Acts or Galatians or both?

[Alien]

In a post which we both seem to have lost, JeremyP pointed me to a lecture video at http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-5. If I remember correctly, JeremyP was using this as evidence of Acts being untrustworthy. Please correct me if I've got that wrong though.
It has taken me quite some time to get to look at it, but I do now have some thoughts. Basically, I think the lecturer, Dale Martin, is reading more into what is said in Galatians and Acts than is actually there. Some problems include

1) DM claims that Christians in Jerusalem would recognize Saul/Paul. This may not be the case. How would people know what Saul/Paul looked like until he came knocking on their door to drag them away to jail (Acts . DM claims that when Paul went to Jerusalem in Galatians 1:22 and was unknown by sigh to churches of Judea, this demonstrates he had not been persecuting Christians in Judea before but had only been persecuting Christians in the Diaspora. Bear in mind that Acts 8 tells us that all the Christians, at least temporarily, fled from Jerusalem. DM's argument seems a very weak argument to me.
2) I'd also have to ask (because I don't know the answer) whether his claim that Paul and Barnabas falling out over whether to take John Mark on a missionary journey is the same disagreement as in Galatians 2. They look very different to me and DM does not seem have any evidence to demonstrate that they are in fact the same disagreement.

[Hope]

Galations was written sometime between 45 and 55AD; Acts sometime between 60 and 90AD.  Are they even written to the same audience, and therefore written with the same purpose in mind?

[jeremyp]

It should be pointed out that the link is to a lecture in Yale's undergraduate New Testament studies course in which the lecture (Dale Martin)r treats the documents as historical documents rather than scripture.  As an exercise, he compares Paul's description of his travels in Galatians with the description given in Acts.  He builds a time line from the narrative in Acts and another from the narrative in Galatians. 

He finds that the two time lines are different although they agree on some points and he concludes that Acts is historically unreliable on the grounds that Paul probably knew best where he went.

Alan here has put together some spurious nitpicking to try to cast doubt on what was said in the lecture, but bI think he's clutching at straws. 

Alan might have a reasonable argument on point 1 except that according to Paul he didn't go to Jerusalem before his conversion.  The thing about being recognised is only part of the argument against this. 

His point 2 is obviously a joke.   We are trying to determine historical reliability, we re not trying to make up a fairy story.  Many of the inconsistencies in the New Testament can be reconciled by constructing a convoluted uber narrative (the traditional Nativity is one such).  Here we must believe that Paul and Barnabas got together twice and fell out twice and yet neither narrative sees fit to mention that.  It is possible, but is it likely?  Is it more likely that each author spun their description of one event in different ways?

[Hope]

It should be pointed out that the link is to a lecture in Yale's undergraduate New Testament studies course in which the lecture (Dale Martin)r treats the documents as historical documents rather than scripture.  As an exercise, he compares Paul's description of his travels in Galatians with the description given in Acts.  He builds a time line from the narrative in Acts and another from the narrative in Galatians. 

He finds that the two time lines are different although they agree on some points and he concludes that Acts is historically unreliable on the grounds that Paul probably knew best where he went.

Yet, can you be sure that Paul's account is any more accurate, historically?  Do you have evidence to show that he was trying to write a purely historical account, and not that he was trying - at the same time - to draw out spiritual truths?

Regarding his not having been to Jerusalem before his conversion, from where would he have obtained his credentials to persecute the early Christians if not from the higher Jewish authorities, all of whom would have been based in Jerusalem?  Where, other than Jerusalem, would the son of of the Jewish diaspora be most keen to visit and study in?

Just because Paul doesn't mention such a visit doesn't mean that he didn't make one.  In fact, in view of the centrality of visits to Jerusalem to Jewish religious thinking, we can logically assume that he made at least one such visit - perhaps several - before his conversion.

[floo]

I don't think you can assume much in the Bible to be historically accurate unless there is plenty of independent evidence to back it up!

[jeremyp]

Yet, can you be sure that Paul's account is any more accurate, historically?

Good question. 

No you can't.  Indeed one of the students in the lecture suggests that Acts might be more accurate because Paul might have been pushing his own agenda. 

The idea that it is Acts that is the least accurate is based mainly on Paul's account being first person and Acts not.  Historians apparently prefer accounts from people who were there to those of anonymous people who were not.

Regarding his not having been to Jerusalem before his conversion, from where would he have obtained his credentials to persecute the early Christians if not from the higher Jewish authorities

Why would he need credentials? 

According to Paul's account in Galatians, he didn't go there before his conversion.  If he did go there, his own account in the Bible is false or, at least, misleading.

Just because Paul doesn't mention such a visit doesn't mean that he didn't make one.  In fact, in view of the centrality of visits to Jerusalem to Jewish religious thinking, we can logically assume that he made at least one such visit - perhaps several - before his conversion.

So it is your claim that Paul's account is unreliable.  Fair enough, that is a legitimate view.

[Hope]

The idea that it is Acts that is the least accurate is based mainly on Paul's account being first person and Acts not.  Historians apparently prefer accounts from people who were there to those of anonymous people who were not.

And do we have any evidence that, though written in the first person, he didn't dictate the letter of Galatians to an associate?  If we look at Galations 6, we see verse 11 says "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."  There are similar passages at the end of several of his letters (and not only the ones that are regarded as legit.), and sometimes it seems to indicate that he has written the last section himself as opposed to having dictated the rest.

Regarding his not having been to Jerusalem before his conversion, from where would he have obtained his credentials to persecute the early Christians if not from the higher Jewish authorities

Why would he need credentials? 

In order to arrest Jews who had converted to the new faith, Paul would have reported to the Jewish leaders of each town/city on his arrival - and would have had to have credentials or some other form of identification given him by the Jerusalem authorities.

According to Paul's account in Galatians, he didn't go there before his conversion.

What it says in Galatians is that, having had his conversion experience, he didn't go to Jerusalem for some 3 years.  Instead, he

... went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas (ie Peter) and stayed with him fifteen days.  I saw none of the other apostles – only James, the Lord’s brother.

  He makes no reference as to whether or not he had been to Jerusalem and the Jewish authorities before his conversion.

Just because Paul doesn't mention such a visit doesn't mean that he didn't make one.  In fact, in view of the centrality of visits to Jerusalem to Jewish religious thinking, we can logically assume that he made at least one such visit - perhaps several - before his conversion.

So it is your claim that Paul's account is unreliable.  Fair enough, that is a legitimate view.

No, I am not suggesting that Paul's account is unreliable; rather, having read your latest post, I think we are speaking at cross-purposes.  You take his statement in Galatioas to mean that he hadn't been to Jerusalem at all before his conversion: I take it to mean that he didn't go to Jerusalem to talk to the apostles until 3 years after his conversion.  There is a massive difference between these interpretations, and I'd suggest that yours doesn't actually match with what is written in Galatians.

[cyberman]

I don't think you can assume much in the Bible to be historically accurate unless there is plenty of independent evidence to back it up!

What would qualify as "independent"?

[jeremyp]

The idea that it is Acts that is the least accurate is based mainly on Paul's account being first person and Acts not.  Historians apparently prefer accounts from people who were there to those of anonymous people who were not.

And do we have any evidence that, though written in the first person, he didn't dictate the letter of Galatians to an associate?  If we look at Galations 6, we see verse 11 says "See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand."  There are similar passages at the end of several of his letters (and not only the ones that are regarded as legit.), and sometimes it seems to indicate that he has written the last section himself as opposed to having dictated the rest.

I think the phrase "so what" comes to mind. 

Have you watched the lecture, or at least read the transcript?

[Hope]

I think the phrase "so what" comes to mind. 

Have you watched the lecture, or at least read the transcript?

No I haven't watched the video, or read the transcript, but I have been in more than one lecture over the years that has dealt with this general topic.  When I first tried the link, my computer froze - but possibly more to do with the computer than the link, and I haven't had the time to revisit it and I'm busy working on an assignment for a fundraising qualification I'm doing (the deadline is 23:59 tomorrow) alongside posting here - and doing all my voluntary work.  I'll give it another try later this week.

[Alien]

...
Regarding his not having been to Jerusalem before his conversion, from where would he have obtained his credentials to persecute the early Christians if not from the higher Jewish authorities

Why would he need credentials? 

According to Paul's account in Galatians, he didn't go there before his conversion.  If he did go there, his own account in the Bible is false or, at least, misleading...

Where does it say in Galatians that Paul did not go to Jerusalem before his conversion? The passage is about his conversion and that he did not then go up to Jerusalem after that, but first went to Arabia or have I missed something (possible)?

[Hope]

Where does it say in Galatians that Paul did not go to Jerusalem before his conversion? The passage is about his conversion and that he did not then go up to Jerusalem after that, but first went to Arabia or have I missed something (possible)?

Alien, jeremy seems to be getting his timeline confused; it's what comes of relying on 2nd-hand information about the Bible