I mentioned in my previous posts that there are discrepancies between Paul’s letters and the book of Acts in both major and minor ways, and in my last post I dealt with some differences that appear when one looks closely at the details (the issue I addressed: what does Paul do immediately upon his conversion). There are many instances like that throughout Acts: if you compare what Paul has to say with what Acts has to say, on the same topic or about the same  event, you will find differences, and often these differences matter a lot to the overall narrative. Â
There are also of differences that emerge from the overall portrayal of Paul and his Christian mission.  In this post I’ll deal with one example, and in a future post with one other.
Â
For this Post: Paul and the Other Apostles.  One big area of interest is Paul’s relationship with those were apostles before him. This consists principally of the former disciples of Jesus (Peter, John, etc.) and Jesus’ own brother James, who was to become the leader of the church in Jerusalem.  When you read the book of Acts there is no ambiguity whatsoever about how Paul relates to these people….
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, go to the Members’ Site. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!
JUL
As a reader of most your books, I would admit that I agree with your thoughts and results of scholarly research. But there has been always one question remaining in my thought. That question is – “What is the strongest reason why we need to read the NT as narratives of history?” I happen to come across a few analytic translation of NT using allegoric methods. This type of translation clearly showed the logical ways of NT structure and removed most of conflicts in Pauline letters as well as in other letters and gospels.
I wonder if you ever tried to read NT as expression using parables and allegorical mixture with historical facts.
When the hidden meaning of allegorical words are clearly and correctly revealed and found consistency for its use throughout the Bible (not only in NT), I could find a way more clear view of authors of the Bible.
I wonder of you ever heard of or met this approach.
Great question. IN my view, we do *not* have to read the NT historically. There are lots of other ways to read it –and have been, since it was written. In the Middle ages the scriptures could be read allegorically, typologically, analogically, morally, and so on. My sense is that the only reason to read them this way is if you are a believer who thinks they are divinely inspired (since you don’t read the newspaper or a Dickens novel or an O’Henry short storty that way — although you certainly could). But there is no reason to *require* one form of reading over another. It is just a matter of what makes best cultural sense.
Thank you for your reply. I will ask one more question later regarding an allegorical interpretation using some verses from letter of Corinthians and want to hear your opinion.
Regards,