I'm quite confident that the first person parts of Acts come from an earlier source. The only real challenge I face is addressing how knowledge of this earlier source was lost. I don't think this is really too big a challenge, because it is clear that the church fathers actually knew far less about about the scriptures and the origins of Jesus worship than they claimed or believed. They are wrong about many, many things and clearly misunderstood many aspects of how the religion actually started and where the scriptures came from. However, it does seem a little odd that we don't have any indication from any source that there was an early narrative about Paul that preceded "Acts of the Apostles". It is also odd that Marcion's scriptures didn't include an Acts of the Apostle.
My contention is that what we now call the Gospel of Mark was written to be followed by Acts of the Apostle, which is why Mark ends the way it does. What came next was the story of Paul's persecutions, and then Paul being sent to Galilee (not Damascus) where Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road where he was planning to meet Peter and the apostles.
Now, this all makes sense, but it would be comforting if there was some early witness to this narrative.
What "Luke" has done is take over Acts of the Apostle and completely turn it upside down. But he left enough of the original in tact that the nature of the original story can be obtained. The original story, of course, is about how Paul became the only true apostle, how the Jews tried to kill him, and how he was saved when he was "handed over to the Gentiles", whom he in turn ended up "saving". Paul is taken to Rome where he is ultimately freed.
This story became the model for the first Gospel, which was very similar to the Gospel of Mark. In the first Gospel Jesus is first revealed to John the Baptist similarly to how he was revealed to Paul. He then makes his way to Jerusalem, as Paul did, where he is tried and "handed over to the Gentiles", who do not physically save him, however he is ultimately "freed", whereby he in turn ends up "saving the Gentiles".
My contention is that what we now call the Gospel of Mark was written to be followed by Acts of the Apostle, which is why Mark ends the way it does. What came next was the story of Paul's persecutions, and then Paul being sent to Galilee (not Damascus) where Jesus revealed himself to Paul on the road where he was planning to meet Peter and the apostles.
Now, this all makes sense, but it would be comforting if there was some early witness to this narrative.
What "Luke" has done is take over Acts of the Apostle and completely turn it upside down. But he left enough of the original in tact that the nature of the original story can be obtained. The original story, of course, is about how Paul became the only true apostle, how the Jews tried to kill him, and how he was saved when he was "handed over to the Gentiles", whom he in turn ended up "saving". Paul is taken to Rome where he is ultimately freed.
This story became the model for the first Gospel, which was very similar to the Gospel of Mark. In the first Gospel Jesus is first revealed to John the Baptist similarly to how he was revealed to Paul. He then makes his way to Jerusalem, as Paul did, where he is tried and "handed over to the Gentiles", who do not physically save him, however he is ultimately "freed", whereby he in turn ends up "saving the Gentiles".
Statistics: Posted by rgprice — Fri Feb 09, 2024 4:19 am