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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

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

Post by Stuart »

Playing dodge ball?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

"But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."

Here some of the pharisees are Christians (but they can't be the original Christians and Peter has to disagree with them)
The Pharisees get an easy ride in Acts, its always other Jews who persecute Paul, the high priest (a Sadducee)?
I think the aim of the author is to smooth things over and avoid all controversy, defusing it and placing it in safe places for controlled detonation
He had a hell of a task in front of him, if in pulling it off he forgets to mention Jesus its because he already had enough on his plate?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:11 pm Playing dodge ball?
No. That is not a suggestion that I would ever make, and I was not even sure you were really directing your words at me. But you quoted me, so I wanted to make sure.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Delete.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

It seems to me that the narrative about Paul must pre-date the Gospel of Mark. The question is, was this narrative a reliable account or was it itself a fabricated story?

Some of this comes down to figuring out what parts of the narrative are original to the source and what parts were made up by the final author.

Firstly, would it make sense that Agrippa II would have been involved in this? If we were to assume that Paul really came to Jerusalem and got apprehended for some kind of preaching, would the matter really be raised all the way to Agrippa? Seems unlikely to me.

Then we have the story of the vision. This isn't a part of Paul's letters, and so it seems very unlikely that this would be part of an authentic account, i.e. not a claim that any real Paul would have ever made. It could, however, have been part of a mythologized pre-Gospel account. It's also possible that the vision is an addition of the writer of Acts. But if the writer is adding the vision, then why not add more detail about Jesus as well?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin »

rgprice wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:10 am It seems to me that the narrative about Paul must pre-date the Gospel of Mark. The question is, was this narrative a reliable account or was it itself a fabricated story?

Some of this comes down to figuring out what parts of the narrative are original to the source and what parts were made up by the final author.

Firstly, would it make sense that Agrippa II would have been involved in this? If we were to assume that Paul really came to Jerusalem and got apprehended for some kind of preaching, would the matter really be raised all the way to Agrippa? Seems unlikely to me.

Then we have the story of the vision. This isn't a part of Paul's letters, and so it seems very unlikely that this would be part of an authentic account, i.e. not a claim that any real Paul would have ever made. It could, however, have been part of a mythologized pre-Gospel account. It's also possible that the vision is an addition of the writer of Acts. But if the writer is adding the vision, then why not add more detail about Jesus as well?
Well, might not the incident with a snake be the clue of the charges, "surely this man is a murderer"?
several times this is suggested in Acts "Therefore I testify to you this day that I am clean from the blood of all men" in particular, and it occurs to me connected with his persecutions which could account for it if they really did take place and he was involved, and this has something to do with controversy around him
But anyway, this part of Acts looks a bit like a kind of gospel with Paul as the main character, an encounter with Jesus would be required in a 'Paul gospel'. Not so sure why it would pre-date Mark though would it really have to?

The Clementine Recognitions gives a more severe portrayal of Paul's persecutions than Acts does, which might point in the above direction if not be any more 'accurate', although it's curious how the account of the boy falling from the window in Acts resembles James falling from the temple. Using the Recognitions in this way might be problematic though, it seems to have been reworked many times
“And when matters were at that point that they should come and be baptized, some one of our
enemies,596 entering the temple with a few men, began to cry out, and to say, ‘What mean ye, O
men of Israel? Why are you so easily hurried on? Why are ye led headlong by most miserable
men, who are deceived by Simon, a magician?’ While he was thus speaking, and adding more to
the same effect, and while James the bishop was refuting him, he began to excite the people and
to raise a tumult, so that the people might not be able to hear what was said. Therefore he began
to drive all into confusion with shouting, and to undo what had been arranged with much labour,
and at the same time to reproach the priests, and to enrage them with revilings and abuse, and, like
a madman, to excite every one to murder, saying, ‘What do ye? Why do ye hesitate? Oh sluggish
and inert, why do we not lay hands upon them, and pull all these fellows to pieces?’ When he had
said this, he first, seizing a strong brand from the altar, set the example of smiting. Then others
also, seeing him, were carried away with like readiness. Then ensued a tumult on either side, of
the beating and the beaten. Much blood is shed; there is a confused flight, in the midst of which
that enemy attacked James, and threw him headlong from the top of the steps; and supposing him
to be dead, he cared not to inflict further violence upon him.”
596 A marginal note in one of the manuscripts states that this enemy was Saul
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

Comments about Paul being innocent of their blood I think was more to do with Paul saying that he had tried to tell them about what they needed to to before the end times, and if they didn't listen, then whatever happened to them at the end times would be their own fault.

I think that some ur-Acts pre-dates Mark for several reasons.

1) I think that the character of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark is based on Paul.
2) I think that there are many parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the second part of Acts (there are with the first part too, but in a different way)
3) I think that the second part of Acts appears to reflect a period before it was believed that Jesus was a real person. The Jesus worship recounted in 2nd Acts looks more privative than the Jesus worship of the Gospels and the theology appears to be more limited and crude than what is found in the Gospels.
4) Specific scenes that have parallels between 2nd Acts and GMark appear more primitive in Acts than in GMark.

So I envision the creation of the Gospels being something like: 6-7 Pauline letters > "Acts of Paul" > Gospel of Mark (based on Pauline letters and Acts of Paul) > Gospel of Matthew (based on GMark & letters of Paul) > Gospel of Luke (Based on GMark, GMatthew & Pauline letters) > Acts of the Apostles (Based on GMark, Acts of Paul, letters of Paul, Josephus) > Gospel of John (Based on GMark, GMatthew, GLuke, possibly other sources (maybe Philo))

That's a bit of a crude outline, but the general idea.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

rgprice wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:27 amI think that some ur-Acts pre-dates Mark for several reasons.
Do you think that your Ur-Acts has something to do with the so called "we" passages in the second half of Acts?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Last edited by Giuseppe on Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:36 am Do you think that your Ur-Acts has something to do with the so called "we" passages in the second half of Acts?
Something to do yes, but what exactly is difficult to say. Far as I know, there has been no satisfactory solution to explaining the we passages. I certainly think its possible that the we passages stem from an eyewitness journal. The problem with Acts is that it simultaneously contains a mix of very believable and also non-credible material. But certainly, of all the narratives in the NT, I think 2nd Acts has the best chance of being based on real events.
Post Reply