It is interesting to note that (1) classical historians respect Luke as a historian as they use him (Nobbs 2006) and that (2) a careful look at the details of Acts shows that, where we can check him, Luke is a credible historian (see the discussion of this theme in the introduction to Acts 16:11-40 as it relates to Paul's trials). Here the work of Sherwin-White 1963; Hemer 1989; and the six-volume series launched by Winter and Clarke (1993) suggest that we should not be so skeptical about Luke....
Those listening to the story of Acts (most of Luke's ancient audience would have experienced the book by hearing it read) would have recognized it as a treatment of history with antecedents in Greek and Jewish history.
In sum, Acts is a piece of Hellenist and Jewish historiography...Its details are correct regarding provinces and governors, as well as in elements of local color and judicial practice (for the latter, see Sherwin-White 1963). Barrett (1998: cxiv-cxviii) gives Luke a "mostly favorable" verdict as a historian, noting that even where his sources are not corroborated, Luke must be taken seriously. But Barrett also regards Luke as getting more off the track once Paul and the Jerusalem Council are treated. We shall have occasion to assess this view of Acts 15 and Luke's handling of Paul. Our take is not as skeptical as Barrett's, but this is a discussion that cannot be undertaken without considering the details. So this topic awaits the commentary....
Luke has the largest vocabulary of any NT writer, but this may reflect the wide variety of settings presented in his work. Almost 90 percent of the vocabulary is also found in the LXX (Clarke 1922: 69; Polhill 1992: 43), and 85 percent overlaps with Plutarch (Haenchen 1987: 72). Much of the vocabulary mirrors other accounts, such as Judges, Samuel, Kings, and 2 Maccabees (Schille 1984: 29). This usage shows a "well educated" writer (Haenchen 1987: 72)....
there is good evidence for the church having a well-circulated, reliable tradition, as Jervell (1972: 19-39) argues....in the places where we can check Luke against his sources, such as his likely use of Mark, he is shown to be careful with them....
the content of these speeches [in Acts] and their Christology differ enough in the titles used to indicate that some input from tradition is likely. One need only compare the heavy use of the OT in Acts 2 or 3 with the lack of such use in Acts 10, or the shift in those same chapters from Messiah, Holy One, or servant to a singular appeal to Lord or judge of the living and the dead to see the difference (Bruce 1990: 37-39)....
Luke lived in closer proximity to his sources than [the ancient historian] Thucydides did, giving Luke a good opportunity to know what the apostles preached. Bruce (1990: 39) refers to Luke as a writer who is Thucydidean but with "considerable restraint." Quoting Foakes-Jackson and Lake (1931: xvi), Bruce (1990: 39) argues that the speeches give us "an extraordinarily accurate picture of the undeveloped theology of the earliest Christians, and so enable us to determine the character of the most primitive presentation of the gospel."...
In sum, Luke is a careful, ancient historian....
here [in Paul's interactions with the Roman government in Acts 16] is one of four places that we can carefully check Luke against the cultural backdrop to assess his historical reliability instead of merely theorizing about it positively or negatively. Recent assessments have generally rated Luke favorably (e.g., Sherwin-White 1963; the series launched by Winter and Clarke 1993). Omerzu (2002) traces the background in detail related to the rights of Roman citizens and the appeal to Caesar, before working through the scenes at Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Jerusalem, and Paul's arrest and appearance before the Sanhedrin, Felix, and Festus. He concludes that the material accurately reflects these legal relationships and that the scenes draw from sources that have a historical core going back not to official court records but to oral traditions about Paul (Omerzu 2002: 506, 507-8). This suggests that Luke is a credible ancient historian who needs to be taken seriously, as also his recent treatment by classical historians shows (Nobbs 2006)....
Witherington (1998: 702) notes that it also is possible that Luke had access to notes of this trial [in Acts 24] (see esp. Winter and Clarke 1993: 307-9). Winter (1993: 305-36) shows in more detail how the Greco-Roman background and the form and availability of such legal sources help to illumine the court proceedings in Acts 24-26 and argues that Lukan access to official sources is a good possibility. He suggests that the printing of Lysias's letter is an indication to Luke's readers of access to such sources.
Hemer (1989: 129) observes that both Sherwin-White (1963: 48) and Mommsen (1901), experts in ancient Roman legal practices, view the account [in Acts 24] as "an exemplary account of provincial penal procedure extra ordinem." (Darrell Bock, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007], pp. 6, 12-13, 20-22, 530-531, 687-688)
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Historicity Of Acts
Darrell Bock's recent commentary on Acts has a lot of material on the historicity of the book. Below are some representative examples of what he argues. Keep in mind that New Testament documents like Acts are often judged by unreasonably critical standards that often aren't applied to other ancient documents (an issue I've addressed in some posts citing Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd's recent book), so the positive assessment of Acts by so many modern scholars is all the more significant. See also Chris Price's post here and his article on Acts here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jason, Acts tells us a lot of Paul's travels and adventures, up to his captivity in Rome. Does the author of Acts anywhere indicate that Paul wrote any letters?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Acts does not refer to Paul's letters supports an early date for Acts and authorship by a companion of Paul.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable that a companion of Paul would write without recourse to his letters, whereas it is less likely that a second-century admirer would. As Prof. Ellis notes, a companion of Paul would have little need to rely on his letters:
It is conceivable that a companion would present Paul independent of his letters and in some diversity from them. But would a post-apostolic admirer of the Apostle have done so? The apocryphal ‘Acts’ and ‘Apocalypse’ of Paul show that later writers clothed their ‘Paul’ with clear allusions to his letters. The independent case of Luke-Acts argues against authorship by a later admirer. It lends some support to Lukan authorship, for only a colleague would write the story without recourse to Paul’s letters.
Ellis, E. Earle, The Gospel of Luke, page 50.
The notion that a second-century author of Acts would have been afraid to use Paul's letters because they were controversial is unpersuasive. From 1 Clement, to Ignatius, to Polycarp, there is no hesitation in using Paul’s letters. Indeed, they are assumed to be known and respected by the respective destinations of the letters.
Let us look closer at a known second-century narrative about Paul, The Acts of Paul. It not only alludes to Paul’s letters, but it narrates Paul’s receiving another letter from Corinth and writing a response. This is not surprising from an author that knew Paul primarily as a letter writer.
Layman's response overlooks the point that we would not expect the author of Acts to mention Paul's letters if he were not aware that he had written any, regardless of when Acts might have been written.
ReplyDeleteGeldoff,
ReplyDeleteHow so?
Who do you think would write an extended narrative about Paul and not be aware of his letter writing? And when would such a person have written such a narrative?
Remember, Paul's letters were widespread throughout the Christian communities by the beginning of the second century and possibly earlier than that.
Layman Who do you think would write an extended narrative about Paul and not be aware of his letter writing?
ReplyDeleteObviously, the author of Acts for one.
And when would such a person have written such a narrative?
Obviously, before he had any knowledge of his letters of course.
Chris Price (Layman) has already said much of what needs to be said. But if either of the anonymous posters (assuming they're not the same person) is suggesting that Paul didn't write any of the letters attributed to him, that issue was discussed at length here earlier this year. See, for example:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/hostile-corroboration-of-new-testament.html
Other threads from around the same timeframe also address the issue.
Geldoff,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. A companion of Paul may have known he wrote some letters, but chose not to use them in his portrayal of Paul.
Your refusal to speculate on a time period is telling. Obviously, any Christian writing such a narrative in the second century would have known of Paul's letters. Indeed, such a Christian would have primarily if not solely known Paul through his letters. If you give any heed to the notions of Acts being a response to Marcion's butchery of Luke and Paul's letters, such a theory makes it completely untenable that the author of Acts knew nothing of Paul's letters.
So it seems authorship by a companion of Paul is the best explanation.
Another possibility, which if nothing else is at least more plausible than the second-century hypothesis, that a Christian in the first century wrote Acts before Paul's letters became so widely circulated and important.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThanks, I sometimes forget that certain skeptics take that idea seriously. Desperation produces such theories, I guess.
In any event, whether Paul's own letters or falsely attributed to him, the evidence is still strong that they they were in widespread circulation early in the second century. So the absences of references to them seems best explained by a first century date.
Layman I disagree. A companion of Paul may have known he wrote some letters, but chose not to use them in his portrayal of Paul.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the author of Acts in portraying his hero Paul deliberately withheld any mention of the fact that he wrote any letters - and not just any letters, but letters which were later deemed by the church as divinely inspired. Mmmkay.
Layman Your refusal to speculate on a time period is telling.
If I had speculated, you’d dismiss it as mere speculation.
Layman Obviously, any Christian writing such a narrative in the second century would have known of Paul's letters.
Of course, I never suggested that the author of Acts wrote it in the second century. Nor would I argue that he had done so. So this is irrelevant. Interestingly, as you yourself pointed out, authors who were aware of Paul’s letters did in fact mention them or even cited them. So why didn’t the author of Luke? You’ve given no good answer for this.
Layman So it seems authorship by a companion of Paul is the best explanation.
You’ve not even come close to establishing this. But I see that your zeal drives you in haste to conclude this.
Layman Another possibility, which if nothing else is at least more plausible than the second-century hypothesis, that a Christian in the first century wrote Acts before Paul's letters became so widely circulated and important.
Now why was that so hard to admit? Didn't you see my answer to your question above? I wrote "Obviously, before he had any knowledge of his letters of course." But of course, this would make it difficult to defend the notion that the author of Acts was in fact a close companion of Paul. There are other reasons that make this view difficult to defend, but this one’s damning enough.
In other words, the author of Acts in portraying his hero Paul deliberately withheld any mention of the fact that he wrote any letters - and not just any letters, but letters which were later deemed by the church as divinely inspired. Mmmkay.
ReplyDeleteSince letter writing among the literate was a common activity, this is hardly a suspicious omission. The letters are "later deemed" authoritative because of their author. The companion of Paul knew that author. He did not know the contents of the later Christian Canon and may not have anticipated the substantial role Paul's letters would play in it.
If I had speculated, you’d dismiss it as mere speculation.
Not if you had reasons to back it up. I'd discuss those reasons. My own estimate of the date of Acts is a rather broad range 62 AD to 90 AD. So it doesn't sound like we disagree all that much if you also accept a first century date.
Of course, I never suggested that the author of Acts wrote it in the second century.
No, you left the question wide open, leaving us to guess. I admit I thought that meant you favored a second-century date based on some theory such as John Knox proposed.
Interestingly, as you yourself pointed out, authors who were aware of Paul’s letters did in fact mention them or even cited them. So why didn’t the author of Luke? You’ve given no good answer for this.
We do not know that all those who knew of Paul's letters mentioned them. Nor did I argue such was the case. What I said is that a later non-companion author who knew of Paul largely through his letters would have alluded to them.
The author of Luke-Act, as a companion of Paul, knew him by means other than his letters and would be less likely to mention the letter writing and unlikely to have reconstructed his narrative based on them. The best explanation, IMO, is that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul and so did not rely on or even mention the letters and may not have had the access to Paul's letters that the later Christian communities did.
You’ve not even come close to establishing this. But I see that your zeal drives you in haste to conclude this.
I disagree. It is the best explanation, though as I said perhaps not the only plausible one.
Now why was that so hard to admit? Didn't you see my answer to your question above? I wrote "Obviously, before he had any knowledge of his letters of course." But of course, this would make it difficult to defend the notion that the author of Acts was in fact a close companion of Paul. There are other reasons that make this view difficult to defend, but this one’s damning enough.
This is a non-sequitur. Even if it is possible a first-century Christian wrote Acts completely ignorant of Paul's letters, that would not be damning to the theory that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.
What I "admitted" was that your position was more plausible than that of second-century authorship. That is not a concession that it is the best explanation of the facts.
How did a non-companion of Paul, writing in the first century, learn all that he did about Paul and his missionary efforts while not hearing about his letter writing?
Is this possible? Yes. Is it the best explanation? Not in my opinion.
Would other evidence counting against authorship by a companion of Paul change my mind? Sure. But my evaluation of other objections to date has not turned up anything as decisive as you seem to accept.
I am curious as to just when you date Acts. You assume no knowledge of Paul's letters, I take it. Yet Ignatius had access to a pretty broad collection of Paul's letters early in the second century. The authors behind 1 Clement also refers to Paul's letters as authoritative late in the first century. So just when did your non-companion of Paul write Acts?
Layman My own estimate of the date of Acts is a rather broad range 62 AD to 90 AD. So it doesn't sound like we disagree all that much if you also accept a first century date.
ReplyDeleteI would estimate the latter end of that time segment, but probably no much later than 90.
Layman The author of Luke-Act, as a companion of Paul, knew him by means other than his letters and would be less likely to mention the letter writing
So again, you’re saying that the most likely scenario is that the author of Acts, if he knew about Paul’s letters – letters which were issued to settle doctrinal disputes that raged in the churches that both would have visited in their journeys together and which were later deemed divinely inspired – would have deliberately chosen not to mention any of them, or even the fact that Paul used his gift of letter-writing to settle disputes which were cropping up in those early churches. Okay, you’re welcome to this opinion.
Layman unlikely to have reconstructed his narrative based on them
This is a red herring. Nowhere have I intimated that we should expect the author of Acts to have *based* his narrative on the letters.
Layman The best explanation, IMO, is that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul and so did not rely on or even mention the letters and may not have had the access to Paul's letters that the later Christian communities did.
I think it would be more difficult to take seriously the view that Acts was written by a close traveling companion of Paul, who accompanied him on his missions and sundry adventures, and yet never had access to Paul’s letters. Rather, I would think that Paul would have discussed the issues that he tried to combat in his letters with his close companion, and that the companion may have even assisted in some of the letter writing itself (such as a reviewer). Indeed, I think that had the author of Acts truly known the kinds of challenges that Paul encountered in his missions as indicated in his letters, Acts would look very much different than it does as we have it. But you think the best explanation is that the companion probably knew of Paul’s letters but deliberately chose not to breathe a word of it in his history of his mission work. Amazing!
Layman Even if it is possible a first-century Christian wrote Acts completely ignorant of Paul's letters, that would not be damning to the theory that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.
In other words, the best explanation in your view could entail that a close traveling companion of Paul’s was completely ignorant of his letters. It could also entail that this traveling companion did know of Paul’s letters, but deliberately chose not to breathe a word about them in his history of Paul’s ministry. You have much faith, Layman.
Layman How did a non-companion of Paul, writing in the first century, learn all that he did about Paul and his missionary efforts while not hearing about his letter writing?
If I am permitted to speculate, the author of Acts was probably a pupil of a pupil of Paul’s. This would require no stretch of the imagination to be sure, and had his teacher known Paul as a minister rather than as a traveling companion who went around seeding and bolstering new churches on lengthy missionary campaigns, it could account for his ignorance of Paul’s letters. He would have known of Paul through what his teacher taught him, not through preserved letters which were not circulating yet. This fits with the record as we find it and also suits your preferred timeline. The downside is that it means that the author of Acts was not truly a companion of Paul, and many are unwilling to entertain this possibility, even though they cannot rule it out and are stuck with some pretty sorry dilemmas in the meantime.
In other words, the author of Acts in portraying his hero Paul deliberately withheld any mention of the fact that he wrote any letters - and not just any letters, but letters which were later deemed by the church as divinely inspired. Mmmkay.
ReplyDeleteActs is a letter and it follows on from Acts. The stated point of the letter is not to write a biography of Paul, it is to chronicle the early spread of the gospel "from Judea, to Samaria, to 'the ends of the earth.'" It can be divided into parts - the last of which ends with Paul in prison. Many NT scholars believe that portion is intended to be a legal defense of Paul to the Roman authorities themselves? How would a discussion of Paul's letters - several of which were written in that prison - be germane to a legal defense of Paul to the Roman authorities?
Where is your supporting argument for your assumption? How, for example, does your theory that the author *should* have mentioned Paul's letters have any relationship to Acts' stated purpose?
Interestingly, as you yourself pointed out, authors who were aware of Paul’s letters did in fact mention them or even cited them. So why didn’t the author of Luke? You’ve given no good answer for this.
Because many of those who cite Paul as the author of said letters are writing to specific churches, like the Corinthian Church who had received such a letter. They are also quoting the text of the letters themselves. Also, some of them are writing to contradict men like Marcion. Perhaps before you level this observation, you'd best read some of these writings, otherwise you are advertising your own ignorance of the material.
You’ve not even come close to establishing this. But I see that your zeal drives you in haste to conclude this.
Actually, since Lukan authorship is established along lines of internal and external evidence, not the least of which is the fact that it ends in first person and, by process of textual deduction, the conclusion is that Luke wrote it, the onus is on you to contradict it by familiarizing yourself with the arguments. You could, for example, crack open Guthrie's New Testament Introduction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would estimate the latter end of that time segment, but probably no much later than 90.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds good on paper, but it's problematic. To do this, you'll need to come up with a theory to either:
1. Redate Luke as well.
2. Sever the authorship of Luke from Acts.
3. Both 1 and 2.
If so, you'll need to do this:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/dear-jon.html
By dating Acts to the same period, one inevitably implicates the synoptic gospels.
And that, in turn, raise the question of where to put the Fourth Gospel and 1 John. Surely one wouldn’t date the Johannine corpus to the 1C while dating the synoptic gospels to the 2C.
Now, one of the logistical problems which this redating scheme overlooks is that you can’t move most of the NT forward by a century or so while leaving all of the other dates in early church history in place. For many other individuals, movements, writings, and events are historically and/or literarily dependent on the prior existence and influence of the NT.
Therefore, if you push the NT forward by a hundred years or even let's say fifty, that is going to have a domino effect on any number of other dates. It affects the dating of everyone and everything that quotes or cites or alludes to the NT. Manuscripts. Church fathers. Heretics. NT apocrypha. Local synods. And so on and so forth.
To upwardly revise the date of the NT would necessitate a corresponding and complete readjustment in all of the other dates in early church history and Roman history which are impacted by that revision.
These dates were not arrived at on dogmatic grounds. Modern scholars of Roman history are not dating events to accommodate a theological agenda.
I think it would be more difficult to take seriously the view that Acts was written by a close traveling companion of Paul, who accompanied him on his missions and sundry adventures, and yet never had access to Paul’s letters
The text of Acts never indicates that this companion of Paul was always with him. If that's what you think, you'll need to establish this too. Where is your evidence?
What the text does support from the first person narrative is that he was with Paul and left Paul and then returned. If you'd pay attention to the narrative, you'd know that. The author writes s in the third person about Paul and his travels, until they get to Troas, where he switches to the first person plural. The "we" section of Acts continues until the group returns to Troas, where his writing goes back to the third person. This change happens again the second time the group gets to Troas. There are three "we sections" in Acts, all following this rule.
You have yet to provide a supporting argument that the writer should mention the letters Paul wrote.
If I am permitted to speculate, the author of Acts was probably a pupil of a pupil of Paul’s.
That's an evidence free assertion
So again, you’re saying that the most likely scenario is that the author of Acts, if he knew about Paul’s letters – letters which were issued to settle doctrinal disputes that raged in the churches that both would have visited in their journeys together and which were later deemed divinely inspired – would have deliberately chosen not to mention any of them, or even the fact that Paul used his gift of letter-writing to settle disputes which were cropping up in those early churches. Okay, you’re welcome to this opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou have given us no reason to believe that a companion of Paul would have known how important those letters would become and you still have not dealt with how common letter writing would have been for the literate at the time.
Now you seem to latch on to the idea that a companion of Acts would have referred to the letters because they settled doctrinal disputes. But the purpose of Acts is not to go over doctrinal disputes between Christians, but to show the spread of the Gospel. The only real internal doctrinal dispute covered in detail by Acts is the issue of whether the Jewish law applies to Gentile converts, which is directly tied to the missionary focus. Indeed, many commentators believe Acts papers over the differences within the early Church.
This still seems an attempt to bootstrap the later importance of Paul’s letters into the context of someone who knew Paul personally and worked with him on some of his missionary efforts.
This is a red herring. Nowhere have I intimated that we should expect the author of Acts to have *based* his narrative on the letters.
You certainly took that comment out of context. Not even a sentence, but simply a clause.
I think it would be more difficult to take seriously the view that Acts was written by a close traveling companion of Paul, who accompanied him on his missions and sundry adventures, and yet never had access to Paul’s letters.
Not sure what you mean by “close” traveling companion. Companion yes. Likely a good friend. But not there for all or even most of what happened.
Rather, I would think that Paul would have discussed the issues that he tried to combat in his letters with his close companion, and that the companion may have even assisted in some of the letter writing itself (such as a reviewer).
You still have not established the reason why a companion of Paul would be likely to mention Paul’s letter writing. This seems rather an attempt to explain that the companion of Paul would have had access to Paul’s letters. Even if true, my point still stands.
In any event, Luke is not a co-author of any of Paul’s letters. He is mentioned as being with Paul in 2 Timothy, Colossians, and Philemon. Not exactly the core of the Pauline corpus.
Indeed, I think that had the author of Acts truly known the kinds of challenges that Paul encountered in his missions as indicated in his letters, Acts would look very much different than it does as we have it. But you think the best explanation is that the companion probably knew of Paul’s letters but deliberately chose not to breathe a word of it in his history of his mission work. Amazing!
You are viewing this from the perspective of one who cannot separate his image of Paul from the letters that made it into the canon. In fact, the issues raised by and large in Paul’s letters have little to do with the spread of the Gospels and more to do with establishing churches on a sound doctrinal footing. Moreover, Paul’s Christian activities covered a period of around 30 years. There are 13 letters in the Pauline corpus, only seven of which are called undisputed. That is not even one letter for every two years of activity. Yet you think that those letters, when he had his own interaction and knowledge of Paul, must have been mentioned by a companion of Paul.
In other words, the best explanation in your view could entail that a close traveling companion of Paul’s was completely ignorant of his letters. It could also entail that this traveling companion did know of Paul’s letters, but deliberately chose not to breathe a word about them in his history of Paul’s ministry. You have much faith, Layman.
Acts is not a “history of Paul’s ministry.” It is a story about the spread of the Gospel. Yes, I think that a companion of Paul writing about the spread of the Gospel based in part on his knowledge of and time with Paul would have no compelling reason to mention that Paul wrote letters, which everybody probably would have assumed anyway.
If I am permitted to speculate, the author of Acts was probably a pupil of a pupil of Paul’s. This would require no stretch of the imagination to be sure, and had his teacher known Paul as a minister rather than as a traveling companion who went around seeding and bolstering new churches on lengthy missionary campaigns, it could account for his ignorance of Paul’s letters. He would have known of Paul through what his teacher taught him, not through preserved letters which were not circulating yet. This fits with the record as we find it and also suits your preferred timeline. The downside is that it means that the author of Acts was not truly a companion of Paul, and many are unwilling to entertain this possibility, even though they cannot rule it out and are stuck with some pretty sorry dilemmas in the meantime.
Your own arguments defeat this point. You claim that the letter writing of Paul would have been so important that no companion of Paul would have failed to mention it in a book that discusses some of Paul’s missionary activities, but were not so important to be passed along to Paul’s own “pupil” or by that “pupil” to his “pupil.” You imagine a trajectory where Paul’s letters start out very important, then become not worth mentioning, then become very important again.
And I’m skeptical that the closer you put the date of authorship to the 90s the more likely it would be that Paul’s letters were at least beginning to reach collection status among the churches.
Layman writes:
ReplyDelete"You claim that the letter writing of Paul would have been so important that no companion of Paul would have failed to mention it in a book that discusses some of Paul’s missionary activities, but were not so important to be passed along to Paul’s own 'pupil' or by that 'pupil' to his 'pupil.' You imagine a trajectory where Paul’s letters start out very important, then become not worth mentioning, then become very important again. And I’m skeptical that the closer you put the date of authorship to the 90s the more likely it would be that Paul’s letters were at least beginning to reach collection status among the churches."
Yes, documents like First Clement and the letters of Ignatius seem to assume a widespread recognition of the Pauline letters. Not only do such documents expect some church leaders to have heard of Paul's letters, but they even seem to expect the entire congregation to which they're writing to be familiar with the contents of the Pauline letters and recognize allusions to them.
First Clement expects familiarity with the divisions of the Corinthian church that Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 1, for example (First Clement, 47). And First Clement is a document written from Rome. The Romans of the late first century were highly familiar with a Pauline document not initially directed to them.
Regarding less explicit references to the Pauline letters in early patristic documents, I recommend that the readers consult Clayton Jefford's The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006). Here are some of Jefford's comments:
"His [Ignatius'] letters are replete with Pauline ideas and letter structure. The most obvious example of this may be found in a comparison of the bishop's letter to the Ephesians with the Pauline letter of Ephesians, which I assume to be a product of the Pauline school and not of Paul himself. The elaborate greeting that Ignatius offers to the Ephesians, which is typical of his other letters as well, undoubtedly has been modeled upon similar Pauline forms. Numerous terms and phrases that Ignatius has employed in this greeting bear striking similarity to those that appear in the Pauline salutation (Eph 1:3-14). The themes and movement of ideas that follow throughout the bishop's letter show further parallels....we discover here a certain acknowledgment by the bishop that the church at Ephesus knew and revered Paul as well....The fact that Ignatius had modeled his own letter to the Ephesians so closely upon the pseudo-Pauline letter to Ephesus suggests that this form would have gained a happy reception by the Christians there....To some extent, he [Ignatius] specifically patterned his letter [to Rome] upon Paul's own letter to Rome....Ignatius borrows constantly from Pauline literary style....Ignatius makes special mention of Paul as a faith link between his own journey and that of the apostle (Ign. Eph. 12.2)." (pp. 41-42, 138-139)
Documents like First Clement and the letters of Ignatius seem to expect a high degree of familiarity with the Pauline letters.
And as Gene has mentioned, the external evidence for Luke's authorship of Acts has to be addressed. The fact that many modern scholars have become accustomed to not assigning much weight to external evidence doesn't change the fact that external evidence is highly significant. For more about the significance of the external evidence for the New Testament documents, see:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-large-percentage-of-new-testament.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/hostile-corroboration-of-new-testament.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/10/neglect-of-external-evidence.html
Layman Your own arguments defeat this point. You claim that the letter writing of Paul would have been so important that no companion of Paul would have failed to mention it in a book that discusses some of Paul’s missionary activities, but were not so important to be passed along to Paul’s own “pupil” or by that “pupil” to his “pupil.” You imagine a trajectory where Paul’s letters start out very important, then become not worth mentioning, then become very important again.
ReplyDeleteNow you're putting words into my mouth and missing the point in the process. As I mentioned, Paul's letters would not have been circulating yet. But you seem not have noticed this element for some reason. Sure they were important (I don't see how anyone would suppose Paul's letters were unimportant, but that seems to be a key element in your counter-theory), but if they were not available to Paul's immediate progeny, they most likely would not have been available to the individual who took up the task of writing Acts, regardless of how important they were. But if, as you say, Acts is not a history, but simply a story, then there's no reason to fuss about any of this anyway. It's a story at this point, not history. Here's a challenge to you or anyone who really cares: compare what Acts says about Paul to what Paul writes in his letters. Do this carefully. Try to constrain your presupposition that Acts must have been written by a companion of Paul so that it does not contaminate your analysis and cause you to suppress the evidence. This is probably your biggest hurdle and may make this a near impossible task for you. I know it's hard to question a faith, but if it cannot stand up to questioning, what good is it?
Otherwise, I'm just casting pearls before swine here.
Now you're putting words into my mouth and missing the point in the process. As I mentioned, Paul's letters would not have been circulating yet. But you seem not have noticed this element for some reason.
ReplyDeleteActually, I directly questioned this premise when I said: And I’m skeptical that the closer you put the date of authorship to the 90s the more likely it would be that Paul’s letters were at least beginning to reach collection status among the churches.
A pretty broad collection was available to Ignatius by the second century. I doubt it sprang into existence from nothing at that time. His church had spent time collecting the letters. Moreover, Ignatius expects that his destination churches will be familiar with the letters to which he alludes.
Perhaps if you let us know when and why you believe Paul’s letters were not in circulation by this time we could discuss that point.
Sure they were important (I don't see how anyone would suppose Paul's letters were unimportant, but that seems to be a key element in your counter-theory), but if they were not available to Paul's immediate progeny, they most likely would not have been available to the individual who took up the task of writing Acts, regardless of how important they were.
I never said the letters were unimportant. I said that a companion of Paul would be more likely would be less likely to use them than a Christian writing later. I also suggested that such a companion might not have had the access to the letters that a Christian writing later. Obviously, the letters were important enough for those who received them to keep them and share them with other Christian communities.
The problem you have created for yourself is that you insist that a companion of Paul would have not had access to Paul’s letters and they would have been too important for him to fail to mention. Yet your suppose that the letters were so unimportant that Paul’s companion failed to mention them to his “pupils.” This is why I said you have created a problem for yourself. Your position is internally inconsistent.
But if, as you say, Acts is not a history, but simply a story, then there's no reason to fuss about any of this anyway. It's a story at this point, not history.
You again misconstrue or misunderstand my point. I do believe Acts is of the genre of ancient historiography. It seems a mixture of Greek and Jewish histories. It contains plenty of history. But it is not a history of Paul’s missionary activities. The focus is on Paul for a large part of the book, but the goal is not to give an exhaustive account of all Paul did, but to use him to show the Gospel spreading beyond its Jewish boundaries (as exemplified by the Apostles and mainly Peter’s activities) into the Greco-Roman world. That I said it was a story does not mean it is not history. I used the term as it is commonly understood to mean a narrative. Such narratives may be true or fictitious. The story about a man named Jed is fictitious. The story about Iwo Jima is true. So, this is yet another non-sequitur.
Here's a challenge to you or anyone who really cares: compare what Acts says about Paul to what Paul writes in his letters. Do this carefully. Try to constrain your presupposition that Acts must have been written by a companion of Paul so that it does not contaminate your analysis and cause you to suppress the evidence. This is probably your biggest hurdle and may make this a near impossible task for you. I know it's hard to question a faith, but if it cannot stand up to questioning, what good is it?
Unfounded assumptions on your part abound. I do not presuppose that Acts must have been written by a companion of Paul. Nothing in my faith requires that Acts must have been written by a companion of Paul anymore than my faith assumes that the Gospel of Matthew must have been written by Matthew.
As for questioning my faith, you are ignorant of my story and my questioning. I daresay I have questioned my faith from more angles than you can imagine. Certainly more than you allow for.
Otherwise, I'm just casting pearls before swine here.
I know how you feel. But in fact I have spent quite a bit of time comparing Acts with Paul’s letters. Had you read the link Jason provided you could have seen this for yourself. In any event, the first thing that strikes me about Paul’s letters and Acts is that despite the different purposes, focus, and genres, and the fact that the author of Acts did not use Paul’s letters as source material, those letters confirm a wealth of material in Acts. See Chapter 2. The next thing that strikes me about Paul’s letters and Acts is how rigidly some people would expect a narrative covering decades of events to mirror some occasional letters by the subject. There is some tension. The two most notable are the descriptions of the Jerusalem Council and Paul’s first post-conversion trip to Jerusalem. But neither is fatal to the position that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.
Geldoff said:
ReplyDelete"But if, as you say, Acts is not a history, but simply a story, then there's no reason to fuss about any of this anyway. It's a story at this point, not history."
You've repeatedly been evasive and have repeatedly misrepresented what Layman has said. He never suggested that Acts "is not a history, but simply a story". What he's written so far, in this thread and in the material I linked to, explicitly and frequently points in the opposite direction of what you describe above.
You write:
"Try to constrain your presupposition that Acts must have been written by a companion of Paul so that it does not contaminate your analysis and cause you to suppress the evidence."
You give the readers no reason to agree with your suggestion that we have a "presupposition that Acts must have been written by a companion of Paul". The document claims to have been written by a companion of Paul. The early Christians repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to dispute authorship attributions (as we see with Hebrews, Revelation, etc.), yet there was universal agreement about Luke's authorship of Acts. If the document didn't arise until something like a decade or two after Luke died, or it and the third gospel initially circulated without having been attributed to Luke, for example, then both the early Christians and their opponents would have been in a position to notice that sort of problem. There's nothing in Acts that's so different from Paul's writings as to weigh as much as or more than such a large amount of external evidence (combined with internal evidence such as what Chris Price, Darrell Bock, and others have discussed).
And if you want us to believe that a companion of Paul would have been so knowledgeable of Paul's life as to agree with Paul's writings to a high degree, then you must hold a high view of the reliability of human memory. Shouldn't we place a large amount of trust in the memories of the early Christians who wrote shortly after the time of Jesus or shortly after the time of the apostles, then? If a companion of Paul (and his sources) is to be expected to have remembered what happened in Paul's life to a high degree of detail, or to have followed Paul's theology to a high degree, then doesn't such a high view of the reliability of early Christian memory and early Christian faithfulness to apostolic theology speak well for the credibility of the early Christian documents? Or if, instead, the early Christians can be expected to have forgotten a lot or to have strayed from apostolic theology a lot, then why would Acts need to be as consistent with Paul's letters as you suggest in order to be credible as a document written by a companion of Paul?
In my experience, skeptics often argue for something like mass forgetfulness on the part of the early Christians (in addition to mass hallucinations, mass apathy on the part of the early enemies of the religion, etc.). But you're asking us to believe that a companion of Paul (and/or his sources) surely would have had a highly reliable memory of Paul's life and, perhaps, would have reflected more of Paul's theology. Since many contemporaries of Paul would have been alive in the late first century, then why didn't such people (with the good faculties of memory that you've suggested) speak out against Acts in a manner that would be reflected in the historical record? For example, we find traces in the historical record even for objections to Christianity as minor as the theory that Cerinthus rather than John wrote the fourth gospel. So, why is Acts universally received as the work of Luke, Paul's companion, by the Pauline churches? Did the earliest Pauline churches (or some of them) initially object to Acts and/or Lukan authorship, but then changed their mind, without any traces of such a process being left in the historical record?
I suspect that your skeptical belief system involves many such scenarios. Like so many other skeptics, your theories are big on speculation based on weak internal evidence, but not so big on internal and external evidence that's far stronger. You don't just do this with one or two books, like Acts. I suspect that you do it often.
You write:
"This is probably your biggest hurdle and may make this a near impossible task for you. I know it's hard to question a faith, but if it cannot stand up to questioning, what good is it?"
Maybe it's difficult for you to question your faith in your non-Christian belief system, but don't assume that we're as unreasonable as you. We've seen how well your beliefs expressed in this thread "stand up to questioning".
ReplyDelete"This is probably your biggest hurdle and may make this a near impossible task for you. I know it's hard to question a faith, but if it cannot stand up to questioning, what good is it?"
This is a category error. One can affirm the authorship of Luke without affirming a single thing about the Christian faith.
Speaking for myself, my belief that Luke wrote Acts is built not on my "faith" in theological propositions but on what I studied at the graduate level. For example, Dr. Maurice Robinson was my NT professor and, in my day, we had to do weekly written assignments in which we summarized ten footnotes in Guthrie's text by looking them up in the original sources. I believe Luke wrote Acts because I have studied the arguments and arrived at that conclusion.
Also, as has been pointed out to you before regarding the letters. Why should the writer mention Paul's letters, when Acts is not a biography of Paul ? How many times do we have to ask you to square your theory with what the text itself claims as its purpose? You might expect the writer to mention Paul's letters if (a) he was giving an exhaustive history of the whole church to Theophilus, or (b) he was writing a biography of Paul. Neither are claimed by the letter.
I'm a first time visitor to this blog and this article caught my attention. Very interesting discussion. I hadn't realized it before, but now that you point this out I see it's true that Acts says a lot about Paul (though it's not a biography), but it doesn't say anything about the letters he wrote (which form a good portion of the New Testament). That is quite a revelation to me. I'll have to give that some thought.
ReplyDelete