tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3120418168315012086..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Are The Letters Of Ignatius And Polycarp Forgeries?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36719211064377865532009-07-27T20:27:31.317-04:002009-07-27T20:27:31.317-04:00Both articles are good, JD. I haven't read muc...Both articles are good, JD. I haven't read much of Detering, so the following comments are based largely on what I've heard about his views from you and others.<br /><br />If he's suggesting that Acts was written in the second century, and that Luke was disputing the view of Paul in the Pauline letters, then he has a lot to explain about the patristic data. Why would a second-century Acts written by somebody other than Luke produce a universal consensus affirming first-century authorship by Luke, with no indication of a dispute over the matter? If Luke's writings were meant to argue against Paul's, why do we see such widespread acceptance of Luke's writings and Paul's together? Where are the people who accepted Acts as a correction of the Pauline letters?<br /><br />If you're interested, Steve Hays wrote <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/08/canon-chronology.html" rel="nofollow">an article in response to Detering a couple of years ago</a>. As Steve explains in that article, moving a document like Acts to another century has ramifications for other documents. And the altered status of those other documents has further ramifications. Etc. Does Detering show an awareness of just how much his speculations would alter the historical record and, thus, how much he needs to explain?<br /><br />Concerning Paul's conversion, you may be interested in <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/07/pauls-conversion.html" rel="nofollow">my recent article on the subject</a>. Detering would need to address the issues I raise there.<br /><br />In the second article of the two you recently posted, you comment:<br /><br />"Luke does not describe Paul as actually seeing the form of Jesus in the bright light that surrounds him"<br /><br />You might be limiting your comment to the Acts accounts of the experiences on the road to Damascus, not the accounts of what happened just afterward. Elsewhere in Acts, however, in one of the accounts involving Ananias, we are told that Paul saw Jesus (Acts 22:14). It's unlikely that Luke would have doubted what Paul was saying in that passage, and it's unlikely that Paul would have thought that Ananias was mistaken. In other passages, we're told that Jesus appeared to Paul (9:17, 26:16). Even if Paul had only seen some sort of light surrounding Jesus (contrary to 22:14), accompanied by hearing Jesus and possessing other evidence that Jesus had appeared to him, why should we think such experiences don't qualify Paul as one who was a "witness with us of His resurrection" (1:22)?<br /><br />Unless Detering adds some major qualifiers I'm unaware of elsewhere, his statement that "The Paul of Acts has never heard anything about justification by faith alone" is remarkably inaccurate. I've been citing passages from Acts as evidence of justification through faith alone for years, such as in discussions with Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The people in Acts 10:44-48 are justified through faith, prior to baptism and all other works, and Peter goes on to refer to their experience as normative, with Paul's approval (15:7-11). Paul repeatedly mentions faith without mentioning works of any type, which is most naturally taken as an expression of faith alone (13:39, 26:18, etc.). In 19:2, Paul refers to the reception of the Spirit at the time of faith as what's normative, what's to be expected. How can that be anything other than justification through faith alone?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36854182452307311672009-07-27T14:45:20.280-04:002009-07-27T14:45:20.280-04:00Good stuff. Ignatius and the early Apostolic Fath...Good stuff. Ignatius and the early Apostolic Fathers get insufficient attention in apologetic circles.Laymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11761410435140602771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10736421540092219572009-07-27T09:51:03.040-04:002009-07-27T09:51:03.040-04:00Thanks, Jason. This will be very helpful to me as ...Thanks, Jason. This will be very helpful to me as I continue my series on the Dutch Radicals, who deny the authenticity of Ignatius and Clement as early witnesses to Paul's letters. See the most recent CADRE posts and tell me what you thinkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com