Acts nowhere does. Nor do the epistles of James and Jude (first verse of each epistle). Nor does Thomas.perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
- Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8619
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
If Acts is subverting the narrative of Galatians, would this make it more likely that Galatians hadn't been expanded with Gal 1:19 (etc.) yet?Ben C. Smith wrote:Acts nowhere does.perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
-
- Posts: 2857
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
No Acts doesn't. It is possible to regard this James as quite different from James the lord's brother in Paul and from James the Lord's brother in Hegesippus. I just don't think it is very likely. One should not multiply James' without necessity.perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
Andrew Criddle
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
I always thought that the author of Acts did not know about the main epistles of Paul (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians):
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
But "Luke" (& "Matthew") knew about 1 Clement: click for http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Did "Luke" know about '1Clement'? <<
About the "we" passages in Acts: click on http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on >> Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16) <<
About the dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html & http://historical-jesus.info/64.html (in the second century & early third, Acts was conflicting with the rosy picture of Jesus' own disciples/eyewitnesses as being the first Christian missionaries all over the known world (as in gMark insertion at its end, gMatthew having Jesus sending his disciples to all nations, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen).
Cordially, Bernard
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
But "Luke" (& "Matthew") knew about 1 Clement: click for http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Did "Luke" know about '1Clement'? <<
About the "we" passages in Acts: click on http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on >> Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16) <<
About the dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html & http://historical-jesus.info/64.html (in the second century & early third, Acts was conflicting with the rosy picture of Jesus' own disciples/eyewitnesses as being the first Christian missionaries all over the known world (as in gMark insertion at its end, gMatthew having Jesus sending his disciples to all nations, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen).
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
But which came first, the chicken or the egg?andrewcriddle wrote:No Acts doesn't. It is possible to regard this James as quite different from James the lord's brother in Paul and from James the Lord's brother in Hegesippus. I just don't think it is very likely. One should not multiply James' without necessity.perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
Andrew Criddle
eta: Nor should one conglomerate them without necessity?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
I believe the following undermines your entire argument that Acts did not know certain Pauline epistles:Bernard Muller wrote:I always thought that the author of Acts did not know about the main epistles of Paul (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians):
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html
But "Luke" (& "Matthew") knew about 1 Clement: click for http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on >> Did "Luke" know about '1Clement'? <<
About the "we" passages in Acts: click on http://historical-jesus.info/appa.html then "find" on >> Remarks about the three "we" passages in 'Acts' (16:10-17, 20:6-21:17 & 27:1-28:16) <<
About the dating of Acts: http://historical-jesus.info/63.html & http://historical-jesus.info/64.html (in the second century & early third, Acts was conflicting with the rosy picture of Jesus' own disciples/eyewitnesses as being the first Christian missionaries all over the known world (as in gMark insertion at its end, gMatthew having Jesus sending his disciples to all nations, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen).
Comment: According to Paul, his first revelation came from God. According to 'Acts', Paul had that revelation from the heavenly Jesus, not God, as known through three different versions of the same alleged event.
There is a conflict between the two first versions: in one, Paul's companions hear the voice; in the other, they do not hear it!
And only in the third version, Jesus is sending Paul to the Gentiles!
There is a conflict between the two first versions: in one, Paul's companions hear the voice; in the other, they do not hear it!
And only in the third version, Jesus is sending Paul to the Gentiles!
You are using contradictions (and tensions) between Paul and Acts to allege that the latter lacked access to the former. Yet here, in three accounts of the same incident, it is the author of Acts who is actually introducing contradictions (and tensions). Unless you think that different authors are at work in those three passages about the appearance to Paul, you are in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of arguing that it is probable that the author contradicted him/herself but improbable that the author contradicted Paul.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
to Ben,
Sure, "Luke" seems to invent things as she went along writing stuff on Jesus appearing to Paul. But that conflicts with Paul saying he got the initial revelation from God, which obviously "Luke" did not know.
Cordially, Bernard
I don't know how you can think that.You are using contradictions (and tensions) between Paul and Acts to allege that the latter lacked access to the former. Yet here, in three accounts of the same incident, it is the author of Acts who is actually introducing contradictions (and tensions). Unless you think that different authors are at work in those three passages about the appearance to Paul, you are in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of arguing that it is probable that the author contradicted him/herself but improbable that the author contradicted Paul.
Sure, "Luke" seems to invent things as she went along writing stuff on Jesus appearing to Paul. But that conflicts with Paul saying he got the initial revelation from God, which obviously "Luke" did not know.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
By reading your words and following their natural consequences. An author is allowed both to use a source and to contradict it. The contradictions do not disprove knowledge of that source.Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,I don't know how you can think that.You are using contradictions (and tensions) between Paul and Acts to allege that the latter lacked access to the former. Yet here, in three accounts of the same incident, it is the author of Acts who is actually introducing contradictions (and tensions). Unless you think that different authors are at work in those three passages about the appearance to Paul, you are in what seems to me to be the unenviable position of arguing that it is probable that the author contradicted him/herself but improbable that the author contradicted Paul.
And this one is not even a very good contradiction. Galatians 1.16 says that what God revealed was his son. And that is exactly whom Paul encounters on the road to Damascus in Acts: the son. The content of the revelation in both cases is the son. It is so easy to imagine someone turning Galatians 1.16 into the Damascus road episode(s) in Acts.Sure, "Luke" seems to invent things as she went along writing stuff on Jesus appearing to Paul. But that conflicts with Paul saying he got the initial revelation from God, which obviously "Luke" did not know.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
The thought has occurred to me before. But I am not certain yet.Peter Kirby wrote:If Acts is subverting the narrative of Galatians, would this make it more likely that Galatians hadn't been expanded with Gal 1:19 (etc.) yet?Ben C. Smith wrote:Acts nowhere does.perseusomega9 wrote:I don't recall Acts identifying him as such.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic).
to Ben,
For God revealing his Son, we would expect something like: "[Jesus is] my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Lk 3:22.
If I say: Bruce presented me his daughter. Well this is not equivalent to: I met Bruce's daughter on my way to work. that's does not involve the father at all.
Cordially, Bernard
Where does "Luke" involve God in the 3 descriptions of Jesus' apparitions near Damascus in Acts?And this one is not even a very good contradiction. Galatians 1.16 says that what God revealed was his son. And that is exactly whom Paul encounters on the road to Damascus in Acts: the son. The content of the revelation in both cases is the son. It is so easy to imagine someone turning Galatians 1.16 into the Damascus road episode(s) in Acts.
For God revealing his Son, we would expect something like: "[Jesus is] my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." Lk 3:22.
If I say: Bruce presented me his daughter. Well this is not equivalent to: I met Bruce's daughter on my way to work. that's does not involve the father at all.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed