Acts 21:25 "taken to be an interpolation"

[Shermana]

The "reasons" are self explanatory. Do you really think that Christians were converted into the Torah law? That means all the people eating crustaceans, pork, etc., were expected to completely give up those customs, it doesn't make sense.

Yes. You've said it doesn't make sense several times on this, and you have yet to substantiate why.

That's pretty insulting to the scholars who have put serious effort into analyzing scripture, looking for any contradictions or discrepancies

How so?

"Liberal" scholars? What does that even mean? It certainly doesn't add credibility to Biblical criticism simply because it is non-church/belief aligned.

Conservative scholars use the epithet "liberal" to secular non-church aligned scholars. It actually does affect the credibility depending on how one interprets the evidence. For instance, if a Church aligned scholar like James Moffat agrees that Ephesians is a forgery, or if Trinitarian scholar Edgar Goodspeed says that Romans was a patchwork of other epistles, it speaks volumes, and they are often dismissed as "Liberals" by many Conservative Christians because of their views. However, if a traditionalist Christian supports the orthodox party line without adding anything new to the table except to add their word to the weight of those in agreement, it also speaks volumes.

I'm not basing my opinion off of a majority or church view, I'm basing it off logic

On this topic here, logic should suggest that the "Grand majority" of scholars who CURRENTLY disagree with this assessment are not adding anything to the table but merely trying to tip the scales with the weight of their vote. In a situation like this, it's logical to conclude that they're scrambling to oppose the well reasoned opinions of the Tubingeners and others with such an opinion (The Tubingen school had some excellent opinions that have yet to be actually countered, most is just swept under the mat and written off as "liberal") using their vote-weight without addressing the actual reasons.

What is an "orthodox Conservative"?

A traditionalist who supports the traditional party line regarding the Scriptural works and the historicity, in this definition.

Yes, but only logical to a certain point, especially when there is no actual historical evidence to back up your claims[

There's no historical evidence to suggest the Council of Jerusalem ever happened, or that the Books weren't interpolated or redacted. To assume that the history of the books is not in dispute just because they made the versions written well after the 1st century is not logical.

With that said, if you want to get into "no actual historical evidence", I hope you're ready to apply that to all of your Christian beliefs, and try to explain how the New Testament is historically accurate by its own accord. Because "historical evidence" is not exactly on the side of the orthodox. What we have historical evidence of is what people said about things that were codified centuries after the supposed events in question. What we do know is that it's most likely that Galatians 2 clashes with the account of the Council of Jerusalem, even hardline Orthodox Conservative scholar F.F. Bruce tries to downplay this by saying the episode in Galatians 2 is referring to a later event, though he has few supporters on this view.

So feel free to explain why the Book of Acts should be considered to be based on historical evidence and why it was necessarily written before the first century.

And of course, there's apparently discrepancies.

Historians believe that the author of Acts did not have access to a collection of Paul's letters. One piece of evidence suggesting this is that, although half of Acts centers on Paul, Acts never directly quotes from the Pauline epistles nor does it even mention Paul writing letters. Discrepancies between the Pauline epistles and Acts would further support the conclusion that the author of Acts did not have access to those epistles when composing Acts.[7][8]

Some feel that the text of Acts shows evidence of having used the Jewish historian Josephus as a source (in which case it would have to have been written sometime after 94 AD).[10] For example, R. I. Pervo dates Acts to the first quarter of the 2nd century.[11]

The question of what constitutes historical evidence on this matter can be discussed on the reasons behind the Tubingen schools' opinion on this matter. I'd copy and paste but I can't with google books.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then why were so many early Christians not Torah True, if your theory is correct there would have been more Torah True Xians, spreading out of Israel, it would have been the "standard " version of Xianity, is there any evidence of that?

 

[Shermana]

Then why were so many early Christians not Torah True, if your theory is correct there would have been more Torah True Xians, spreading out of Israel, it would have been the "standard " version of Xianity, is there any evidence of that?

The original Christians were, according to the text itself, the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch (not the later church of Antioch) under James and Peter's leadership, and without those verses in suspect in the question, nothing indicates that they taught anything but such. What the Tubingen school and others are saying is that gentiles later interpolated such things into the text to branch off the widespread Christian movement to de-Judaize.

What we know is that there was virtually no distinction between Christians and Jews among the gentiles until much later, perhaps well after the destruction of Jerusalem, 40-60 years after the initial Church.

Anti-Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity commenced its existence in the 1st century as a sect within Judaism, so-called Jewish Christianity. It was seen as such by the early Christians, as well as Jews in general. The wider Roman administration most likely would not have understood any distinction. Historians debate whether or not the Roman government distinguished between Christians and Jews prior to Nerva's modification of the Jewish Tax in 96. From then on, practising Jews paid the tax; Christians did not.[7] Christianity is based on Jewish monotheism, scriptures (generally the Septuagint or Targum translations of the Hebrew Bible), liturgy, and morality.

My personal guess is that Marcion and his prototypes/predecessors initially were responsible for the de-judaizing of Christianity around the turn of the 2nd century after the Jewish Christians had been mostly displaced and killed, yet the idea of the Jewish Messiah was still a major selling point. As well as the later proto-Gnostic groups like Sethians and Cainites. (Though the earliest known Gnostics were most likely Jewish Christians, James was called "Jacob the Gnostic" in the Talmud).

 

[Desert Snake]

As well as the later proto-Gnostic groups like Sethians and Cainites. (Though the earliest known Gnostics were most likely Jewish Christians, James was called "Jacob the Gnostic" in the Talmud).

What does that mean, what are the implications of that, in your opinion

 

[Shermana]

What does that mean, what are the implications of that, in your opinion

These later Gnostic groups basically thought everything about the Jewish god and Judaism was bad. They may have very well been the dominant form of "Christianity" in the early 2nd century, with the emerging gentile "orthodox" Christians not gaining regional supremacy until after the 3rd century. They may have strongly contributed to the trend of associating Christian Judaism with belief in "Yaldoboath", and doing away with the Jewish Law. On the other hand, some "Gnostic" works like those of Valentinians such as the "Gospel of Philip" display no outwardly anti-Jewish signs, and some like the Pistis Sophia may very well have been written by Jewish Christians. As I said, the earliest of the Gnostics were most likely Jewish Christians. So these later Gnostic groups were like a hostile reaction to the Jewish Christian "Gnostic" groups and basically turned the belief upside down to make it more "universal" and less Judeo-centric.

Combined with the Marcionites and whatever their predeccessors were, we see that there was a clear anti-Jewish reaction among gentiles who wanted to adopt the figure of the Jewish Messiah on numerous angles. Some scholars even think that Luke and Acts were Marcionite works to begin with, though that's a questionable statement.

Point being, is that it can be argued that the Christians were pretty much entirely a Jewish sect until much later, when these anti-Judaizers edited and redacted and forged texts (some of Paul's alleged texts themselves are notoriously considered to be forged like Ephesians) to try to break the Jewish sect away from its Jewish roots into a more "universal" belief.

 

[jtartar]

"In particular, the verse in question (21:25) has actually been taken to be an interpolation".

says the Encyclopedia Biblica, volume 1.

Encyclopædia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and ... - Google Books

Considering that many scholars also agree that the Council of Jerusalem episode is interpolated, is there good reason to simply dismiss this view? Should Acts 21:25 be held as an untouchable, indisputable verse in scriptural debate? Or should it indeed be added to the list of questionable, and spurious verses, whether or not its a critical linchpin to antinomian doctrines?

Does it not seem to interupt the flow from 24 to 26? Does it seem to stick out a bit? Is there a reason why this issue doesn't seem to be addressed by modern orthodox scholars?

Was or Is it just a minority view if it made it as the defacto view of the Encyclopedia Biblica?

Shermana,
I have been able to find nothing that suggests that Acts 21:25 should be thought of as an interpolation. This verse is in all Bibles I have, and it is in two Interlinear Bibles. Jay P Green and the Westcott and Hort.
This scripture is what James is referring to, as having been written to the Gentiles, as recorded at Acts 15:28,29.
James was trying to keep the Jewish speaking Jews from being stumbled and not listening to the Good News of the Gospel. What he was saying about Paul obeying the Law, it was no sin to obey the Mosaic Law Covenant, but James was telling that he had written the Gentile brothers what was written at Acts 15:28,29, that they were not required to obey the Old Mosaic Law Covenant, because it was superceded by the New Covenant, Luke 22:17-20, Gal 3:10-14, Col 2:13,14, Rom 7:6, Heb 8:6-13.

 

[Xchristian]

[SIZE=+1]Acts 21: 25[/SIZE]
NKJ "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."
Footnote: NU-Text omits that they should observe no such thing, except. KJV As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. AIV But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.
Footnote: Other ancient authorities lack and from what is strangled. CEV Some while ago we told the Gentile followers what we think they should do. We instructed them not to eat anything offered to idols. They were told not to eat any meat with blood still in it or the meat of an animal that has been strangled. They were also told not to commit any terrible sexual sins. CNT "But as for those who have come to the faith as Gentiles, to these we have sent out a letter containing the decision we have come to -- that they are to abstain from meat which has been offered in sacrifice to an idol, from eating blood from the flesh of animals killed by strangling, and from committing fornication. GW "[To clarify this matter] we have written non-Jewish believers a letter with our decision. We told them that they should not eat food sacrificed to false gods, bloody meat, or meat of strangled animals. They also should not commit sexual sins." NEB As for the gentile converts, we have sent our decision that they must abstain from meat that has been offered to idols, from blood, from anything that has been strangled, and from fornication.
Footnote: Some witnesses omit from anything that has been strangled.


Some Variations in the Book of Acts

 

[Shermana]

Shermana,
I have been able to find nothing that suggests that Acts 21:25 should be thought of as an interpolation. This verse is in all Bibles I have, and it is in two Interlinear Bibles. Jay P Green and the Westcott and Hort.
This scripture is what James is referring to, as having been written to the Gentiles, as recorded at Acts 15:28,29.
James was trying to keep the Jewish speaking Jews from being stumbled and not listening to the Good News of the Gospel. What he was saying about Paul obeying the Law, it was no sin to obey the Mosaic Law Covenant, but James was telling that he had written the Gentile brothers what was written at Acts 15:28,29, that they were not required to obey the Old Mosaic Law Covenant, because it was superceded by the New Covenant, Luke 22:17-20, Gal 3:10-14, Col 2:13,14, Rom 7:6, Heb 8:6-13.

What's "recorded" in Acts 15 is also in dispute here with many scholars saying it was also interpolated later, and I don't think you understand that just because we have no manuscript editions that say otherwise doesn't mean there's no good reason to assume it was interpolated before our earliest known versions. As mentioned, even FF Bruce, hardliner conservative, tries to downplay the widely noted discrepancy with Galatians 2 by saying Gal 2 refers to a later event rather than the same. The widely recognized discrepancy with Galatians 2 cannot be ignored.

http://www.harrington-sites.com/house2.html

Due to being embarrassed over the obvious contradictions between Galatians 2 and Acts 15, many Christian apologists try to claim that Galatians 2 does not equal Acts 15, that the events in Acts 15 occurred at an earlier or even later date than Galatians 2. This dishonest argument is addressed in chapter 3: Sacrificing Paul's Credibility to Rescue Acts.

Everyone should note that part of what James praises about the teaching of the gospel is the fact that the Jews were "Zealous for the Law". That in no way means that he was just trying to tone down the idea that they didn't have to maintain converts. Just the opposite.

Besides, it goes well with all the things Jesus said how the Law, not "one iota" would be void til Heaven and Earth collapse.

To say that God really meant "Til the Messiah comes" when he said "Perpetual" and "everlasting" and "To the thousandth generation" would make God to be a liar.

Jesus was quite clear that those who "break and teach to break the least of these commandments shall be called the least in the kingdom" (In reference to the Law mentioned just prior).

Jesus said the "doers of Lawlessness" would be rejected, and the term "Lawlessness" to his Jewish audience would mean "Those against Mosaic Law", it would be ridiculous to assume he was using some other meaning of "Law" to his Jewish audience.

So with that said, there's excellent reason to believe the scholars who say the Council of Jerusalem episode and Acts 21:25 were indeed interpolated later by anti-Judaizers.

For all we know we may find manuscript evidence one day that demonstrates otherwise. Many passages and issues are considered spurious even if there's no or little manuscript evidence to support it. For example, John 21 is held by many scholars to be an interpolated epilogue.

And here is James Scott Trimm's excellent defense of Galatians from a Nazarene viewpoint.

http://guapotg.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/was-the-law-only-a-schoolmaster-galatians-323-29/

He also does a good job clearing up Romans, which flat out says "It does not he who hears the law who is declared righteous but he who obeys it" (referring to Mosaic Law).

 

[Shermana]

[SIZE=+1]Acts 21: 25[/SIZE]
NKJ "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."
Footnote: NU-Text omits that they should observe no such thing, except. KJV As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. AIV But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.
Footnote: Other ancient authorities lack and from what is strangled. CEV Some while ago we told the Gentile followers what we think they should do. We instructed them not to eat anything offered to idols. They were told not to eat any meat with blood still in it or the meat of an animal that has been strangled. They were also told not to commit any terrible sexual sins. CNT "But as for those who have come to the faith as Gentiles, to these we have sent out a letter containing the decision we have come to -- that they are to abstain from meat which has been offered in sacrifice to an idol, from eating blood from the flesh of animals killed by strangling, and from committing fornication. GW "[To clarify this matter] we have written non-Jewish believers a letter with our decision. We told them that they should not eat food sacrificed to false gods, bloody meat, or meat of strangled animals. They also should not commit sexual sins." NEB As for the gentile converts, we have sent our decision that they must abstain from meat that has been offered to idols, from blood, from anything that has been strangled, and from fornication.
Footnote: Some witnesses omit from anything that has been strangled.


Some Variations in the Book of Acts

Indeed, it seems the known manuscripts can't agree on whether it was 3 or 4 rulings to begin with. Another important thing to note.