Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

How do we reconcile all these statements:

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas "optimo Theophilo" comprehendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et remote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.

The Acts of all the Apostles, however, were written in one volume. Luke described briefly "for" most excellent Theophilus particular [things], which happened in his presence, as he also evidently relates the death of Peter and also Paul's departure from the city as he was proceeding to Spain.

There was a version of Acts which related these details? Of course not. But how could the author be thinking of the Acts of Peter and claim Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt?

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:06 am How do we reconcile all these statements:

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas "optimo Theophilo" comprehendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et remote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.

The Acts of all the Apostles, however, were written in one volume. Luke described briefly "for" most excellent Theophilus particular [things], which happened in his presence, as he also evidently relates the death of Peter and also Paul's departure from the city as he was proceeding to Spain.

There was a version of Acts which related these details? Of course not. But how could the author be thinking of the Acts of Peter and claim Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt?

The Latin of the Muratorian Canon is corrupt and/or barbaric. We have to reconstruct, and the usual manner of reconstructing this line is as saying that Luke described only those events for which he was present, which is why he removed the passion of Peter and the departure of Paul to Spain.

Just possibly, 'remote' means 'separately' : the sense would be that the single volume recorded events which 'happened in his presence', while he was also the presumed author of accounts of later events. Just possibly...

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas "optimo Theophilo" comprehendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et remote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.

Could this actually be inferring that Luke is Theophilus?

No, not even in the most canine of dog-latin

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:06 am How do we reconcile all these statements:

Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas "optimo Theophilo" comprehendit, quae sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur, sicut et remote passionem Petri evidenter declarat, sed et profectionem Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam proficiscentis.

The Acts of all the Apostles, however, were written in one volume. Luke described briefly "for" most excellent Theophilus particular [things], which happened in his presence, as he also evidently relates the death of Peter and also Paul's departure from the city as he was proceeding to Spain.

There was a version of Acts which related these details? Of course not. But how could the author be thinking of the Acts of Peter and claim Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt?

Of course it is likely that there were other versions of Acts where Saul/Paul traveled to Spain. The so-called Pauline writer claimed he would go to Spain in a supposed letter to the Romans.

Romans

The actual manuscript reads semote not remote see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... latin.html for a discussion see Tregelles

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Wed Apr 14, 2021 10:49 am The actual manuscript reads semote not remote see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... latin.html for a discussion see Tregelles

Andrew Criddle

A pleasure to be corrected ! Thanks for the Tregelles link.

The key line for me is verse 45, specifically:

se publicare uero in ecclesia populo "but it cannot be published for the people in the Church"

This underscores the entire point of the document. That is, which documents are to be allocated resources to be published for distribution to the churches. The document is dated generally to a few years after the mid point of the 3rd century, which roughly aligns with the immediate aftermath of the Decian persecution. However we don't have any Roman records of action except the Libellus which suggest that book burning was not part of the persecution, rather forcing Christians to execute pagan sacrifices to the emperor.

While it's possible a funding shortage occurred as a result of Decian persecution, it seems unlikely that it would have been the trigger for a formalizing of Canon and the allocation of scarce resources for the replenishment of Scripture to the many small churches around the empire. The Diocletian persecution seems a better candidate, as there are Romans edicts calling for the confiscation of Christian Church property and burning of scriptures. These are corroborated by mundane Roman documents listing the property confiscated in raids. This seems a more likely candidate to cause a taking of inventory and making a decision about which works will receive the limited resources (money and skilled manpower) of the church to be spent on their reproduction and dispersal. It also would be a catalyst to formalizing Canon.

I am baffled by the supposed date of 170-200 AD for this document, as I recall 254 AD being the date given not long ago, which at least fits a post Decian persecution era. This document, by it's language, is from an era after the text is settled, and the debate is now over the value of the documents for reproduction. We are well past the era Celsus speaks of in the late 2nd or early 3rd century when Christian scribes are pen in hand ready to make modifications to the text. And yet it is an era before the church has Imperial largess so that resources (money) is scare and hard choices have to be made.

Anyway, the question of the document's purpose needs to be asked/