Paul vs. Acts

 Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost

Wow! More comments that I've gotten on any previous post. Thanks to Glenn, Frances, Jennifer, and Chris. I'll respond to all on Wednesday and we'll continue the discussion. I would love to hear  more comments before then.

Our Acts Bible Study continues. Please read Acts 9:23-25. 

I think this is the shortest section of scripture I have asked you to read. This is because I want to bring up a larger issue in the study of Acts, the relationship between Acts and the letters of Paul. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries scholars used Acts as the basic guide to the life of Paul. Autobiographical information within the letters of Paul was matched to the chronology of the letters. Although German scholars were more critical, English speaking scholars tended to accord first place to Acts when there were contradictions between Acts and the letters. In 1950 an American scholar named John Knox published a book that changed much of English speaking scholarship on Paul. It was simply entitled Acts and the letters of Paul. Knox contended that Paul letters were the primary source for Paul's life. Acts was secondary. When the two conflict, go with Paul.

 

The shocking thing about Acts is that Luke, writing Acts about 30 years after Paul's death, shows no knowledge of any of the letters of Paul or even that Paul wrote letters. Chapters 9 and 13-28 are a biography of Paul's Christian life. What were Luke's sources for Acts and how reliable were they? Did Luke know Paul personally? The "we" sections in the last 10 chapters would imply that he did. If so, how was Luke utterly ignorant of Paul's letters. We'll explore those questions as our study proceeds.

 

Acts 9:23-25 is one of those relatively few places where Paul's letters directly confirm Acts, but even here there is contradiction. In 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 Paul tells us that he escaped from Damascus by being let down in a basket over the city wall. This directly corroborates what Luke says in Acts 9:25. Yet even herre there is contradiction. Acts says that a plot against him by the Jews is what prompted Paul's escape. Paul says that King Aretas, who was Aretas IV, the king of the Nabateans, whose ruled extended to Syria, was wanting to capture Paul. Aretas IV was not a Jew. We have a contradiction. Whom do we go with? We go with Paul. Paul is the primary source for his own life. Luke got right the story of how Paul escaped. He did not get right the reason Paul needed to escape. 

Does this make Luke a good historian or a bad historian. I would contend that Luke was a great historian--for his time, for the ancient world. Paul didn't have facebook or twitter. 2 Corinthians was sent to the church at Corinth. The "we" sections of Acts begin after Paul's time in Corinth. Paul didn't have a photocopy of 2 Corinthians or have it saved on his computer for Luke to read as Luke composed Acts. Paul likely told Luke the story of the escape, but not the reason for the need to escape. Luke filled in the blank.

As we continue our study of Acts, watch my method. I want an understanding of the Christian years of Paul's life. Let me hear from you as to how I'm doing it and how well I'm doing it. 

Faithfully,

Christian