Prof: All right,
I ask you to come in with
definite lists of where Paul was
when, according to two different
sources.
 
The purpose of the lecture
today is to get you to see what
you may think of as a historical
text as actually not a very
reliable historical text.
 
This is not to say anything
about your faith;
it's not to say anything about
how you might use this text
religiously or theologically.
 
In other words,
it is not my intention to
attack the reliability of the
Bible for theological reading or
for faith,
or your personal beliefs about
the Bible.
 
What we will do is demonstrate
a difference today between
reading this text theologically
as scripture,
and reading it as historical
source,
simply as a text,
or a series of texts,
actually.
 
Because as you know by now the
New Testament is a collection of
texts.
 
If you all you had were these
documents about the first
several decades at the beginning
of Christianity,
and as a matter of fact,
all you have as documents for
the first few decades of
Christianity are the New
Testament texts.
 
There are documents not in the
New Testament but they tend not
to tell us anything we want to
know about,
for example,
the very beginnings of
Christianity as a movement.
 
What you've got in the New
Testament comprise at least for
some of the earliest material we
have.
If you want to know about the
life of Jesus,
for example,
the four canonical gospels with
perhaps the Gospel of Thomas,
which we'll be reading later,
give you basically the only
information about Jesus of
Nazareth available to
historians,
the same thing for Paul.
 
There are second century
sources that talk about Paul,
or that claim to be letters by
Paul,
but most of us scholars don't
believe they have any
historical,
reliable information.
What we've got about Paul is
what you had in the New
Testament.
 
I'm going to try to get you to
use two of those sources,
Galatians and the Acts of
Apostles,
and then we're going to talk
about what can we know about
Paul from these two texts.
 
Now take your lists out that
you made for Acts.
When is the first time we see
the Apostle Paul in Acts?
Chapter and verse.
 
I'm a former fundamentalist,
which means I want chapter and
verse on everything.
 
Chapter and verse,
when is the first time we see
Paul?
 
Yes sir.
 
Student: 
>
Prof: 9:1,
and where is he?
Student:  On the road to
Damascus.
Prof: On the road to
Damascus.
Starts off in Jerusalem--now is
that actually the first time we
see Paul in the book of Acts?
 
Student:  In 7:58.
 
Prof: In 7:58,
so we actually see him before
then.
 
Where is he there?
 
Student: 
>
Prof: That's right,
he witnesses the stoning of
Stephen,
who, by tradition,
is the first Christian martyr,
the first person to die for
Christianity in Acts.
 
And he's in what city?
 
Where is he?
 
Come on folks, quicker, quicker.
 
Where is he--
Student:  Jerusalem.
Prof: He's in Jerusalem,
thank you.
Now let's just read that first
part there,
"They dragged him out of
the city,"
that is Stephen,
"Began to stone him,
the witnesses laid their coats
at the feet of a young man named
Saul," who the writer of
Acts will later tell us is also
named Paul,
so Saul is-- Acts depicts Saul
as his Jewish name and Paul as
sort of his Greek and Roman
name.
 
"While they were stoning
Stephen he prayed,"
and so on and so forth.
 
Look at 8:1:
And Saul approved of their
killing him.
 
That day a severe persecution
began against the church in
Jerusalem all except the
apostles were scattered
throughout the countryside of
Judea and Samaria,
devout men buried Stephen,
and made loud lamentation over
him,
but Saul was ravaging the
church by entering house after
house,
dragging off both men and
women, he committed them to
prison.
 
So Saul, as he's known here,
is fairly active in Jerusalem
as a persecutor of the followers
of Jesus.
He causes several of them to be
arrested,
they know who he is,
they would recognize him,
he's got a reputation,
so that's the first time we see
Paul in 7:58.
 
Then we--the Acts,
as we'll see,
does a lot of other things and
then comes back to Paul now at
9:1.
 
After 9:1, when is the next
time we see Paul in Acts?
He's on the road to
Damascus--did you all do this
homework?
 
Yes sir in the back.
 
Student:  12:25.
 
Prof: 12:25--where is
that?
Student: 
>
Prof: Okay,
Barnabas and Paul go back to
Jerusalem.
 
Let's back up a bit though.
 
I think we're missing some
stuff.
I want every detail of time,
every detail of place--look at
9:26.
 
When he had come to Jerusalem,
he attempted to join the
disciples;
and they were all afraid of
him, for they did not believe he
was a disciple.
But Barnabas took him,
brought him to the apostles,
and described for them how on
the road he had seen the Lord,
who had spoken to him,
how in Damascus he had spoken
boldly in the name of Jesus.
 
So he went in and out among
them in Jerusalem,
speaking boldly in the name of
the Lord.
He spoke and argued with the
Hellenists [that is,
Greek speaking Jews];
but they were attempting to
kill him.
 
When the believers learned of
it, they brought him down to
Caesarea and sent him off to
Tarsus.
Notice in Chapter 9 you've got
several chronological and
spatial details about Paul.
 
That's what I wanted you to
notice.
Not just read it quickly,
don't read this stuff like
college students,
read it as really critical
readers,
not just to get the reading
done but notice the details.
 
I'm stressing this now because
over and over again in this
semester we'll try to push you
to read it much more carefully.
Noticing details,
that's the only way to practice
close reading.
 
We've got him in Jerusalem,
we have him in Damascus,
but before 12:25 we have lots
of other material with him being
in Jerusalem.
 
Introduced to the church
there--when is this
chronologically?
 
You don't have to know the year
but how much time are we talking
about between this Damascus
period and this time Barnabas
introduces him to the rest of
the church and gets him accepted
by the church.
 
Yes.
 
Student:  It says in
verse 23, "After some time
had passed."
 
Prof: "After some
time had passed."
There's one place where it says
he's three days in Damascus
after he sees Jesus,
before he's baptized,
so we have three days,
then he's baptized,
and then he disputes with other
people in Damascus,
so basically it's just after
some time.
It can't--we're probably not
talking several years here.
You get the impression when
you're reading this that it may
be months, it may be weeks--this
is time in Jerusalem.
What happens after Barnabas
introduces him in Jerusalem?
Look at 9:30,
"When the believers
learned of it they brought him
down to Caesarea and sent him
off to Tarsus."
 
Again, before we get him in
Jerusalem here,
he's in Caesarea,
which is a city on the
coastline of Palestine,
and he's in Tarsus.
Why does he go to Tarsus do you
think?
That's his home, exactly.
 
According to Acts,
Paul is from Tarsus.
Now when we get further I'll
point out when we have
information about Paul that we
get from his letters,
and when we have information
about Paul that we only get from
Acts.
 
The question I'll ask you is,
are they both reliable?
Are they both equally reliable?
 
If you have one piece of
information from Paul's letters
and a different kind of piece of
information from Acts,
is one of them more likely to
be historical?
Those are the kinds of
questions we'll ask.
Yes sir.
 
Student:  Where is
Tarsus?
Prof: Tarsus is in the
very eastern part of what is now
Turkey.
 
It's not far from the border of
eastern Turkey and western
Syria, it's in modern Turkey.
 
At the time--at that time it
was in the area called Cilicia,
and that'll be important
because when we get to Galatians
Paul talks about going to
Cilicia at one point,
and I'm going to say,
"Why did he go to Cilicia
and where is that?"
 
And some smart person's going
to say, "Well isn't Tarsus
the main capital city of Cilicia
in the Roman Empire?"
I'll say, "That's
brilliant!
You made a very important
connection there."
Okay, so he goes to Tarsus,
now you don't hear much about
Paul because then you have other
kinds of stuff,
and then look at 11:19,
"Now those who were
scattered because of the
persecutions that took place
over Stephen,"
notice how--
we'll get this when we get to
the Acts of the Apostles,
the lecture on that,
there is as bit of a jump here
in the period of time.
 
The stoning of Stephen was way
back there at the end of Chapter
7,
beginning of Chapter 8,
then you had a lot of other
material,
now the author is kind of
taking you back to that stoning
of Stephen episode.
 
This is like one of those
things that--it's a cutaway;
it's a time lapse sort of in
the filming here....
[they]
traveled as far as Phoenicia,
Cyprus, and Antioch,
and they spoke the word to no
one except Jews.
 
But among them were some men
from Cyprus and Cyrene who,
on coming to Antioch,
spoke to the Hellenists also,
proclaiming the Lord Jesus.
 
The hand of the Lord was with
them, and a great number became
believers and turned to the
Lord.
News of this came to the ears
of the church in Jerusalem,
and they sent Barnabas to
Antioch.
When he came and saw the grace
of God, he rejoiced and he
exhorted them all to remain
faithful to the Lord with
steadfast devotion;
for he was a good man full of
the Holy Spirit and of faith.
 
And a great many people were
brought to the Lord.
Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to
look for Saul.
Again, before we get this,
we have Saul going to Antioch,
again Barnabas being the
important figure who does that.
When he came he saw the grace
of God, etc.
Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to
look for Saul,
and when he had found him,
he brought him to Antioch.
So it was that for an entire
year they met with the church
and taught a great many people,
and it was in Antioch that the
disciples were first called
"Christians."
At that time prophets came down
from Jerusalem.
[So we have one year here in
Antioch before the next incident
happens.]
One of them named Agabus stood
up and predicted by the Spirit
that there would be a severe
famine over all the world;
this took place during the
reign of Claudius.
 
The disciples determined that
according to their ability,
each would send relief to the
brothers living in Judea;
this they did,
sending it to the elders by
Barnabas and Saul.
 
So in 11:30 we have Paul going
from Antioch with Barnabas to
Jerusalem,
taking with them funds to
alleviate famine--
for famine relief in Judea,
from the disciples in Antioch.
 
When's the--now after that do
we have another we see Paul?
That's when you get to 12:25,
"Barnabas--
after completing their mission
Barnabas and Saul returned to
Jerusalem and brought with them
John,
whose other name was Mark."
 
Actually, I think that may need
to be returned from Jerusalem;
there's a manuscript debate
over whether they returned to
Jerusalem or from Jerusalem.
 
In any case,
they're in Jerusalem,
and then 13:1 we find them back
in Barnabas, Barnabas and Saul
there.
 
Chapter 13 has Barnabas and
Saul in Antioch again.
While they were worshipping the
Lord and fasting,
the Holy Spirit said,
"Set apart from me
Barnabas and Saul for the work
to which I have called
them."
 
Then after fasting and praying
they laid their hands on them
and sent them off.
 
They went by the Holy Spirit,
they went to Seleucia,
then we have what's called the
first missionary journey.
This is the first missionary
journey,
Barnabas and Paul,
they travel through that part
of central and southern Turkey
that we call Asia Minor in the
ancient world,
called Turkey now.
What happens next?
 
After 13:1 where does Paul go?
 
Yes sir.
 
Student: 
>
Prof: Okay,
so they have a confrontation
with a magician called
Bar-Jesus.
Where else?
 
Yes.
 
Student:  Cyprus
Prof: Cyprus.
Student:  Salamis and
Paphos.
Prof: Yes,
Cyprus and Salamis,
they're traveling around.
 
Where else?
 
Where do they end up?
 
Student: 
>
Prof: Iconium,
that's another place they go
too.
 
Next?
 
Student:  Lystra.
 
Prof: Lystra.
 
Student:  Derbe.
 
Prof: Derbe, next?
 
Student:  Perga.
 
Prof: Perga.
 
Next?
 
Student:  Attalia.
 
Prof: Attalia.
 
Where do they end up after that
first journey,
at the end of the journey?
 
Student:  Antioch.
 
Prof: Back in Antioch.
 
We're going to just include all
those places you said in the
first missionary journey,
and they end up in Antioch.
Where is the next place they go?
 
Student:  Jerusalem.
 
Prof: Jerusalem.
 
What do they do this time in
Jerusalem?
Student: 
>
Prof: Sorry?
 
They have a debate.
 
The whole--the leaders of the
church get together,
they debate,
what's the topic of the debate?
Student:  Circumcision.
 
Prof: Whether Gentiles
have to be circumcised to be
members of the community,
and who makes the decision?
Student: 
>
Prof: Pardon?
 
Who makes the decision?
 
Student: 
>
Prof: Somebody say it
out loud enough.
Student: 
>
Prof: Sorry?
 
Student:  James.
 
Prof: James.
 
They all make the decision
together.
In fact, they say,
"It seemed good to the
Holy Spirit and to us."
 
That's an interesting way of
putting it because in the Book
of Acts the Holy Spirit is
actually the main actor of the
whole book.
 
The Holy Spirit does all this
kind of stuff in the Book of
Acts,
so that's why "The Acts of
the Apostles"
is almost a mis-title.
It should actually be called
"The Acts of the Holy
Spirit,"
much more accurately for the
narrative.
 
The Holy Spirit,
with all the believers,
and James, who's considered the
leader of the church in
Jerusalem actually announces a
decision,
but it's a decision they all
came to by consensus.
Everybody agrees that,
no, Gentiles don't have to be
circumcised and they make some
rules.
They say that they shouldn't
eat meat sacrificed to idols,
they shouldn't eat blood,
they shouldn't commit
fornication or sexual
immorality,
so they make some rules that
they expect Gentile followers to
follow.
 
They get those rules from the
Jewish tradition that these were
the rules that were given to
Noah after the flood.
Therefore, all people in the
world, because all people of
course that now exist came from
the people who lived through the
flood.
 
All people of the world were
given these rules,
even Gentiles,
and so even pious Gentiles
should keep these rules,
although they do not have to be
circumcised,
so that's the way that happens.
Where does Paul go after that?
 
We're going to move quickly now.
 
Student:  Antioch.
 
Prof: Pardon?
 
Student:  Antioch.
 
Prof: Antioch,
back to Antioch.
Then he and Barnabas have a
falling out--have a
disagreement.
 
What's the disagreement between
Paul and Barnabas about in Acts?
Student:  Whether to
take John Mark.
Prof: Whether to take
John Mark with him on them on
the next journey they go.
 
Paul wants to--Barnabas wants
to take Mark,
Paul doesn't,
is that the way it goes?
Yeah.
 
Then they split up.
 
It's a very amicable split in
Acts, right?
It's a personnel decision.
 
They don't have any debates
about doctrine.
They don't have any
disagreements about what the
Gospel means.
 
They don't have any
disagreements about eating or
circumcision.
 
Barnabas and Saul,
and Paul, split up simply over
a personnel decision about
whether to take John Mark on the
next missionary journey.
 
So that's--notice what we've
got.
How often is Paul in Jerusalem
before that--before this main
Jerusalem counsel?
 
How many times?
 
Student:  Once.
 
Prof: One,
two, three, four,
five--he's in Jerusalem five
times before the general counsel
that we sort of ended up our
little narrative there.
Now look at Galatians.
 
We don't have to go all the way
through Galatians,
but we're going to read the
part of Galatians much more
carefully and closely.
 
It's only basically the first
two chapters that we need.
Again, we're going to put the
details up on the board,
because I want you to pay much
closer attention to this
than apparently some of
you paid anyway.
1:11, "I want you to know
brothers,"
and it may say,
"and sisters"
in your English translation,
but it doesn't in the Greek,
"That the Gospel that was
proclaimed by me is not of human
origin,
for I did not receive it from a
human source,
nor was I taught it,
but I received it through a
revelation of Jesus
Christ."
 
First Paul starts out in the
letter saying,
"I didn't get my Gospel
from any human person,
I got it straight from
Jesus."
Now, remember,
Paul didn't know Jesus during
Jesus' own lifetime,
so he's referring to a
revelation experience that he
had when he saw Jesus in some
kind of visionary experience,
or another place he says he was
lifted up into the third heaven,
so we'll talk at some point
about what kind of experience
was this that Paul had,
but that's where he got his
Gospel.
You have heard,
no doubt, of my earlier life in
Judaism.
 
I was violently persecuting the
church of God and was trying to
destroy it.
 
I advanced in Judaism beyond
many among my people of the same
age, for I was more zealous for
the traditions of my ancestors.
But when God,
who had set me apart before I
was born,
called me through his grace,
was pleased so that I might
proclaim among the Gentiles,
I did not confer with any human
being.
Now where is Paul at this point
according to his own statement?
We don't know, right?
 
But we know one place he's not,
and where is that?
Student:  Jerusalem.
 
Prof: Because then he
says,
"I did not,
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to
those who are already Apostles
before me,
but I went away at once into
Arabia and afterwards I returned
to Damascus."
 
That's how you know where he
was.
"I returned to
Damascus."
Where is the first place we see
Paul, chronologically,
geographically,
according to his letter,
is Damascus.
 
Let's keep--then he says,
"I went to Arabia."
Arabia at this time refers to
the part of the other side of
the Jordan River from Judea,
so it's what we would call
modern Jordan mainly,
maybe eastern Syria,
western Jordan but that's what
was Arabian desert that's--
so he's talking about he went
away to that area that we would
now call eastern Syria or
Jordan.
Remember Damascus is one of the
large cities in Syria,
so that's where he goes.
 
"Afterwards I returned to
Damascus.
After three years,"
we get a nice little
chronological note,
"I did go to Jerusalem to
visit Cephas."
 
Who is Cephas?
 
Peter, exactly.
 
Cephas is the Aramaic
word for "rock"
or "stone,"
and Peter is the Greek
word for "rock"
or "stone."
Again, we have two different
names.
He goes to Jerusalem to meet
Peter, but he says,
"And I stayed with him for
15 days."
This first trip in Jerusalem
takes 15 days.
Notice what he says then,
"But I did not see any
other apostle except James,
the Lord's brother."
Student: 
>
Prof: Is that Jesus'
brother?
Yes, somebody said.
 
According to Roman Catholic
tradition Jesus didn't have any
brothers,
but according to the New
Testament he did have brothers
and maybe sisters,
according to some manuscripts.
 
James is called the brother of
Jesus in the Book of Acts.
Don't confuse this with James,
son of Zebedee who was one of
the twelve apostles,
that's a different James.
There are several James'
because it was a very common
name in the ancient world.
 
You know of course,
"James"
is just the Anglicization of
Jacob,
so it's actually Jacob
in the Greek and that's the word
it is.
 
It becomes "James"
in English.
"James, the Lord's brother.
 
In what I'm writing to you
before God I do not lie."
What--why does Paul have his
panties in a wad?
Confirming that he only was
there fifteen days,
and he only saw Peter and
James.
I swear it, I swear it,
I swear it.
"Then I went into the
regions of Syria and
Cilicia."
 
Why do you think he went to
Cilicia?
Student:  To
>
Prof: That's where
Tarsus is.
Maybe that's a clue that he
actually was from Tarsus,
although Paul doesn't ever tell
us he's from Tarsus,
so we don't know that's his
hometown from him but that's
what Acts says is his hometown.
 
So maybe he went to Tarsus,
we don't know.
He just says he went to Syria.
 
I was still unknown by sight to
the churches of Judea that are
in Christ;
they only heard it said,
"The one who formerly was
persecuting us is now
proclaiming the faith he once
tried to destroy.
And they glorified God.
 
"I was not known by
sight,"--
they heard my reputation,
they heard that I had
persecuted followers of Jesus,
but nobody, no follower of
Jesus in Judea knew what I
looked like except Peter and
James.
 
He swears it, he's very adamant.
 
"Then after fourteen
years," so we have a
fourteen year period of time,
"I went up again with
Barnabas,
taking Titus along with me;
I went up in response to a
revelation."
Why does he say he went up in
response to a revelation?
Anybody have an idea?
 
Yes, no.
 
As we'll see throughout this
letter, Paul wants to make it
very clear that he is not
playing second fiddle to anybody
in Jerusalem.
 
He didn't get his gospel from
those disciples,
he didn't get it from Peter and
James,
he got it straight from Jesus,
he didn't check his Gospel out
with them at this point.
 
He got it from Jesus.
 
Paul is trying to establish his
independence from the church in
Jerusalem and he's eventually
going to try establishing that
"I'm just as much an
apostle as they are."
"I went up in response
to"--in other words he went
up in response to a revelation.
 
God appeared--God told Paul,
according to him,
"Go to Jerusalem."
 
He didn't go because the
Jerusalem authorities said,
"We need to check you out
and see if you're going to come
to Jerusalem."
 
They did--this was not a
command performance he's
insisting.
 
I laid before them (though only
in private meeting with the
acknowledged leaders),
the Gospel that I proclaim
among the Gentiles,
in order to make sure that I
was not running or had not run
in vain.
But even Titus,
who was with me was not
compelled to be circumcised,
though he was a Greek.
But because of false believers
secretly [he calls it false
brothers]
secretly brought in who slipped
in to spy out the freedom that
we have in Christ Jesus,
so that they might enslave
us--we did not submit to them
even for a moment,
so that the truth of the Gospel
might always remain with you.
 
And from those who are supposed
to be acknowledged leaders (what
they actually were makes no
difference to me;
God shows no partiality) ...
 
Notice again Paul is really
kind of anxious about not
wanting to cede any authority to
these Jerusalem leaders except
as they are local leaders....
 
those leaders contributed
nothing new to me.
On the contrary,
when they saw that I had been
entrusted with the Gospel for
the uncircumcised,
just as Peter had been
entrusted with the Gospel for
the circumcised (for he worked
through Peter making him an
apostle to the circumcised,
also worked through me and
sending me to the Gentiles),
and when James and Cephas and
John,
[this is James the Lord's
brother, Cephas Peter,
and then the disciple John]
who were acknowledged pillars,
recognized the grace that had
been given to me,
they gave to Barnabas and me
the right and the fellowship,
agreeing that we should go to
the Gentiles and they to the
circumcised.
They asked only one thing,
that we remember the poor,
which was actually what I was
eager to do.
Now there's a big question here.
 
Is what Paul is describing here
basically this Jerusalem
conference?
 
Is it his version?
 
It's quite different the way
Paul--Paul acts like it's mainly
him and sort of the leaders of
the Jerusalem church who get
together.
 
It's not--it wasn't brought
about by some crisis.
Paul went because God told him
to do, so they could all just
make sure that they have an
agreement.
They make an agreement,
Gentiles don't have to
circumcised, nobody pressured,
except these false brothers,
Titus to be circumcised.
 
The pillars Peter,
James, and John did not insist
that Gentiles be circumcised,
they agreed with Peter's--with
Paul's gospel.
 
The next thing that happened
though--so look how--what Paul
says, he starts in Damascus,
he was in Arabia,
and here's Damascus.
 
Three-year period of time;
he's in Jerusalem but only
fifteen days.
 
He only sees Peter and James.
 
Then he goes back--goes to
Syria and Cilicia,
and then after fourteen years
later--
some scholars say,
well is this fourteen years
including the three years?
 
That is, is this fourteen years
from his revelation or do we
have seventeen years?
 
When you try to figure out the
chronology for Paul's ministry
in life you have to make that
decision.
I think that much more likely
is this fourteen years is
considered to be fourteen years
after these three years,
so you've got seventeen years.
 
That would put this Jerusalem
meeting about seventeen years
after Paul's own conversion if
he was converted--
he seems to be converted very
early or called to be an apostle
very early.
 
Jesus died around the year 30
perhaps.
Paul--let's just say Paul got
his revelation at 34,
so you would be talking
seventeen years after say 34 or
35,
is when you have this Jerusalem
conference.
 
Then you have the next thing.
 
Now what happens next though?
 
Now, what that basically is
saying--let's just stop here and
let me say, how do you make this
fit this?
How do you make this fit this?
 
Over here you have Paul
starting off in Jerusalem,
and he's persecuting the
disciples.
How can he then say over here
that they had never seen his
face?
 
Were all of them dead by this
time?
He swears they didn't know his
face, which seems to me to say
that Paul is claiming he wasn't
in Jerusalem when he was
persecuting the church.
 
He was persecuting Christians
in Syria.
He was persecuting followers of
Jesus in the Jewish Diaspora,
not in Judea at all.
 
That's what Paul's claiming.
 
And then he goes to Damascus,
he goes to Jerusalem for
fifteen days but only sees these
people,
and it's seventeen years total
is the first time he's seen
publicly in Jerusalem by many
different followers of Jesus.
That just doesn't seem to fit
here.
Here he starts off in
Jerusalem, he's in Jerusalem
again, he goes to Damascus,
but it seems like it's only in
a matter of weeks or months
perhaps.
He's in Antioch for a year,
he goes back to Jerusalem,
then he's in Antioch for a
year, he goes back to Jerusalem
here,
he's back to Jerusalem here,
back to Jerusalem here,
he's in and out of Judea and
Jerusalem all the time.
 
Which one of these is accurate?
 
Or do you believe that--you can
find really,
really brilliant
fundamentalists who believe that
the Bible has to be historically
and scientifically true in every
one of its details,
and you know what,
they can kind of figure out how
to harmonize all this,
but it takes a lot of very
brilliant work.
It's much more likely isn't it
that one of these accounts is
more accurate than the other.
 
Which one do you believe?
 
That's a real question,
which one do you believe?
Somebody make me an argument.
 
Decide.
 
Come on break out of that
undergraduate shyness and just
make an argument.
 
Yes.
 
Student: 
>
Prof: You believe Acts,
why would you believe Acts?
Say it loud.
 
Student: 
>
Prof: Acts sounds like a
historical account,
doesn't it?
 
It doesn't seem like it has a
big axe to grind.
In Galatians,
Paul is--obviously has an axe
to grind.
 
He's going all over himself
saying, "I'm not lying,
I'm not lying,
I'm not lying."
This fellow says,
maybe Paul's protesting too
much in Galatians and Acts
sounds a bit more like an
impartial account.
 
Do the rest of you buy that?
 
Everybody nods their head that
sounds good to everybody?
Yes sir.
 
Student: 
>
Prof: Galatians is a
firsthand account.
I mean Acts was written by
someone we don't know--even know
who wrote it,
but it obviously wasn't written
by someone who saw this stuff.
 
He says he used other sources,
so when we get to the Gospel of
Luke and Acts,
which were both written by the
same person,
we'll see that this author
admits that he used other
sources.
He was not an eyewitness of any
of this stuff,
at least this stuff that he
tells about here in this part.
There's some debate about
whether he maybe was an
eyewitness for some of the
travels of Paul later in Acts,
but at this point he doesn't
even claim to have been there.
As a historian,
wouldn't you take an account by
an eyewitness,
the person who actually
experienced this,
over an account written later?
This gentleman over here says,
no, Paul's account is better
historical source because he was
there.
Anybody else make an argument?
 
Well what about the idea that
the writer of Acts is just
telling a story.
 
Paul clearly has an axe to
grind, not to make a pun.
Yes.
 
Student:  The writer of
Acts >
Prof: That's right.
 
The writer of Acts could be
having an axe to grind,
which is to make the church
sound more harmonious and
united, and all that sort of
thing.
It may also be that the writer
of Acts wants to emphasize the
center of Jerusalem and Judea,
and the leaders there as the
central authority for the early
Christian movement.
And so he's exaggerating Paul's
presence in Jerusalem,
and exaggerating the role of
these leaders in Jerusalem.
That's a good point.
 
The writer of Acts,
we should all know that every
written account of anything,
no matter how historically good
it is,
still has a point of view,
still has an agenda.
 
Yes.
 
Student: Was Paul aware
>
Prof: No,
Acts was written after the life
of Paul, so Paul doesn't have
access to the Book of Acts as
one of his sources.
 
Now the other question is did
the writer of Acts have access
to Paul's letters?
 
We don't know.
 
The basic--it's time for me to
wrap up here,
the basic question here is
whether you decide to trust more
Acts or Paul on this issue is a
historical question.
But the basic point also is to
get you by a very,
very close reading of this text
to see that it's much a better
historical practice as a
historian to not text--
not take any of these texts as
simple straightforward history.
What I will argue,
eventually, is that Paul is
probably telling what is more
accurately the case.
Yes, he has a reason to stress
it,
but he says it so forcefully
and he writes it in a letter,
and if he had actually been in
Jerusalem as much as Acts says,
couldn't the people who
received his letter have checked
this out?
 
Yeah.
 
They could basically say later,
no, Paul, in spite of saying
that you do not lie,
you're a liar.
We know, we've checked it out.
 
Paul's letter,
I would say,
is much more likely to contain
better historical evidence,
but we can argue about that
until the cows come home.
The main point is that you
still have to sift these
documents with a lot of careful
sifting to get any reliable
historical data out of them.
 
For example,
later when we get to Galatians
for some of these things,
we'll talk a bit about what
really happened in Antioch that
caused the split between
Barnabas and Paul.
 
In Acts it's all like,
oh no they just had a personnel
disagreement,
but they parted perfectly in
agreement about the basic
gospel.
According to Galatians,
no, Barnabas and Paul disagreed
strongly over whether Jews could
continue in table fellowship
with uncircumcised Gentiles,
and Barnabas went along with
Peter and some disciples from
James in Jerusalem in saying,
no, not even Jewish followers
of Jesus shouldn't share meals
with uncircumcised Gentiles.
 
Paul believes that Barnabas got
that wrong.
So according to Paul's letters,
Paul split with Barnabas on a
serious disagreement over a
doctrine in practice in the
early church.
 
And again, Acts kind of slides
that over because Acts tries to
make the church look completely
harmonious.
This is historical criticism.
 
Reading these texts just like
you would read any other ancient
text with just the same amount
of scrutiny and suspicion that
you would any text.
 
That's what we're going to do
in this semester.
It's different from reading the
text as scripture.
This is not to say that I
believe reading the text as
scripture is bad or wrong.
 
I believe it's just a different
way of reading.
I think you can come up with
good, true,
Christian theological readings
of the New Testament and you can
come up with very decent
historical readings of the New
Testament.
 
They just always won't be the
same kind of reading.
What this class is going to do
for the most part is talk about
that historical reading,
and when we get to Paul,
when we get to Acts we're going
to pick these texts all apart,
we're going to ask questions
like, is any of this historical?
If so what and why?
 
So start thinking that way,
and then I'll see you on
Wednesday.
 
