One of the benefits of having both Paul’s letters and a history of Paul’s activities from another hand is that we are able to compare points of contact across the two genres. Their overlap is all the more valuable since they appear to have been written largely or wholly independently of one another, with very little verbal similarity at any point.
What should we expect from such material, if each is independently grounded in the facts? With luck, and if the material is extensive, we should be able to find multiple instances where the documents refer to the same people or events. Of course we should not expect the history and the letters to correspond point-for-point; in the nature of the case, there will be much in the letters that would be out of place in the history, while the history—in keeping with the historical standards of the times—may organize material conceptually rather than chronologically and may compress or pass over some incidents in the course of the narration. And occasionally, the correspondences may cross over several letters, creating a network of related passages that cannot with any plausibility be dismissed as fabrication or forgery.
There is a good example of this sort of network that starts with Romans 15:25-26:
At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem bringing aid to the saints. For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make some contribution for the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.
Here we have three points of interest all in the same passage in one of the letters: a collection being take up in Macedonia, a similar collection in Achaia, and Paul’s plan to travel to Jerusalem to take this aid to the saints there. Turning to Acts 20:2-3, we find Paul on the way back to Palestine, but there is not a word about a contribution. In a speech before Felix in Acts 24:17-19, Paul mentions that he came to bring alms to his countrymen, but there is no mention of where the monies come from. The points of correspondence are so indirect that there is no suspicion of copying here.
Two other passages from the letters enable us to fill out the picture. From 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 we see that there was a contribution being collected at Corinth, the capital of Achaia, for the Christians of Jerusalem. Still we have nothing about Macedonia; but on turning to 2 Corinthians 8:1-4, and also 2 Corinthians 9:2, we find the churches of Macedonia introduced as already engaged in a collection for this very purpose.
Thus all of the circumstances brought together in those two verses in Romans are corroborated by a number of other passages in the history of Acts and in the Corinthian epistles. And each of these, by some hint in the passage, or by the date of the writing in which the passage occurs, can be fixed at a particular time—a period toward the close of Paul’s second missionary journey.
Does this conformity, scattered and indirect, with not a whiff of verbal similarity, look like forgery on one part or on the other? Or rather, does each passage stand perfectly naturally in connection with its own context? If so, the suggestion that such a coincidence is the effect of design is most improbable.
We are not left merely to guess what forgery looks like. The gnostic “gospels” of the second century afford us a clear illustration of how writers of the time who were forging a document on the basis of documents already known make use of their material. Thus, the “Gospel of Peter” is studded with phrases that sound like they have been lifted directly from the canonical Gospels:
“And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord.” (cf. Mark 15:17)
“And they brought two malefactors, and they crucified the Lord between them.” (cf. Luke 23:32-33)
“And in that hour the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was rent in twain.” (cf. Mark 15:38)
“But who shall roll away for us the stone …?” (cf. Mark 16:3)
“Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone.” (cf. Mark 16:6)
The degree of verbal similarity between the Synoptic Gospels and the “Gospel of Peter” is high precisely because the forger—and he must be a forger, for he is writing long after Peter’s death—wants to create a certain effect. He wants to give a ring of authenticity to the text he is manufacturing in order to ensure its favorable reception in a community where the established texts carry high prestige.
But there is no hint of that here. The book of Acts and the Pauline epistles are verbally independent; their interconnections are indirect. That is what makes their harmonies so impressive as evidence that both give us substantially truthful representations of real events.
“No — when the letters and the history cover the same time period, we can hope for points of overlap.”
Tim, isn’t this precisely why Steve Mason argues that Luke was dependent on Josephus?
On information about Paul’s travels and missions?
Generally, yes. Mason sees so much historical overlap in the information from Josephus and Luke that he believes Luke used Josephus as a source. This gets him his late dating for Luke, of course. But it seems to me a much simpler explanation: They are both covering some of the same historical subjects in roughly the same time period and are just bound to overlap.
The book of Acts dovetailing with Pauls’ Romans/Corinthians letters .
Best example of undesigned coincidences yet!
LOVED IT. (y)
Thank you Tim McGrew.
“What should we expect from such material, if each is independently grounded in the facts?”
How would these expectations differ from our expectations of material independently grounded in a shared legendary or mythic tradition?
I can kind of sort of see how the UD argument militates against the hypothesis that multiple authors independently concocted the entire NT historical narrative from whole cloth — like five novelists on opposite sides of the world all spontaneously writing The Lord of The Rings. But is this view actually held?
Once again, you present this as “impressive” evidence that both give us substantially truthful representations of real events. And once again, I have to say that if you are really trying to leverage this into saying we have “impressive” evidence of UFO abductions, or “impressive” evidence that three-day-old corpses can return to life, then you are grossly understating the prior improbability of those hypotheses.
“How would these expectations differ from our expectations of material independently grounded in a shared legendary or mythic tradition?”
They would differ in that we would expect points of correspondence to lie on the surface, with much verbal similarity from that tradition, which itself must be in verbal form. But in the case of legendary borrowing, we would not expect indirect interconnections. You are fastening on the coincidences aspect but missing the whole point of their being undesigned.
“… if you are really trying to leverage this …”
The argument for the truth of Christianity is cumulative. Not every piece of evidence, not even every class of evidence, is designed to do the whole job by itself.
One obvious conclusion is that the author of Acts was not kept out of the loop when people were circulating Paul’s letters.
He probably had a gander at them.
‘With luck, and if the material is extensive, we should be able to find multiple instances where the documents refer to the same people or events.’
Shouldn’t we expect the very opposite of this?
Surely we should expect Paul to be utterly silent about Judas, Thomas, Lazarus, Barabbas, Simon of Cyrene, Nicodemus, Jairus, Bartimaeus etc etc. Surely we should never expect Paul’s letters to corroborate the people found in the Gospels.
If Luke “had a gander” at Paul’s letters, it doesn’t show — the lack of verbal parallels between Acts and the Pauline epistles is striking, as many commentators have noted.
“Shouldn’t we expect the very opposite of this?”
No — when the letters and the history cover the same time period, we can hope for points of overlap.
This is actually an important point to drive home, so I am glad that you made this mistake here in public. The letters of Paul do not overlap with the time period covered in the four Gospels; there is a gap of about two decades between the last event reported in the Gospels and the first of Paul’s letters. So we would naturally expect a lot less overlap there, and it would actually be a little surprising if in these intensely practical and doctrinal epistles we found a discussion of minor characters from the Gospels like Barrabas, Simon of Cyrene, Nicodemus, Jairus, or Bartimaeus.
There is, of course, plenty in the Gospels that is reiterated in the Pauline epistles. But (as one would expect) it is focused on Jesus and the events of Passion Week rather than on minor events or characters. From those epistles, we learn that:
* The resurrection was the universal belief of the church, proclaimed by all the apostles and confirmed by hundreds of eyewitnesses, many still alive nearly thirty years later (1 Thessalonians 1:9, 10, 4:14; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:10, 11, 14, 5:14, 15; 13:3-4; Romans 1:4, 4:23-25, 6:4, 8, 9; Ephesians 1:18-21, 2:4, 5; Colossians 1:18; Philippians 3:10; 2 Timothy 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:5, 12ff),
* Jesus was born of a human mother, of the lineage of David (Romans 1:3, 9:4-5, 15:12; 2 Timothy 2:8),
* He was circumcised and obedient to the law of Moses (Colossians 2:11-12; Romans 5:19, 8:3; Philippians 2:8),
* He endured reproach, testing, and suffering (Romans 15:3; 2 Corinthians 1:5; Colossians 1:24),
* He was betrayed, and the same night he instituted the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-26),
* He was crucified, dead, and buried (Galatians 2:20-21, 3:1, 13, 5:24, 6:14; 1 Corinthians 1:13, 17, 18, 23, 2:2, 7-8, 15:4; Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:15-16; Philippians 2:8, 3:18; Colossians 2:12-14, 20; Romans 6:4),
* His resurrection took place on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:4),
* He ascended afterwards into heaven (Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:19-21, 4:8-10; Colossians 3:1; Philippians 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16),
* He appeared after his resurrection numerous times, both to individuals and to groups (1 Corinthians 15:5-7),
* He appointed twelve apostles to be messengers of the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:9, 12:28, 15:5, 7; 2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11-12; Galatians 1:17; Ephesians 2:20),
* Of these apostles, James, Cephas, and John were three of the most eminent (1 Corinthians 15:5, 7; Galatians 2:9-12).
So what we should expect to find, we do: multiple references to the main events of Easter week and to a few of the main characters still alive at the time of Paul’s writings. And what we would not expect to find, for the most part, we do not. The overlap between the Pauline epistles and the book of Acts — a history covering events contemporaneous with the letters — is, quite naturally, wider.
Well, a lot of that is disputable.
Apart , of course, from the fact that you agree Paul does not corroborate a vast amount of these alleged people who allegedly existed, and ‘corroborates’ only Christian creeds such as Jesus flying into the sky.
Paul never says Jesus was circumcised, for example.
I agree Paul says Jesus was ‘handed over’.
‘ He appointed twelve apostles to be messengers of the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:9, 12:28, 15:5, 7; 2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11-12; Galatians 1:17; Ephesians 2:20),
Twelve apostles appointed by Jesus? What were there names?
* Of these apostles, James, Cephas, and John were three of the most eminent ‘
Oh, those were some of their names….
So the twelve apostles Jesus appointed included James , his brother?
Want to go back and double-check that James, the brother of Jesus, was one of the twelve apostles you have so confidently claimed Jesus appointed?
Because most Bible scholars claim that Paul is talking about somebody Jesus never ever appointed to be an apostle.
And I also agree that Luke was way too poor a historian to look at the letters that Paul wrote. That would be ‘research’ – not his style.
He probably just couldn’t be bothered to look at any sources, even if other people in the church were reading them,.
What an elaborate exercise in missing the main point, which is that where Paul talks about the events in the Gospels, he focuses on Jesus and on the main events, not on the minor characters or events.
“Well, a lot of that is disputable.”
Ahh, let’s see:
“Interesting that you claim it is a mistake to think Paul would talk about events in the Gospels and then claim he does talk about events in the Gospels.”
I am not sure whether you cannot read or whether you are just unable to exhibit basic honesty in a discussion of these issues. I did not say that “it is a mistake to think Paul would talk about events in the Gospels.” Rather, I pointed out that it would actually be a little surprising if in these intensely practical and doctrinal epistles we found a discussion of minor characters—characters, that is, like Barrabas, Simon of Cyrene, Nicodemus, Jairus, or Bartimaeus, all of whom you named.
“And , of course, from the fact that you agree Paul does not corroborate a vast amount of these alleged people who allegedly existed, …”
Certainly. And in all of the blog comments of yours that I’ve ever seen, which fill far more words than the epistles of Paul, you’ve never corroborated the existence of Margaret Thatcher. Shall I infer that you are a fraud? Or would it be better for you to stop making inane arguments from silence?
“… and ‘corroborates’ only Christian creeds such as Jesus flying into the sky.”
Yes, how strange, that letters written by a Christian for Christians would mention some things that would be of interest only to Christians, because only Christians believe them.
“No evidence. What a surprise…..”
No evidence—for what? If you cannot produce a reason that Paul ought to have written about X, Y, or Z, then your argument from silence falls flat. If we would expect silence anyway, the argument from silence is forceless.
“Paul never says Jesus was circumcised, for example.”
Not in so many words, but he says that he was obedient in all things. An uncircumcised Jew prior to the founding of Christianity itself could not be so described.
“I agree Paul says Jesus was “handed over’.”
Golly. You’d better.
“Twelve apostles appointed by Jesus? What were their names?”
Because you think that if Paul didn’t give a comprehensive list, with their email addresses and cell phone numbers, then of course, he didn’t know that they existed, even though he
refers to “the twelve” in multiple places.
“So the twelve apostles Jesus appointed included James, his brother?”
Congratulations! You’ve stumbled upon the distinction between two James’s, and you’re right that this one wasn’t one of the original twelve—James the son of Zebedee having been killed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12).
Unfortunately for your thesis that Paul is ignorant of the apostles, Paul himself identifies the James he is talking about
in Galatians 1:19 as James the Lord’s brother.
“Because most Bible scholars claim that Paul is talking about somebody Jesus never ever appointed to be an apostle.”
Not as one of the original twelve, but clearly one of the “pillars”—compare Galatians 2 with Acts 15. Shucks. Paul and Luke are on the same page after all.
“And while Paul says Jesus appointed him to be an apostle, you quite forget to actually quote Paul saying Jesus appointed other apostles. Because Paul, of course, says God appointed the apostles.”
And who does Paul think Jesus was? Just a good man? Just a great Rabbi? Hello? Would the phrase “high Christology” ring a bell?
“1 Corinthians 12:28 ‘And God has placed in the church first of all apostles…’ Notice how carefully Tim cited this verse, hoping nobody would actually take the trouble to look it up to see it does not say Jesus appointed apostles.”
That is because it never occurred to me that anyone would be obtuse enough to admit that there were apostles from the first, divinely appointed, and some of them designated as “super-apostles,” but at the same time try to say that Paul’s references to this fact have nothing to do with Jesus’ appointment of, you know, apostles. Wow.
“And I also agree that Luke was way too poor a historian to look at the letters that Paul wrote. That would be ‘research’ – not his style. He probably just couldn’t be bothered to look at any sources, even if other people in the church were reading them,.”
So in your estimation, Luke managed to get right details about everything from Athenian slang terminology to the use of the term “politarchs” for the magistrates in Thessalonica to the proper locations of cities (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where a traveler by land would spend the night on the way to Thessalonica to the designation of Gallio as proconsul in Corinth to the expression “the great goddess Artemis” at Ephesus to the proper title neokoros for a major city possessing a temple of the imperial cult … but he’s a poor historian, because he never hacked Paul’s email account or copied phrases from Paul’s letters to churches in distant places.
Well, now we know where you’re coming from!