Corpus-Paul

[Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>]

> ...I wrote...
>
> Luke, in my assessment seems more
>  > interested in presenting things in such a way as to make an
>  > ideological point then merely capturing "what actually happened".
> >  Paul, for example, is "softened", as is the conflict with Jerusalem
> >  one almost gets the picture that it was one big happy family, a
> >  picture which I think is harshly contradicted in Paul.
>
> This assertion/argument chases its own tail, though.  You seem to be
> implying that Paul's remembrances of these events/conflicts are "neutral"
> or "factual" when--as you'd acknowledge, no doubt--he also has rhetorical
> and polemical reasons for the way he remembers what he remembers.  If we
> choose not to give up on "What Actually Happened"--and I for one do
> not--then we'd best proceed from the assumption that all histories are
> subjective and ideological, even if History (the Platonic form, which we
> will not fully realize here) is objective and neutral/factual.

Actually I do not at all think that Paul's "version" is neutral. 
Anything but!!! His version is just as ideological as Luke's. He does 
however have the benefit of being a lot closer to the events, and is 
a much firmer candidate for eyewitness status, which does gain him 
some brownie points...

> Note: you say of the "we" sections in Acts:

My original post was very interested in tracking down information on 
the suggestion that the "we" passages can be well explained as a 
literary convention, and do not imply eyewitness status at all. I am 
hoping someone has heard of this theory before and can point me in a 
helpful direction.
--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

-Robert Hunter From SCARLET BEGONIAS