Robert said
It seems you’re assuming that Acts was written to bring on board a community that opposed what you also suppose to be pure Pauline doctrine. These are two unnecessary hypotheses.
The assumption is that Acts is more likely to be copied and disseminated if it served the agendas of those doing the copying and dissemination.
It may be that Acts is merely papering over the earlier conflict between Peter and Paul. Essentially just an author that wanted to de-emphasize this conflict.
And appears to not do this by bringing Peter all of the way to the sharpest version of Paul that seems to be in circulation somewhere at about the same time, but by bringing Peter into alignment into a softened version of Paul.
Acts is not only a literary product, it is also an economic product which requires resources to obtain, in the earliest period, papyrus, and the time and effort of what may be a minority of believers able to serve as scribes to maintain and disseminate. At the time, works that do not attract interest fall out of circulation faster than would happen from it decay of the papyrus due to the practice of scraping the ink off of papyrus to save the cost of buying fresh papyrus.
A guess a previously unstated assumption is that the bottleneck is the earliest decades of its dissemination. For example, AFAIU, Papyrus 91 which has portions of Acts2, has what might be a scriptorum error with 2:33 “you hear” as “he heard”, which sound similar when spoken … if by the middle of the third century it is being copied and disseminated from one or more scriptorums, it’s position as a well considered text seems like it is secure.
The process of it getting to that point occurs “in the dark” as far as direct manuscript evidence goes. The use of indirect manuscript evidence in textual criticism of later manuscripts giving details of that situation is one source of evidence about what is going on, but clearly that is not the sole form of evidence which might be directed to that issue.
In any event, one of our indirect manuscript sources indicates that Peter had the mission to evangelize among Gentiles. The assumption that this attestation is a fiction, the assumption that this attestation is correct but he failed to establish any faith communities among Gentiles, and the assumption that this attestation is correct and he succeeded in establishing some faith communities would all seem to be plausible in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
You’ve noted that the third assumption is not required, but neither are the first or second.
And of course, the issue here for the dissemination of the works is not whether Peter actually founded the church, but whether at the time following the composition of Acts, the church had a tradition of being founded by Peter, as we know that later both Antioch and Rome had traditions of being founded by Peter.
As for communities following a pure Pauline doctrine on kashrut and meat sacrificed to idols, is there really any evidence for such? Paul’s letters to his own communities indicates that meat sacrificed to idols was a debated issue within these communities.
Are you here making a hypothesis that the letters that are internally attested to be directed to those converted by Paul are directed to communities that are still “Paul’s own communities”?
Many of the arguments in those same letters indicate that Paul is not simply passing on advice from afar but is also engaged in struggles to maintain his influence in those communities.
I know that the Principle of Inconvenience is more about embarrassment than literal convenience, but the doctrine in Paul’s letters is the literally more convenient doctrine, and the doctrine carried in Acts is the literally less convenient doctrine, in that Paul’s doctrine gets you more meat for your money.
But in an area with a mix of Jewish and Gentile house churches, and possibly mixed churches as such, the doctrine carried in Acts would be more socially convenient.
My intuition is that Acts functioned as an origin story for mostly if not exclusively gentile Christian communities, who used that story to connect themselves back to the Jerusalem Home Church.
By the time Acts was written (early or late) the remaining Jewish “Jesus” sectarians were scattered and marginalized because of the destruction of Jerusalem. Acts repaired (or invented) a bridge. And assured the gentile audience that their views could be traced all the way back to the original church which had always been one big happy family who once had a minor squabble.
Now as far as what actually happened historically, it’s entirely possible Paul was shown the door after some kind of controversy. And we have to ask ourselves just how important he would have been to the “Pillars” anyway? Paul makes it sound like he was right there with them exchanging blows face to face. But what Peter and James actually thought about Paul we’ll never know.
It wouldn’t have necessarily been an ugly schism. Maybe they just patted Paul on the shoulder, yes, yes, why don’t you go do that, Paul, and then sent him on his way, never giving him another thought.
…the issue of circumcision, kashrut, etc…
But surely this issue predated Paul? Don’t we have the example of the so-called “God-fearers” who practiced a sort of “partial” observance of the Torah? You’re right though. There was a range of responses to sympathetic gentiles. It’s a mistake to assume everybody but Paul thought gentile converts had to be strictly observant. Paul was probably an outlier on a continuum but in his own milieu I wonder just how radical he actually would have been?
Don’t forget though, that per Paul, they asked him to send money back.
Isn’t it likely they put the touch on any interested visitors? Paul might have simply turned it into a personal crusade to enhance his own role.
Sorry, I’m usually defending the historical Paul against the Paul of the forgeries (and of the Reformers) but the temptation to cynicism is frequently too great not to succumb.
After Porphyry mentioned Paul’s request for funds to be sent to the community in Jerusalem I came across Paul’s request to the Corinthians to be generous with their wealth.
And in this matter I am giving my opinion: it is beneficial for you who began last year not only to do something but even to desire to do something. Now finish doing it, so that your eagerness may be matched by completing it according to your means. For if the eagerness is there, the gift is acceptable according to what one has, not according to what one does not have. For I do not mean that there should be relief for others and hardship for you, but it is a question of equality between your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may also supply your need, in order that there may be equality. As it is written,
“The one who had much did not have too much,
and the one who had little did not have too little.”
– 2 Cor 8,10-15 NRSVE
Equality? Really? And requesting the wealthy to give to the poor? This passage sounds suspiciously like another famous saying. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Paul as proto-Marxist? Or was Marx just a secular Christian? Those popping sounds you just heard were Christian Nationalist heads exploding.
One of the pleasures of Hell will be in sharing it with all the confident pseudo-Christians who defend the scripture but have no idea what it actually says. Their looks of utter surprise will no doubt sustain the godless for many eons.
Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment but the righteous into eternal life.”
In Matthew 25, Jesus seems to say quite clearly that our eternal fate depends in large part on how we treat others in this life. This message resembles the much dreaded “works” gospel I was warned about repeatedly as a youth. It was as if doing good works at all was bad because it meant that you were trying to earn your salvation. Jesus’ message does seem to contradict the idea of Sola Fide somewhat. Listen! More popping sounds.
>> In Matthew 25, Jesus seems to say quite clearly that our eternal fate depends in large part on how we treat others in this life. This message resembles the much dreaded “works” gospel I was warned about repeatedly as a youth.
When I was teaching Catholic theology, I had lots of fun using scripture to punch holes in sola fide.
Some of the best actually come from Paul himself: Gal 5:6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love” and Rom 2:6 “He will repay according to each one’s deeds:”
>> . . . translating πίστις with ‘faithfulness’ instead of ‘faith’, which is a perfectly valid way to understand the semantic range of the word.
I don’t think I ever suggested that specific translation, but I did note that in rom 14:23, it clearly means something closer to what we would express as “good faith” or “clear conscience”.
Robert said
BruceRMcF said
Robert said
It seems you’re assuming that Acts was written to bring on board a community that opposed what you also suppose to be pure Pauline doctrine. These are two unnecessary hypotheses.The assumption is that Acts is more likely to be copied and disseminated if it served the agendas of those doing the copying and dissemination.
Sure, but why imagine hypothetical multiple opposing communities for which it is being written. Why can’t the agenda be simply to create an origin story and mission for believers that would prefer to believe that Peter and Paul and the other apostles were on the same page?
It’s not an argument about the agenda of the author of Acts, but the agenda of those who propagated Acts of the Apostles, since that is the Acts which became entrenched as “our traditional readings” at enough churches to become canonized.
If the agenda was to create an origin story and mission for believers that would prefer to believe that Peter and Paul and the other apostles were on the same page, the one which had them land on the page created or elaborated in the Acts of the Apostles turned out to be the most popular one, which seems like it might tell us something about those among whom it was the most popular one.
It may be that Acts is merely papering over the earlier conflict between Peter and Paul. Essentially just an author that wanted to de-emphasize this conflict.
And appears to not do this by bringing Peter all of the way to the sharpest version of Paul that seems to be in circulation somewhere at about the same time, but by bringing Peter into alignment into a softened version of Paul.
I’m not sure I agree regarding Peter. His final speech in Acts is about as deutero-Pauline as you can get, speaking against the Law.
Though the Peter in Paul’s account does not do what Peter does in his final speech in Acts of the Apostles … rather than convincing those Jewish Christians who criticized him for eating with Gentiles, in Paul’s account he stopped eating with Gentiles.
… What do you mean by indirect manuscript evidence?
What textual criticism attempts, using later manuscripts which we have as evidence regarding the contents of early manuscripts which we do not have.
Are you thinking that this scribal error sheds light on hypothetical multiple oppositional communities for which a text was originally being composed or subsequently copied?
No, I’m thinking that this is the type of scribal error which occurs in scriptorums, and by the time the manuscript is being copied in a scriptorum, it seems to me that it’s position as a favored reading has probably already become entrenched.
With respect to Acts 2,32-33:
“This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you see and hear (ὃ ὑμεῖς [καὶ] βλέπετε καὶ ἀκούετε [P91 ακουεται]).”
I’m not sure I see your point here. Is it merely that there was some type of auditory scribal production by the middle of the third century?
Yes, by the time that the manuscript is being produced in a scriptorum, the process of becoming entrenched as “this is one of the readings that we use” seems to be played out, so the “natural selection” phase of this work being preferentially copied and then retained rather than the ink scraped off to use the papyrus for something else relative to other competing Acts is already over.
Are you trying to relate the P91 variant to Peter’s mission to evangelize gentiles?
No.
You’ve noted that the third assumption is not required, but neither are the first or second.
And of course, the issue here for the dissemination of the works is not whether Peter actually founded the church, but whether at the time following the composition of Acts, the church had a tradition of being founded by Peter, as we know that later both Antioch and Rome had traditions of being founded by Peter.So at some point traditions arose about Peter founding churches in Antioch and Rome. Therefore …
… it is not outlandish to suppose that earlier faith communities also had traditions regarding being founded by an apostle.
In the period before there was an entrenched church leadership of the proliferating faith communities, there would have been a proliferation of the different positions taken on a wide variety of issues facing early believers, because that’s what happens when there is a spreading faith and there is no system in place to keep that proliferation of positions under control. Indeed, it even happens in the face of such systems, but we observe it happening even more when there is not a hierarchical system with a final arbiter with the authority to enforce their decisions.
And I am supposing that we are all familiar with the various kinds of fracturing and agglomerations that can happen in that kind of milieu.
I know that the Principle of Inconvenience is more about embarrassment than literal convenience, but the doctrine in Paul’s letters is the literally more convenient doctrine, and the doctrine carried in Acts is the literally less convenient doctrine, in that Paul’s doctrine gets you more meat for your money.
But in an area with a mix of Jewish and Gentile house churches, and possibly mixed churches as such, the doctrine carried in Acts would be more socially convenient.OK. How does this relate to our discussion?
If the autograph of one of the various Acts is composed in a milieu of a number of competing strands, we do have to be careful in arguing that contradictions between the seven less commonly contested letters of Paul and later manuscripts of that work is evidence that the author of the autograph was not aware of Paul, especially when, as in Luke/Acts, Paul is the hero of the second and third act of the version of “Acts” presented, as the contradiction may well be a compromise between the Paul that is the hero of one strand and some other strand.
After all, one possible reason for one among various competing Acts to emerge as the most widely entrenched on is that it becomes one of the works adopted by multiple strands, and then can become the basis of those strands agglomerating, so that it becomes a work adopted by “influential” churches.
Now, as we come to recognize that these were, in addition to whatever else they were, literary works, we do need to take on board the cautions necessary when analyzing literary works, including the distinction between author intentions and audience reception. It goes without saying that the popularity among the original potential audiences was not necessarily due to the contents, so any argument regarding what the contents of the Acts of the Apostles suggests regarding the milieu in which it became broadly disseminated can only be a likelihood argument. And even if the contents played a role in its initial popularity, that is not to say that the author deliberately included the elements that made it popular with an eye to achieving popularity. Surprise hits are sometimes a surprise to the author as well, after all.
That is, after all, what that “That’s only circumstantial evidence!” exclamation is about regarding circumstantial evidence … to arrive at a conclusion beyond a shadow of a doubt normally requires more than circumstantial evidence.
Of course, we also have to be careful with the issue of whether the letters of Paul that would have been available to the gospel authors, including the author of Luke/Acts, but the question of whether the “Paul” that the author of Luke/Acts might have known was the Paul of the canonical Pauline and Deutero-Pauline epistles or of the Apostolos as reconstructed by those who think that such reconstructions are possible would be a different line of inquiry.
Robert said
Stephen said
“…the issue of circumcision, kashrut, etc…”
But surely this issue predated Paul? Don’t we have the example of the so-called “God-fearers” who practiced a sort of “partial” observance of the Torah?Absolutely, but I’m still reluctant to presume that Peter or other members of the Twelve necessarily operated within this milieu. Other early preachers, sure, but what can we confidently attribute to the disciples of Jesus?
They seem to mostly have been said to come from the “Galilee of the Nations”, so it’s not like they had to get to the areas where people spoke Aramaic with different accents and sometimes different words before they had the possibility of encountering it …
… but I don’t know if there is any attestation other than Acts of the Apostles that includes evangelizing among the Gentiles as part of Peter’s mission.
Another way to see through the sola fide interpretations of Paul…
There is a distinction to be made between the Paul of history and the Paul of faith. We get a glimpse (but only a glimpse) of the Paul of history from his authentic letters. But how much more influential have been the views of the forgeries and the account in Acts! (The authentic letters have traditionally been interpreted though that lens.) One of the reasons to hope for an afterlife would be for the opportunity to be present at Paul’s interviews with his later interpreters! But that’s not what I meant, you moron!
Stephen said
My intuition is that Acts functioned as an origin story for mostly if not exclusively gentile Christian communities, who used that story to connect themselves back to the Jerusalem Home Church.
By the time Acts was written (early or late) the remaining Jewish “Jesus” sectarians were scattered and marginalized because of the destruction of Jerusalem. Acts repaired (or invented) a bridge. And assured the gentile audience that their views could be traced all the way back to the original church which had always been one big happy family who once had a minor squabble.
Now as far as what actually happened historically, it’s entirely possible Paul was shown the door after some kind of controversy. And we have to ask ourselves just how important he would have been to the “Pillars” anyway? Paul makes it sound like he was right there with them exchanging blows face to face. But what Peter and James actually thought about Paul we’ll never know.
It wouldn’t have necessarily been an ugly schism. Maybe they just patted Paul on the shoulder, yes, yes, why don’t you go do that, Paul, and then sent him on his way, never giving him another thought.
Acts repaired (or invented) a bridge.
And that’s the only legitimate question worth answering. The rest is speculation, the value of which is judged by the results of the vote. A competition to come up with the most convincing arguments. And, incidentally, a lack of courage to admit that it’s impossible to effectively distinguish fiction from historical accounts in unconfirmed writings.
If you want to give a simple answer without creating any unconfirmed entities, forget far fetched arguments
The bridge was invented with all of early Christian literature. Because we have no evidence of this connection.
Jesus acted locally and died in Jerusalem. His disciples proclaimed he was the Messiah, they proclaimed he was resurrected. They are developing some kind of sect whose only success is that Josephus mentioned it.
Besides that, they achieved nothing visible.
There are no traces of this sect. They were unsuccessful because nothing remains of them. The same with other impostors whom Rome eliminated out of concern for social order. We only know about them from Josephus.
Josephus reported the sect 65 years after Jesus’ death, and this piqued the public’s interest.
The idea caught on in a completely different environment, at a completely different time and place.
There were those who built a bridge despite never having met anyone from that original sect. They only had a few dozen words in one place, a dozen or so in another. Plus a wealth of supporting material in Ant., BJ., Vita, Contra Apionem, LXX,… and their own imagination
As you can see, it was enough.
Given the current state of evidence, this is the simplest reconstruction, free from the creative historical politics of the early Christians.
It’s easier to invent a bridge, but it’s impossible to confirm it in the past.
And the entire bridge only appears after Josephus.
Cruel but that’s how it is in the content business.
τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια
Truth is a luxury no one can afford.
And, incidentally, a lack of courage to admit that it’s impossible to effectively distinguish fiction from historical accounts in unconfirmed writings.
All I require from Mythicists is consistency. What reason do you have to treat the authors or documents of the NT any differently than any other ancient authors or documents? Jarek you seem to assume that Josephus was a real historical person. But how is he any different than Paul? We have writings and mentions by later authors. If we lose Paul we lose a lot more as well.
Stephen said
And, incidentally, a lack of courage to admit that it’s impossible to effectively distinguish fiction from historical accounts in unconfirmed writings.
All I require from Mythicists is consistency. What reason do you have to treat the authors or documents of the NT any differently than any other ancient authors or documents? Jarek you seem to assume that Josephus was a real historical person. But how is he any different than Paul? We have writings and mentions by later authors. If we lose Paul we lose a lot more as well.
Authors? Where do you see them? Ghostwriters, whose identities are unknown, wrote texts that were falsely attributed. These aren’t authors, but performers whom we will never know. According to the historical policy being developed, the authors were supposed to be disciples of Jesus, a great apostle, disciples of Jesus’ disciples. Heroes of the movement who also happened to be gifted writers. It was supposed to be dignified and magnificent, because that’s how it was planned.
The Apostle Paul, after experiencing a personal revelation, is the safest way to introduce one’s own teachings into any religious movement. How can one verify his revelation when he himself appears in the public sphere decades after his death?
Paul was developed for a long time through new letters and other writings. Like Thorgal, whose adventures were drawn by four illustrators and described by five scriptwriters.
No one expanded on Josephus, no one added new works.
The concept of a prophet, an apostle, is proven scenario.
Serapis, Jesus, Dionysus appeared to you. You have a miracle that sparked interest. And then you explain why it was so important, what it means, and what should be done.
The red pill is like the Wachowski brothers showed in The Matrix. First you vomit, and then you get depressed. The promised land doesn’t have to be our dream come true. Nobody promised a happy ending.
Authors? Where do you see them? Ghostwriters, whose identities are unknown, wrote texts that were falsely attributed. These aren’t authors, but performers whom we will never know. According to the historical policy being developed, the authors were supposed to be disciples of Jesus, a great apostle, disciples of Jesus’ disciples. Heroes of the movement who also happened to be gifted writers. It was supposed to be dignified and magnificent, because that’s how it was planned.
So…you don’t know who these “ghostwriters” were but you are still able to determine their personal motives? Jarek you can’t have it both ways. Either they’re lost or they’re not. But don’t you see where the real problem lies here? You still want to treat these authors and texts as special in some way. The essence of historical criticism is to use the methods of the discipline on all ancient texts regardless of whether they are included in the NT or not.
Of ancient writings we either have texts written by people or written about people. If we’re lucky, in some cases both. In a face of a lack of provenance other than what can be gleaned from the text, we are forced to take them at face value. Face value here being defined as the assumption that the author is communicating what he wished to communicate. If he was faking, always a possibility of course, we will have no way of ever knowing.
All you can ever really claim is that you don’t know who the author was. You cannot then weave a theory about their intentions.
But the main point is that we’re in the same situation with all ancient texts. But you don’t suspect the historical reality of Josephus, or Marcion, or Sophocles, or Plato, etc etc etc…
Why not?
Stephen said
Authors? Where do you see them? Ghostwriters, whose identities are unknown, wrote texts that were falsely attributed. These aren’t authors, but performers whom we will never know. According to the historical policy being developed, the authors were supposed to be disciples of Jesus, a great apostle, disciples of Jesus’ disciples. Heroes of the movement who also happened to be gifted writers. It was supposed to be dignified and magnificent, because that’s how it was planned.
So…you don’t know who these “ghostwriters” were but you are still able to determine their personal motives? Jarek you can’t have it both ways. Either they’re lost or they’re not. But don’t you see where the real problem lies here? You still want to treat these authors and texts as special in some way. The essence of historical criticism is to use the methods of the discipline on all ancient texts regardless of whether they are included in the NT or not.
Of ancient writings we either have texts written by people or written about people. If we’re lucky, in some cases both. In a face of a lack of provenance other than what can be gleaned from the text, we are forced to take them at face value. Face value here being defined as the assumption that the author is communicating what he wished to communicate. If he was faking, always a possibility of course, we will have no way of ever knowing.
All you can ever really claim is that you don’t know who the author was. You cannot then weave a theory about their intentions.
But the main point is that we’re in the same situation with all ancient texts. But you don’t suspect the historical reality of Josephus, or Marcion, or Sophocles, or Plato, etc etc etc…
Why not?
I don’t understand what you’re writing about. Who cared about the personal motives of ghostwriters in the past, do they care about them now, or will care about them in the future? There’s a commission to be filled. Write a text. Show what you can do, and maybe you’ll get it. Interested? If not you, then someone else will. A ghostwriter doesn’t decide anything. A ghostwriter only writes. They write on commission based on a more or less detailed brief. And the nature of the text is such that it can be edited and interpolated by others. Did anyone take into account the opinion of the author of the texts included in 2 Cor? Not really, in my humble opinion. Was the opinion of the ghostwriters considered, who would revise their texts and how? Which ones would be used and which ones rejected?
A ghostwriter has no influence on anything beyond the fact of writing a text. Decisions about the future of the written text rest with the client.
You’re questioning these texts yourselves. I’m not the one who did it. Bart himself stated that all manuscripts are based on the Pauline Corpus from 100 CE. Therefore, given the current state of knowledge, this is the original. Because anyone claiming there were any Pauline letters without interpolation and editing is merely speculating. How does this differ from Carrier’s speculation that the original letters contained nothing about the historical Jesus?
The Church knew how to commission and always knew what it wanted.
Even Michelangelo was treated solely as an executor of other people’s ideas. The Pietà was a tried and true sculptural motif 200 years earlier. The commissioner didn’t remember who had created the work and mistakenly attributed it to another sculptor. Michelangelo, in desperation, took up a chisel and carved his name on the sculpture.
A ghostwriter is someone you can commission to write a work in the style of Plato, Josephus, Galen, or you name it. Fiction or History?
What will you do with such a text? That’s not the ghostwriter’s problem.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert