or two.

Your recent posts in threads in this forum about Acts provide good commentary.

I've put more weight on the Westar Acts Seminar's summary-findings points about Acts in relation to Paul -

1. The use of Acts as a source for history has long needed critical reassessment.
2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
3. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
4. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
5. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
6. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
7. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
8. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.*
9. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

* I've seen a few references recently to early Christian authors creating and naming characters in their works and even giving them key prominence, such as naming them disciples, based on other Christian works written by or said to be written by people of those names (eg. Mark making Thomas a disciple simply based on seeing a version of the Gospel of Thomas and it's popularity at the time: SP Laurie's The Thomas Code, iirc ). David Trobisch has said that while John was not a key character in the Pauline epistles (only being named once, in Gal 2) or in Marcion, the 'canonical editors' decided to use his name to create more fulsome narratives about early Christianity, and about Jesus of course.

[Bernard Muller]

is that supposed to be Joseph Tyson and not Tyler? Because Tyson definitely dates Acts in the mid 2nd century?

Yes, I agree: no bible scholar named Joseph Tyler can be found by googling.
However Joseph Tyson was an active member of the Acts Seminar according to its reports: https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/
Tyson's mid 2nd century got overturned by fellow Shelly Matthews:
Bolding & underline mine

In her paper, Shelly Matthews proposed a revision to the hypothesis of Joseph Tyson that Acts was written to oppose the challenge of Marcionism. Critics of Tyson’s thesis point out that Marcion’s ideas did not become widely known until the 140s in Rome, which is much later than the proposed dating of Acts (ca. 115). Matthews argues in response that Marcionite ideas could very easily have been in circulation in the early second century in Asia Minor, which was Marcion’s homeland and the place where Acts was probably written. This argument is buttressed by the strong evidence that an anti-Marcionite program can be identified not only in Acts but also in the first two chapters of canonical Luke [REALLY!]. Fellows and Associates confirmed Matthews’ arguments with strong red votes.

https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... ting-2009/

However Purvo put Acts as written in Antioch.
Same url and meeting as above:

In the joint session with the Jesus Seminar on Christian Origins, Richard Pervo provided a synopsis of his theory concerning an Antioch source for Acts which he renames as the “Gentile mission source.” Whereas the so-called “Antioch source” has been proposed in the past as a historical resource for first-century Christianity, Pervo argues differently. He agrees that such a source did exist and was used by Acts, and even became a model for the narrative structure of Acts. However, he argues that very little of that source can be confidently reconstructed and that nothing in it is historically reliable evidence for the pre-Pauline the- ology of the Antioch church. His proposals were supported by the votes of the Fellows and Associates.

More about dating (same url and meeting as above):

The Acts Seminar continued its investigation into how well the Acts of the Apostles fits into a second-century environment. Milton Moreland’s paper argued that the new temple and new Jerusalem theology in Acts is best understood as having arisen in the early second century. In his concluding ballot item, he proposed: “the claims of Acts that Jerusalem and temple ideology were a key to explaining the rise of Christianity are best understood as arising in the context of early second-century debates with Marcionite ideas and early second-century political uncertainties.” His conclusions received strong red votes by both Fellows and Associates.

All I can see are wild theories, assumptions, speculations, opinions, no supporting evidence. All trash for me.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

To MrMacSon,

This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed.

I fully agree.
The quote is from the Westar Institute, Seminar on the Acts of the Apostles: https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

My dating for Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html

Cordially, Bernard

[rgprice]

@MrMacSon

Interestingly, I think Luke was working from some prior accounts of Paul, especially in Jerusalem. There are several issues they point out in the Westnar analysis that I think support this, even though they themselves simply leave these issues as unexplained and don't see them as evidence of the use of sources, which I find baffling.

For example:

The first subsection is among the most bewildering scenes in the book of Acts. Paul begins to defend himself but is struck on orders of the high priest (Acts 23:1–2). Luke gives the reader no clue as to the reason for Ananias’ action. Paul has not said anything approaching blasphemy, nor has he insulted the high priest. But Paul’s outburst in 23:3 appears to be over the top. In it he accuses the high priest of violating the law, although no law is cited. But these questions pale into insignificance when compared with Paul’s statement in 23:5. When told that he has cursed the high priest, Paul says that he did not know the presiding officer at the Sanhedrin was the high priest. He issues something short of an apology, quoting Scripture to condemn his own actions. It is difficult to accept Paul’s denial about the high priest. We learned in 9:1–2 that he had been commissioned by the high priest to search out Jesus believers, and in just the previous speech he claimed that the high priest, and indeed the entire Jewish council, could support the fact that he once persecuted these believers (see 22:5). Of course some time has passed between the persecuting activity of Paul and the present hearing, and it is possible that Luke understands that the present occupant of this office is a different one. But this is not noted in the text (see also 4:6, where the high priest is given a similar name—Annas). There have been numerous attempts to illuminate this passage, but the problems remain.

Dennis E. Smith and Joseph B. Tyson. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report

One explanation is that Luke is working from a source here. Luke's source has differing assumptions than Luke's narrative, but he doesn't modify it to make it fully compatible with his narrative.

What about the detail that Paul was from Tarsus? Once again, this is not verified in Paul’s own letters. Acts uses this as a means for Paul to claim citizenship, so it’s veracity as a detail on its own merits is shaky. Furthermore, Acts here undermines the idea that Paul was a citizen of Tarsus by claiming, at the same time, that he was raised and educated in Jerusalem

Dennis E. Smith and Joseph B. Tyson. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report

Another indicator IMO o fusing sources. We have competing claims that Paul is from Tarsus and Jerusalem. Why would Luke invent these conflicts? More likely its the product of using a source that he didn't fully reconcile.

But between the two accounts, there are striking and puzzling differences. In Acts 9:4, Luke wrote that Saul’s travelling companions heard the voice but saw no one, but in 22:9, Paul said that the others saw the light but did not hear the voice. It is difficult to account for this contradiction. Luke may have been drawing on different traditions about Paul’s conversion, but even so it would appear that a careful writer would iron out such glaring disparities.

Dennis E. Smith and Joseph B. Tyson. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report

Again, same thing.

Ironically, when it comes to the "we" passages, they say, surely they can't be from a source because Luke is such a masterful editor that he would have harmonized the language so as not to switch between first and third person. But yet even they point out multiple cases of poor editing. It seems to me they are trying to dispute the idea that there is any historical merit to the story at all. But they seem not to even consider the possibility that Luke could be building upon an earlier, yet also fictional, account of Paul's ministry.

My contention is that there was a prior narrative about Paul's ministry, but that narrative ended in Jerusalem, it never has Paul go on to Rome. Now they even point out how strange it is that Paul has multiple hearings at the end, and how weird it is that he's moved to Caesarea, only to then undergo yet another hearing.

What I suspect is that the original story ended here either with Paul's death, but Luke wants Paul to make it to Rome, so he picks up and invents his own additional trial that has Paul appeal to Caesar and get sent on to Rome.

The plot against Paul is of interest for a number of reasons. Paul’s nephew suddenly and conveniently pops up, but Luke has no interest in explaining how he learned of the plot (Acts 23:16). Was he initially involved in it? Did he know one or more of the conspirators? Perhaps this is asking too much of our author, but Luke has spared little in describing the details of the plot, and it would not be inappropriate for him to explain the nature of the nephew’s connection to it. The timing of the plot is also of interest. Recall that the tribune had already sent Paul to the Sanhedrin in order to determine the nature of the charges against him (see Acts 22:30–23:11). Now the conspirators demand a repeat. Would it not have been better for Luke to have placed the story of the plot against Paul before his narrative of the Sanhedrin hearing? In its present location the conspirators appear to be clumsy, asking the high priest and elders to do it again.

Dennis E. Smith and Joseph B. Tyson. Acts and Christian Beginnings: The Acts Seminar Report

Right, because this is where Luke is changing the ending, that's why its so clumsy. In the original there is no repeat.

I could be totally wrong on this, of course without a potential source in hand its all speculation, but it seems to me that Westnar points out many problems with its own findings. They seem eager to eliminate the possibility of sources and to put everything on the letters of Paul, making Luke himself the origination of the entire narrative. I understand that appeal, and it has its merits, but if the whole narrative is invented by Luke then why it is so clumsy and disconnected? Why so many contradictions? It actually looks like Luke is trying to fit a source into his narrative that doesn't quite fit and he didn't do a good job of fully blending in all the edges.

[Ben C. Smith]

One explanation is that Luke is working from a source here.

Another possible indication that Acts is built upon source materials is the apparent discontinuity at Acts 15.34: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2164. (But read down the thread for pushback against the notion that there really is a discontinuity.)