Stephen said
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.

Obviously, the author of Luke-Acts relies heavily on other sources. Indeed, he tells us that in the introduction to Luke. Is it possible the “we” passages rely on other sources?  Sure, it’s possible.  The question is whether it’s persuasive.

Stephen said

…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?   

Because the author of Luke-Acts expressly tells us when he is relying on pre-existing material. He isn’t hiding that. But when it comes to the “we” passages, that abruptly changes. He is placing himself for the first time in the narrative.

As to the business about “divergences” between Luke and Paul, I have addressed this many times. It’s simply a terrible argument. Read any historical documents penned by the figures of the time and compare them to their self-authoring brethren.  Discrepancies abound.  It would be incredibly easy use this “discrepancy” argument to make the case that James Madison didn’t know Thomas Jefferson; that Jefferson didn’t know John Adams; that Adams didn’t know Alexander Hamilton; that Hamilton didn’t know George Washington; etc., etc.

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. 

I’ve addressed this in prior posts. I think there’s a good argument to be made that Luke is being written against the backdrop of the siege of Jerusalem. It would not surprise me.

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.

Yes, indeed. And even Mark Goodacre has been persuaded by the arguments of Steve Mason in this regard. A discussion of this argument warrants a separate post, because it’s a sophisticated argument about a complex topic.

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.   

If a major point of acts was “to repair the breach between the Jewish Jesus community and Gentile Christianity” — and maybe it was, though it’s tough to understand why such a breach would need to be mended in the Second Century, but I digress — then including the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple fits perfectly into this motif. It’s not as though the Jewish Jesus community would not have bene aware of the Fall of Jerusalem in the post 70 AD period.  Why not include this to demonstrate that the torch has been past from Jerusalem?  Reading Acts, one would think that Jerusalem is still a critical center of Christianity; this makes little sense in the post- 70 AD period; and the further you push Acts back, the less sense it makes.

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.  

  

Correct.

Robert said
If Clifford Irving had succeeded in publishing the fraudulent autobiography in 1972, it would indeed have been much more of a ‘forgery’ (for lack of a better term), but instead he was exposed, charged, pled guilty to fraud, imprisoned, returned the money, and the book was not published until much later, when people actually knew what it was and what it was not. *** Do you disagree?

No, I do not agree that an “autobiography” represented as being written by a different person, here Clifford Irving, would qualify as a forgery.  For it to be a forgery, the “autobiography” would have had to represent itself as actually being written by Hughes; this work was not.  Thus, it’s not a forgery.

Robert said
There is still perhaps a difference of degree, I think, between what Irving did and what the author of Acts did. While Hughs was an important person, I think the author of Acts considered Paul to be even more important at his time among his fellow Christians, a much more authoritative voice to imitate and use. And while everyone knew who Irving was, even if and when they believed his false account of how he came by his faked autobiography, the author of Acts hides behind anonymity. It has been more difficult for critical scholars to expose his fraudulent claims. He fooled more people for centuries, even to this very day, than Irving ever did. 

  

The argument that the author of Luke-Acts “fooled more people” because he “hid behind anonymity” is an entirely circular argument: it assumes the conclusion, to wit that the author of Luke-Acts “hid behind anonymity.”  We don’t know if he “hid behind anonymity” or not. And, even if Luke and Acts were published anonymously, it does not necessarily follow that it was intended to be anonymous; indeed, the preface to each work would indicate something different.

Robert said

vergari said

 

No, I do not agree that an “autobiography” represented as being written by a different person, here Clifford Irving, would qualify as a forgery.  For it to be a forgery, the “autobiography” would have had to represent itself as actually being written by Hughes; this work was not.  Thus, it’s not a forgery.

Even ‘though Irving called it an autobiography and falsely claimed that he was Hughes’ ghostwriter? What about the fake letters that Irving hired an artist to create in imitation of authentic letters and Irving forging Hughes’ signature on contracts? That’s a mighty fine hair that you’re splitting.

The argument that the author of Luke-Acts “fooled more people” because he “hid behind anonymity” is an entirely circular argument: it assumes the conclusion, to wit that the author of Luke-Acts “hid behind anonymity.”  We don’t know if he “hid behind anonymity” or not. And, even if Luke and Acts were published anonymously, it does not necessarily follow that it was intended to be anonymous; indeed, the preface to each work would indicate something different.

It’s not an argument at all, let alone a circular one. It’s the conclusion of some critical scholars that I follow.

  

Those letters were forgeries, yes.  Both the letters themselves and the signatures.