Stephen said
In his Forgery & Counterforgery, Prof Ehrman makes the claim that Acts is a deliberate forgery designed to make readers think he was an actual eyewitness, hence the “we” passages. If this seems shocking it’s useful to remember that this is what all but the fundamentalists think about the Pastoral Epistles. They make the explicit claim to be from Paul. “Luke” simply allows his audience to make the assumption.
No. This is not what’s going on with the pastorals.
Each of the pastorals opens with an introduction that literally identifies the author as “Paul, an apostle/sevant of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope.” Neither the Gospel of Luke nor Acts introduces the name of the author at all. So the pastorals expressly claim (fraudulently) to be from a specific authority, while Luke-Acts does not … and that’s just the starting point in the differences.
The pastorals present themselves (fraudulently) as direct communications from a specific person. Luke-Acts does no such thing.
The word “forgery” has a few different definitions, but the ones which apply best within the literacy space are something along these lines:
– The action of producing a copy of a document, signature, banknote, or work of art.
– Making or altering a writing by which the legal rights or obligations of another person are apparently affected.
– The simulated signing of another person’s name to an a deceptively altered writing.
– The production of a spurious work that is claimed to be genuine.
These definitions would encompass the creation of (spurious) works which are intended to deceive people into thinking the words were (genuinely) created by a different person. Indeed, by providing the near verbatim opening to each of the pastorals as composed by Paul, we have something akin to the “forgery” of Paul’s “signature.”
We have no such thing in the case of Luke-Acts, if for no other reason because there is no evidence that the author was pretending to be a different person. Indeed, the only case to be made that Luke-Acts are forgeries would be if the autograph of Luke-Acts included the name of “Luke” in a title section (likely at the end) and we found evidence that the author’s name was not “Luke.” Of course, Bart believes that Luke-Acts is anonymous. So, by definition, it cannot be a “forgery.”
As to the issue of whether the “we” passages are false and deceptive, even if they are, that does not make Acts a “forgery.” Pretending to be an eyewitness to events may be perjurious, but it does not make the work a “forgery”; to do that, the work would have to include a false claim of being a specific person or thing.
Obviously, the only way to make sense of Bart recasting an anonymous work as a “forgery” is that he was in the process of writing a popular book called Forged, which argued other NT documents were forgeries, and he wanted to throw the great book of Acts in there. And, indeed, other NT works very well may be rogeries. But that doesn’t mean Act is a forgery.
On the broader issue of whether the “we” passages are deceptive; let’s just say that Bart hasn’t made his strongest case here.
Robert said
… Bart deals with this under the rubric of ‘nonpseudepugraphic forgery’. There’s lots of of discussion of differing terminology, but the essential issue is whether the anonymous author is falsely leading his readers to believe that he had been a traveling companion of Paul. Such a literary deceit might not fit a legal definition of forgery, but it would be a literary deceit nonetheless. An anonymous author pretending to be someone he was not.
I would phrase this (taking Bart’s arguments as accurate) as “an anonymous author pretending to do things he did not.”
The traditional word for a person like this is a “fabulist,” not a “forger.”
Robert said
vergari said
I would phrase this (taking Bart’s arguments as accurate) as “an anonymous author pretending to do things he did not.”
The traditional word for a person like this is a “fabulist,” not a “forger.”
I think its a little more than that. The author is not merely making up fables; he’s implying that he, as a pretend eye-witness and travel-companion of Paul, was in a position to verify that his fables are true and to relatively authoritatively interpret the meaning of Paul’s preaching, apologia, and mission. When a fabulist makes up fables about himself implying that he himself has an authoritative role and identity, he is making implicit authorial claims, even if he further obscures this pretense by hiding behind anonymity.
“The author is not merely making up fables; he’s implying that he, as a pretend eye-witness and travel-companion of Paul, was in a position to verify that his fables are true and to relatively authoritatively interpret the meaning of Paul’s preaching, apologia, and mission.”
This is precisely what Stephen Glass did. He placed himself at fictional events as a pretend eyewitness. No one has ever accused Glass of forgery. Rather, and quite rightly, he has been labeled as a fabulist.
Similarly, if Glass had actually published his fabricated articles anonymously, it would not have transformed him from a fabulist into a forger.
Forgery is just the wrong terminology for what Bart is alleging here.
Forgery is just the wrong terminology for what Bart is alleging here.
In his book Forgery & Counter Forgery Prof Ehrman explains his methodology and defines his terms. Of course you’re under no obligation to agree with him but you will understand the actual point of view you’re arguing against. I enjoyed it much more than most of his popular books because he got down in the weeds. I’m not sure why he thinks his lay audience would not be interested in that. He convinced me that Colossians and Ephesians are forgeries, and while I’m still on the fence with James his arguments are compelling.
Steefen said
Acts has scope. The events you mention are beyond its scope.
Acts is a continuation of the historical fiction of the gospels.
Acts is grounded in the historical fiction of the gospels that place the biblical Jesus in the late 20s to early 30s of the common era.
The immediate aftermath of the biblical Jesus is covered in Acts. What was the immediate aftermath of the living disciples?
The FACTS of the Gospels, attested by seven authors, occurred in the mid AD ’20’s. Luke wrote Acts after he wrote the Gospel according to Luke. And his Gospel refers to Matt and Mark. Luke died ca AD 66. The Temple had not fallen at this time.
Poohbear
Luke wrote Acts after he wrote the Gospel according to Luke. Luke died ca AD 66.
Steefen
Luke wrote Acts before he died circa AD66.
The majority of critical scholars would disagree with you. Go on, ask Bart Ehrman.
Google: When was the gospel of Luke written
Result from ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Historical Context for Luke
** you do not have permission to see this link **
85 C.E.The Gospel According to Luke, written in roughly 85 C.E. (± five to ten years), most likely during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, is known in its earliest form from extensive papyri fragments dating to the early or middle of the third century.
Result from wikipedia (my paraphrase):
The scholarly consensus is that given the many contradictions between Acts and the authentic Pauline letters, the most probable date for its composition is around AD 80-110 and there is evidence that it was still being revised well into the 2nd century.
Poohbear, you have other people with whom to converse.
Do that: converse with other people.
Steefen said
Acts has scope. The events you mention are beyond its scope.
Acts is a continuation of the historical fiction of the gospels.
Acts is grounded in the historical fiction of the gospels that place the biblical Jesus in the late 20s to early 30s of the common era.
The immediate aftermath of the biblical Jesus is covered in Acts. What was the immediate aftermath of the living disciples?
One cannot talk about the historicity of Acts against the letters of Paul if we are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a lot of historicity in both the gospels and acts. My contention has always been that these writers have chosen to leave so much out that we cannot get a clear picture of the life and times of Jesus and the 30 years after he died.They have left out information that would possibly give us a different view of those times. There was an alternate story to be told, by the party of James. All those histories have however disappeared, except for the Clementine literature; which unfortunately is from the late second century; its original sources having long since disappeared.
There was a man who tried to put that together, Papias, but his works were eventually either not copied for posterity or intentionally destroyed. By the 4th century he was looked at as a dottering old foolish millenarian by most of the Christians in powerful positions, (Eusebius for one) who collected information that was completely rejected by later Christians.
It is true that Luke is on a clear literary mission when he writes the Acts of the Apostles. A timeline between the true letters of Paul and Acts can only leave us with the conclusion that Luke has ‘massaged’ dates and places: juxtaposed events, completely wiped others and mis-characterized in some respects Paul, his mission, his goals, his version of the gospel, his true feelings regarding the Jews who had known and followed Jesus, and what may have been his true proselytizing message, depending on the time period in his life or his location. One only has to look at the letters to the Romans and Galatians to see how differently he saw the Jerusalem church in each document.
There is something about Acts that feels unfinished. It felt that way to some Christians as well because they padded it from 4 to 10 percent depending on the copy. (Codex Bezae and the fragmentary papyri p29 , p38 , and p48, by the readings marked with an asterisk or standing in the margin of the Harclean Syriac version (syrh with *, syrh mg), by the African Old Latin ms. h, and by the citations of Acts made by Cyprian and Augustine. There are a number of other lesser witnesses, Old Georgian version of Acts, several mixed Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts, and a few Greek minuscule manuscripts.) If It was written up to 30 years after it’s last recorded event, there had to have been some events past 62 AD which WERE NOT beyond Luke’s scope; events which would have helped tell the story of the spread of Paul’s churches.
It also feels as if the writer of Acts is “clearing the air,” “correcting a wrong.” For as he says, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
What that tells me is not only have many written about the life of Jesus but that many have written about what happened afterwards. “1Since many have taken in hand to compile a narrative of those things that are known for certain among us, 2 as told to us by the original eyewitnesses and their deputies at the doing of them…”
We are left to wonder, what other ‘histories’ of the early church of the first century disappeared.
timzukas said
Why does Acts fail to include the burning of Rome, the deaths of Peter and Paul, the rebellion against Rome, and the destruction of the Temple?
I think the most likely reason is that Acts tries to end on the same positive note as Luke. Jesus completed his ministry and had died, been resurrected, and spent his final time before his ascension to Heaven (at Jerusalem) teaching the apostles about the Kingdom of God. Paul had completed his ministry, and had spent his final time (at Rome) teaching about the Kingdom of God. The message is one of optimism and hope that the teaching of the Kingdom has been passed to a new generation. It was not meant to be an indictment against the Romans but a triumphant account about the torch being passed. Although the second century date seems too late since Acts has the same author as Luke and by the second century much of the direct knowledge of Palestine customs and locations would have been lost. (Not to mention the anti-Semitic tone might have been increased and there may have been a higher christology mentioned as well.)
Steefen – Introduction: Wikipedia entry for “Flight to Pella”
The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Epiphanius of Salamis cite a tradition that before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 the Jerusalem Christians had been miraculously warned to flee to Pella in the region of the Decapolis across the Jordan River.
The authenticity of this tradition has been a much debated question since 1951 when S. G. F. Brandon in his work The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church provided strong arguments against it, arguing that the Jewish Christians would have been allied to their compatriots, the Zealots; only after the destruction of the Jewish Christian community would Christianity have emerged as a universalist religion.
jgabriel22
My contention has always been that these writers have chosen to leave so much out that we cannot get a clear picture of the life and times of Jesus and the 30 years after he died. They have left out information that would possibly give us a different view of those times.
Steefen
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Also note: Roman a clef: a novel in which real people or events appear with invented names.
Acts has more than one significant problem with historical accuracy (beyond Jesus not being a single, unique, biological, individual, beyond content differences with the authentic Pauline letters, beyond not getting the chronology correct with Theudas and Judas of Gamala/Galilee, two chief priests instead of just one).
jgabriel22
There was an alternate story to be told, by the party of James.
Steefen
I’d say. What was the Jerusalem Church and the Book of Acts’ response to the killing of James, the Brother of Christ by a high priest? ! ! ! We are dealing with historical FICTION: you cannot expect the author/s of Acts to be held to the standards of Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus.
jgabriel22
All those histories have however disappeared, except for the Clementine literature; which unfortunately is from the late second century; its original sources having long since disappeared.
Steefen
Explain your position on Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews by Josephus.
jgabriel22
A timeline between the true letters of Paul and Acts can only leave us with the conclusion that Luke has ‘massaged’ dates and places: juxtaposed events, completely wiped others and mis-characterized in some respects Paul, his mission, his goals, his version of the gospel, his true feelings regarding the Jews who had known and followed Jesus, and what may have been his true proselytizing message, depending on the time period in his life or his location. One only has to look at the letters to the Romans and Galatians to see how differently he saw the Jerusalem church in each document.
If It was written up to 30 years after it’s last recorded event, there had to have been some events past 62 AD which WERE NOT beyond Luke’s scope; events which would have helped tell the story of the spread of Paul’s churches.
It also feels as if the writer of Acts is “clearing the air,” “correcting a wrong.” For as he says, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Steefen
But he did not clear the air, correct a wrong, give an account from those who were eyewitnesses of a Jesus circa 27-33 CE because there was no Jesus circa 27-33 CE. There was a Samaritan Redeemer.
Robert said
I don’t know Stephen Glass’s work well, but it seems like there’s still a difference. The author of Acts indicated that he was a close personal travel companion of one of the most important figures of early Christianity, thus being able to relatively authoritatively interpret the meaning of Paul’s preaching, apologia, and mission. Did Stephen Glass pretend to interpret the teachings and import of a likewise important figure?
So there is no “fake intimate companion” or “invented authoritative interpretation” exception to the definition of fabulist. What you are describing — creating fictionalized accounts of events and placing one’s self inside that event — is exactly what a fabulist does. It’s essentially the dictionary definition of what a fabulist is. The motives of the fabulist vary from case to case, but wishing to advance one’s own beliefs upon the readers of the fabled story is certainly a very common motivation.
Robert said
Besides, I already said above there is discussion around the terminology involved. Bart is very clear about what he is not saying when he explicitly uses the terminology nonpseudepigraphic forgery. Your primary objection seems to be the fact that the author did not claim to be someone else by name, but that should be explicitly clear by the term nonpseudepigraphic. It’s still similar to what pseudepigraphic forgers did in that they falsely presented themselves as someone with some authority, and in this case the author of Acts presents himself as someone with authority to interpret the life and teaching of Paul, in fact he does not merely interpret the meaning of Paul’s teachings but he actually composes speeches of Paul. It does not matter if you call him a fabulist or a sock-puppet, it’s the essence of what the author is doing that should be the issue under discussion. When the author composed speeches of Paul or recounted the events of the council of Jerusalem, was he actually giving the words he heard Paul say or his version of the Council of Jerusalem? That should be the question under discussion.
This goes back to my original point that Bart doesn’t actually have much evidence to defend his claim that the author of Luke-Acts wasn’t personally familiar with the life and teachings of Paul; but since Bart does not personally believe that the author of Luke-Acts had any direct connection with Paul (and he may be correct in his belief), Bart further believes that the author has no authoritative basis for his writings about Paul. Since he lacks strong evidence to support his beliefs, and since he was writing two books (one popular, and one scholarly) about forgeries in the NT, this presented an opportunity to label the work Acts to be a “forgery,” even though, assuming arguendo he is correct about the we passages, this still doesn’t meet any traditional definition of “forgery.” Essentially, by recasting Acts as a forgery, this allows him to sidestep having to defend the otherwise relatively weak affirmative case that the author of Luke-Acts had no direct connection to Paul.
harveyone said
timzukas said
Why does Acts fail to include the burning of Rome, the deaths of Peter and Paul, the rebellion against Rome, and the destruction of the Temple?
I think the most likely reason is that Acts tries to end on the same positive note as Luke. Jesus completed his ministry and had died, been resurrected, and spent his final time before his ascension to Heaven (at Jerusalem) teaching the apostles about the Kingdom of God. Paul had completed his ministry, and had spent his final time (at Rome) teaching about the Kingdom of God. The message is one of optimism and hope that the teaching of the Kingdom has been passed to a new generation. It was not meant to be an indictment against the Romans but a triumphant account about the torch being passed. Although the second century date seems too late since Acts has the same author as Luke and by the second century much of the direct knowledge of Palestine customs and locations would have been lost. (Not to mention the anti-Semitic tone might have been increased and there may have been a higher christology mentioned as well.)
So let me just say up front that I am agnostic on whether Luke-Acts was written after 70 AD. I think there are good reasons to think the works are post- Temple Destruction.
I further agree that the arguments about why the author of Luke-Acts, writing post 70 AD, did not include the burning of Rome and the deaths of Peter and Paul — to wit, that the purpose of Acts was not to finish the biographies of Peter and Paul, but to describe the good news of the Church traveling from Jerusalem and arriving in Rome — are good arguments.
There are some problems, however. Let’s just deal with Rome first. Ending Acts with the deaths of Paul and Peter and the persecution of Christians following the Fire of Rome would definitely have ended the book on a down note. BUT … it would not have been a down note if the author depicted the transition to that next generation after Paul and Peter. Indeed, it would have made for a more satisfying ending to see that Christianity survived and flourished following this great persecution.
As to the argument about not upsetting the Romans, well, let us not forget that the villain of the post-Fire Christian persecution was Nero — someone detested by Romans just as much as Christians. Blaming the deaths of Paul and Peter, and coinciding persecution of Christians on the dead tyrants would not, one would think, cause some major political problem for Christians. And, of course, as the time of Nero went further into the past, the political consequences of anti-Neroism faded ever more. By the time of Tacitus in the early First Century, polemics against Nero were expected, not disfavored.
In any event, there are reasons to end Acts where it ended, even if it was written post- 70 AD. But the further one pushes Acts back in time, the harder it is to explain the timing of that ending.
Now let’s talk about the sack of Jerusalem. Here, we have a bigger problem accounting for its exclusion from Acts. The destruction of the Temple would seem to be the best evidence of Christ prophecy fulfilled, and yet its explicit destruction is conspicuously absent. It’s hard to imagine why this information would have been excluded from Acts — particularly since it could have been used to bolster the idea that Gentile Rome (not Jewish Judea) was the true center of Christianity.
One possible fix here is that the author of Luke-Acts intended to compose a third volume — or, indeed, did compose a third volume, but it is lost. I think this might actually be the best explanation.
So there is no “fake intimate companion” or “invented authoritative interpretation” exception to the definition of fabulist. What you are describing — creating fictionalized accounts of events and placing one’s self inside that event — is exactly what a fabulist does. It’s essentially the dictionary definition of what a fabulist is. The motives of the fabulist vary from case to case, but wishing to advance one’s own beliefs upon the readers of the fabled story is certainly a very common motivation.
Stephen Glass made up stuff. The question becomes, did the author of Luke/Acts “make up stuff”? Judging by his approach in the gospel he comes across more as an editor/redactor rather than a fabulist. He uses huge swaths of Mark verbatim and edits in the so-called “Q” material. There’s little reason to think Acts doesn’t also rely heavily on earlier sources as well. It’s entirely possible the “we” passages are such material.
…having to defend the otherwise relatively weak affirmative case that the author of Luke-Acts had no direct connection to Paul.
See my previous comments. Luke had no direct connection to Jesus; he relies on pre-existing source material. Why assume Acts is any different? And of course when we can check Luke against Paul himself there is a great deal of divergence. Odd wouldn’t you say if Luke had a direct connection to Paul?
So let me just say up front that I am agnostic on whether Luke-Acts was written after 70 AD. I think there are good reasons to think the works are post- Temple Destruction.
Well there are very good reasons to think Mark was being written against the backdrop of the First Revolt and the destruction of the Temple. There would have to be a bit of time for knowledge of Mark to spread to the point where Matthew and Luke knew his work. Luke 21 seems to be aware of the destruction of Jerusalem.
But of course there has been a desire of some scholars in the last few years to date Luke/Acts even later than the 80s as generally supposed. Some of them detect the influence of Josephus on the text.
Now let’s talk about the sack of Jerusalem. Here, we have a bigger problem accounting for its exclusion from Acts. The destruction of the Temple would seem to be the best evidence of Christ prophecy fulfilled, and yet its explicit destruction is conspicuously absent. It’s hard to imagine why this information would have been excluded from Acts — particularly since it could have been used to bolster the idea that Gentile Rome (not Jewish Judea) was the true center of Christianity.
Not really if we consider one of Acts major themes which functions to repair the breach between the Jewish Jesus community and Gentile Christianity. This is why he whitewashes the disagreement between James and Paul (completely contradicting Paul) and presents the transition from Jewish dominated Christianity to Gentile dominated Christianity as so seamless.
One possible fix here is that the author of Luke-Acts intended to compose a third volume — or, indeed, did compose a third volume, but it is lost. I think this might actually be the best explanation.
Or that the author died before he could complete it. An interesting conjecture which has always appealed to me as well. But I think you get hints that Luke knows the fate of Paul in passages in Chapters 24-28.
Robert said
I’m not arguing for an exception to the dictionary definition of what a fabulist is and does. I was asking if the examle of Stephen Glass is fully comparable to what the author of Acts is doing. Making oneself the traveling companion of one of the most authoritative figures in early Christianity during the climax of his mission in Jerusalem and Rome might be comparable to Stephen Glass inserting himself into the Situation Room along with the President of the United States during the D-Day invasion of Europe. Did Stephen Glass imply that he had authoritative first-hand knowledge of such momentous events and discourse among such important figures?
The degree of momentousness of an event has never been a criterion for what makes a fabulist. But if you’re looking for something more momentous, I would use the example of Clifford Irving, who claimed to have spent an enormous amount of time speaking and meeting with Howard Hughes in advance of the publication of a purported “autobiography” of Hughes. This is actually a pretty strong analogy to what Bart has accused the author of Luke-Acts of doing with regard to Paul. Again, no one claimed that Irving’s book about Hughes was a “forgery.”
Robert said
Critical scholars who agree that it is not likely that ‘Luke’ was indeed the traveling companion of Paul in Jerusalem and Rome would disagree with you that this is a weak position without much evidence. See, eg, all the points of disagreement between the authentic letters of Paul and the stories in Acts. Have you looked at all of this evidence?
I have looked at all the evidence, and have addressed them in many posts.
The affirmative case — if you are placing the burden on someone making the case for the we passages being invented by the author — simply is not strong … really at all, frankly. I think you can also make the reverse argument that the affirmative case for the author actually being a companion of Paul — burden here on the person making the argument — is also weak.
Both affirmative cases, with the burden placed on the advocate, are weak.
As to the weakness of the affirmative case that the author was not a companion of Paul, I have several posts discussing the “the points of disagreement between the authentic letters of Paul and the stories in Acts.” As a simple example of the fallacy in this argument, just read the surviving letters we have from the U.S. Founding Fathers — Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Madison — just to take four prominent men of letters from the era. You will find countless points of disagreements, not just on philosophy but on basic facts. All writings come from a point of subjective view point. Indeed, even a single writer’s view and ideas and memories, as reflected in his/her writings, will change over time.
There is absolutely nothing in these points of disagreements between Acts and the Pauline epistles that lead to a decisive conclusion that the authors didn’t know each other.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)