Corpus-Paul

["David Inglis" <david AT colonialcommerce.com>]

Dave Hindley wrote:

> Dave Inglis says:
> 
> >>As I have commented before, the only 'discrepancies' occur because people
> make completely unwarranted assumptions regarding the linkages between Acts
> and the Pauline letters.  For example, it is assumed (usually on the basis
> of no evidence at all) that Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Galatians and Acts
> must 'dovetail' neatly, e.g. that a visit mentioned in Gal must be mentioned
> in Acts, whereas in reality there is *no* requirement for events mentioned
> in one document to be recorded in the other.  Once this 'assumption' is
> abandoned, things become much easier.<<
> 
> That was my point - they don't neatly dovetail! However, assuming that the
> events mentioned in the Pauline letters are actually written by Paul, then
> anyone trying to place the letters into the historical framework of Acts
> must account for them in some way, if only to say "there's no record of this
> in Acts."
[snip]
> When you say things become "much easier" it sounds a little like The Way, a
> protestant sect based here in Ohio, which maintains that Peter actually
> denied knowing Jesus six times, because when the three denials per gospel
> are compared (3 x 4 = 12 accounts) for detail, only six distinct
> combinations are possible. They have got around the problem of variation
> between accounts by increasing the number of accounts. They just believe
> that each gospel author chose three of the six denials to report.

I understand your point.  However, I believe that we must not rule out
omissions by authors (for whatever reasons) when evaluating links between
the books of the NT.  IMHO, if differences in reports are *best* explained
by allowing for omissions, then that should be allowed, and it is then
reasonable to consider reasons for the omissions.

For example, at the beginning of Acts 20 we read "After the disturbance
had ended, Paul sent for the disciples, and after encouraging them and
saying farewell, he left to go to Macedonia. After he had gone through
those regions and spoken many words of encouragement to the believers
there, he came to Greece, where he stayed for three months. Because the
Jews had made a plot against him as he was intending to sail for Syria, he
decided to return through Macedonia."

In my reconstruction Acts was written by Luke, and the reason for the
above gap in the narrative is simple:
.  Luke was not with Paul during this period (hence no 'we' section)
.  Luke knew about the letters that Paul had written during this period,
and felt no need to add to what Paul had already written.

Dave Inglis
david AT colonialcommerce.com
3538 O'Connor Drive
Lafayette, CA, USA