Unfortunately because of the limited resources at our disposal we will never ever be able to completely abandon speculation. And while it contains much fanciful material it is not necessary to completely reject Acts as a source of historical data.
We have a set of seven letters that are consistent in style, theology and are illustrative of the early period they reflect. We have six forgeries that reflect a later stage of development (but presuppose the existence of the earlier stage). Reputable scholars glean what they can from these texts.
But we’re in the same situation with Paul that we are with most of our ancient literary sources. If we’re going to reject his existence because of the limitations of our sources then we have to explain why we don’t use that criterion for all the other literary sources from the ancient world. We’re either going to do history or we’re not. Certainty is impossible.
Both sides are speculating because we do not know whether the narrative about Paul is an invented tradition or a historical account. The use of letters as an element of historical politics and as basic religious content raises suspicions. Letters are not just literature created for the communication of specific people.
…whether the narrative about Paul is an invented tradition or a historical account…
The problem is that because of our lack of known provenance we are forced to take the writings more or less at face value. Meaning that we must assume that the writer is expressing what he intended to express. If it is otherwise then we will have absolutely no way of ever knowing.
We have seven letters of consistent theology and style reflecting just the situation in the pre-Revolt development of the life of the church that we would expect at such an early stage. We have six apparent forgeries with different theology and writing styles that reflect a later stage of development in the church’s life. There are conclusions we can derive from this.
You don’t forge letters from someone who you don’t regard as important in the first place, a known source of authority. The forgeries presuppose the existence of an already developed tradition. Several of the original “authentic” letters survive only as fragments. If they’re all made up then why make up a fragmented, damaged tradition?
Certainty is impossible but the simplest unsexy explanation is that the seven are authentic.
I am perfectly aware that my reconstruction is ugly, but you have to look at things as they are. It is counterintuitive to honest people who assume that honesty is universal and that they are not being deliberately deceived.
Unfortunately this is not the case.
In the content business, the value of content is not determined by the truth. In the content business, heroes are created and promoted. Those who would wait for the real heroes to appear would lose to those who would pull their heroes like a rabbit out of a hat. This is what happens when the real goal of the game is to build and maintain your own structure and compete with others. You need some content to acquire and a whole lot of content to retain your audience. And whether you find it or invent it doesn’t matter at all. You have to be effective regardless of what you use.
And no one can do anything about it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)