Acts of the Historical Apostle Paul

by ThiChi 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ThiChi

  The Historical Apostle Paul

  Sergius Paulus inscriptions

  The Bible records in Acts chapter 13 verses 6 to 12 how when Paul, Barnabas and John Mark visited Paphos, on Cyprus, at the start of Paul's first missionary journey, they had a dramatic encounter with the Roman governor (or proconsul) Sergius Paulus, which led to him becoming a follower of Christ.

  In 1877, an inscription was found near Paphos, bearing Sergius Paulus's name and title of proconsul.

  Ten years later, his name was also found on a memorial stone in Rome. The stone records that in AD 47 he was appointed as one of the keepers of the banks and channel of the river Tiber. He held this office when he returned to Rome after his three years as governor of Cyprus.

  Sergius Paulus's family had large land-holdings in the area of Pisidian Antioch, and a stone inscription discovered there contains his name. This inscription is now on display in the Yalvac museum, in Turkey. Acts chapter 13 verses 13-14 records how Paul and Barnabas went from Cyprus to Pisidian Antioch.

  Sergius Paulus may have asked them to go there to speak to members of his family and perhaps even given them a letter of introduction
• 

  peacefulpete

  The name "historic novel" refers to literature that utilizes historic characters and events to add persuasiveness for the story being created. This technique is ancient. Many of the best modern works have used this method, Les Miserables for example.
• 

  ThiChi

  The term "Fallacy" and "False Dilemma" is used in debating circles to described arguments based on false assumptions and conclusions that lack proof where other conclusions may be reached.
• 

  peacefulpete

  explain where my comment is guilty of any Fallacy of Logic.
  
  It is you who have asserted that since Sergius Paulus was a historical character then the story in Acts is historical. Then even going on the elaborate on the story in Acts. Defend that position with "proof".
• 

  ThiChi

  Just explaining your "tactic of discrediting" via implication, that somehow Paul is invented prose, or "historic novel" as you put it, without any proof at all.

  ""It is you who have asserted that since Sergius Paulus was a historical character then the story in Acts is historical.""

  I never wrote this. My only claim is that Sergius Paulus as mentioned in the Bible, existed as a real person. I do believe Paul was real. You have presented no proof to make me change my mind. However, it is amazing what has been confirmed in the Bible via archeology , given what little records exist for us today.

  In reality, many critics have mistakenly claimed that many personages and places of the Bible did not really exist, only to be proven wrong at a latter date....are you one of those "critics"?
• 

  Narkissos

  The most noteworthy feature to me in the Sergius Paulus incident in Acts 13:7 is that it makes up the background for introducing the latin name of Paul (identical to Paulus in Greek) in v. 9, and identifying the latter to the one previously called Saul(os) (7:58 etc.). Add to that the fact that Paul is opposed to a Magus named Bar-Jesus (!) in a story very similar to Simon Magus' in chapter 8, and you can imagine a very complicated tradition history behind.

  One attempt at reconstruction is Eisenman's in http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html. I'm not quite convinced by what he writes (especially in his Qumran interpretation) but he at least shows the extent of the problem.
• 

  ThiChi

  Another important point to be emphasized is this: one must not confuse supplementation with contradiction. In a contradiction, two facts are mutually exclusive; in supplementation, two facts merely complement one another. If one says, for example, that John doe is a husband, and then, of the same John Doe, that he is not a husband?this is contradiction. On the other hand, if one says that John Doe is a father?that is not a contradiction. It merely is supplementing statement number two. Many alleged Bible discrepancies can be answered by a recognition of this principle
• 

  Euphemism

  There are two ways of approaching the Bible.

  One is to approach it with faith. It's still possible for a person of faith to recognize contradictions and errors, but someone from this perspective will assume that a given passage is fully correct unless proven otherwise.

  The other approach is to simply view the Bible like any other historical document. A historian will approach such a document (a "primary source") with the assumption that the writer had an agenda, made mistakes, etc. because that's simply the reality of human history. (Every dissertation written by a modern historian has to be subjected to the same process.)

  So a lot of things that Bible critics bring up (such as the likely ahistoricity of Acts, or the inauthenticity of the Pastorals) are not provable, irreconciliable contradictions. They're simply the most likely conclusions if the Bible is approached as a human document.

  There's not really any reconciliation that I can see between those two positions, and I think it's pointless for them to debate.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Euph...Your right that the positions are irreconcilable. However the premises are not equal.Nor is the methodology of these positions. Not at least as far as intellectual honesty is concerned.
  
  
  Narkissos thanks for the article. It has intriguing parallels to that earlier piece about Josephus and Luke. Provided we accept at least some of the Acts material is from the same hand. The observations about Paul being a Herodian are interesting as well. One of the first books I read when coming out was Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker wherein the author thoroughly demonstates the extreme unlikelyhood that Paul was formerly trained a Pharisee in the theological sense. Perhaps the colloquial use of the term was misunderstood? I had been following a discussion group that has challenged the very historicity of a Paul. The theory has been posed that he was a literary creation of Marcion. I'm not convinced, but the question certainly meets with as much reflexive resistance as the Historical Jesus question.
• 

  Narkissos

  PP: Is it somehow related to the Van Manen school? I just read Hermann Detering's article on http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/ -- very challenging.