Corpus-Paul

["Stevan Davies" <miser17 AT epix.net>]

David Hindley:
> If some can seriously 
> suggest that Acts is based on a legal brief, for instance, 

"legal brief" is shorthand for the observation that Acts 21-end
presents Paul's legal situations in detail with the evident purpose
of convincing the reader that Paul is innocent. It's not irrational 
to suppose that, as is commonly conceded, Mark 14-end is that
document's grand climax (famously, Mark is a passion narrative
with an extended introduction), so Acts' lengthy conclusion is a 
principal purpose of that document. Why are we told so much
about this at such length? Why is Paul's defense laid out in such
detail? Answer One: to defend Paul. (And so Acts was written during
a time when such a defense would be needed, ca. 61). Answer Two:
........... I'll let others chime in, hope so anyhow, because I've 
not read a cogent Answer Two. It's said that Paul's defense stands as
a model for Christian defenses in later decades... but what of it 
would serve as a defense is very unclear to me. Christians were 
accused of X and Luke's defense of Paul provides reasons Y that
would convince a Roman court.... What X? What Y?

> then I am 
> confident I can just as seriously offer the suggestion that Acts was ment 
> to give Christians of the early 1st century some sense of historical 
> closure. That is, it offered a firm link to the world everyone else knew. 
> Where Pagan and Jewish histories did not make any reference to early 
> Christian developments, the Gospels and Acts helped fill that void.

I agree completely. Although I'd substitute "mid 1st century" for
your "early 1st century." At least we agree that "late 1st century" 
isn't altogether likely.

Stevan Davies
College Misericordia.