Acts 21:25 "taken to be an interpolation"

[Shermana]

"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?

 

[Desert Snake]

It wouldn't affect the Councils decisions on how new converts should follow the OT laws, as exampled by various communities.

 

[Shermana]

It wouldn't affect the Councils decisions on how new converts should follow the OT laws, as exampled by various communities.

Except that, as I've gone over countless times by now, the question of the Councils' historicity itself in Acts 15 is also on the chopping block, and the major scholars I've referenced each time seem to agree it never happened as well. As I said:

Considering that many scholars also agree that the Council of Jerusalem episode is interpolated,

Which explains why 21:25 would ALSO be interpolated. Or interpolated in the first place for that matter.

Where are these "Various communities" to see as examples from earlier than the mid 1st century?

So we can't really use Acts 15's account OR 21:25 as definitive, untouchable, indisputable scripture references. They must be acknowledged to be in scholarly doubt as to their authenticity.

Even FF Bruce, conservative Christian hardliner, scrambles to find a way to reconcile Galatians 2 to Acts 15 by saying it's referring to a completely different event (Which I have yet to see affirmed by anyone else on his side.)

What we see is that both accounts seem to have been shoe-horned in by anti-Judaizers by the 2nd century. And this is apparently far from just my own opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Considering that many scholars also agree ...

<yawn>

... and pointedly not considering the fact that, presumably, many scholars do not.

The description of the 'Apostolic Council' in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2,[12] is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.[13] The historicity of Luke's account has been challenged,[14][15][16] and was rejected completely by some scholars in the mid to late 20th century.[17] However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[18] though this is sometimes expressed with caution.[19] Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament includes a summary of current research on the topic as of about 1994:

In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree[20] as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity—whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree[20] in some such way as those suggested above.[21] An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, "Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the 'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual" [Les problèmes du Livre des Actes d'après les travaux récents (Louvain, 1950), p.70].[22]​

- source

Your arguments might garner more respect if your reporting was a bit less selective and a bit more honest.​

</yawn>

 

[allright]

"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?

The same old line. If you dont like parts of what scripture says, claim someone changed it.
welcome to Islam

 

[Xchristian]

The same old line. If you dont like parts of what scripture says, claim someone changed it.
welcome to Islam

Unfortunately, more serious scholars agree with that view. Professor Ehrman is but an example of the gods of the new testament who agrees with that view.

 

[allright]

Unfortunately, more serious scholars agree with that view. Professor Ehrman is but an example of the gods of the new testament who agrees with that view.

Another spiritually blind man who doesnt have a clue trying to figure it out thru human reason who will never come to an understanding of the truth

Jesus on "religious scholars" If a blind man follows another blind man they will both end up in a pit

 

[Xchristian]

Another spiritually blind man ,,,

I like this 'spiritually' bit, mind!

I was born chrisitian and all christians in the world differ, because of this 'spiritually' bit.

we can't tell if the Mark ending is of the book or not, so much for that 'spirit'.

 

[Shermana]

The same old line. If you dont like parts of what scripture says, claim someone changed it.
welcome to Islam

The same old line, if you want the scripture to say what you want, refuse and ignore all arguments that say otherwise and ignore the idea of interpolation altogether. Who cares what scholars say, if it's in the Bible, it's THERE!

 

[Shermana]

<yawn>

... and pointedly not considering the fact that, presumably, many scholars do not.

[/b]
Your arguments might garner more respect if your reporting was a bit less selective and a bit more honest.​

</yawn>

By all means Jay, please show me some non-church aligned scholars who say otherwise. I've posted that same Wikipedia entry paragraph on this matter before many times and asked about which scholars it's referring to that Mohr Siebeck references, I have good reason to think that this bit

However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[18]

was added by a Christian to that Wiki, so perhaps you can help clear this up with further detail, for all I know, this "more recent scholarship" could just be conservatives, so I'd like to see some examples, especially considering that the examples AGAINST are recent. It seems the reference that it links to is not that helpful on this matter and may even be a distortion of what Siebeck actually says. It would be nice if I could actually find a reference to what he's saying with evidence that this is the "more recent scholarship inclination" and that it's not just some conservative's attempt to downplay the fact that the issue is in question.

Looking forward to your contribution to this matter.

 

[Shermana]

Another spiritually blind man who doesnt have a clue trying to figure it out thru human reason who will never come to an understanding of the truth

Jesus on "religious scholars" If a blind man follows another blind man they will both end up in a pit

Ah, let's just write off anyone, especially scholars who disagrees with us as "not having a clue", because after all, only conservative sources and the church can be trusted.

Because there's no blind men leading the blind in the church among the traditionalists of course. Only the scholars. The bible has never been interpolated, and the authors and scribes have never edited anything, we can just write off anyone who thinks a portion is interpolated as such.

Well that makes debate a lot easier. No need to actually discuss their claims or anything. If they say something we don't like, we can accuse them of just wanting to cut out the parts we disagree with, regardless of what they say.

 

[Shermana]

Now for Jay, if we want to discuss "honesty", let's see how this quote compares to what the Wiki says about it, which I have read many times on the subject and have attempted to discuss this same issue before, usually to no avail for a reason.

^ "There is an increasing trend among scholars toward considering the Jerusalem Council as historical event. An overwhelming majority identifies the reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with Paul's account in Gal. 2.1-10, and this accord is not just limited to the historicity of the gathering alone but extends also to the authenticity of the arguments deriving from the Jerusalem church itself.", Philip, "The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: the Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit", Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe, p. 205 (2005). Mohr Siebeck.

Who is this overwhelming majority behind this "increasing trend"? Is it among Conservative Christian scholars who dominate the field by chance?

If so, then perhaps I should rephrase my point to that it's a dominant position of NON Conservative Scholars who disagree with this view.

Otherwise, I'd like to see some non-traditionalist scholars who are against the position against the Council of Jerusalem's authenticity.

Regardless nonetheless, the verses are still in question and should not be used as defacto, untouchable, indisputable scriptural references.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have good reason to think that this bit ...
was added by a Christian to that Wiki, ...

What a reprehensible piece of bigotry. Can you imagine the response if someone were to write something like ...

"I have good reason to think that this bit of information was added by a Jew."​

... in response to some statement in Wiki?

 

[Shermana]

Okay, thanks for avoiding the question and acting as if there's no difference between Christian conservative scholars (Who do in fact comprise the "Majority of scholars") and non-Conservatives, without getting into detail of who the 'majority of scholars" are or the reasons for the claims, thanks.

 

[Shermana]

And to add, there are MANY times that you can see in the talk page fights, of claims of Conservative Christians with agendas adding entries by the editors, so the "bigotry" applies as well to Wiki editors too apparently.

Anyways, the point remains, the claim that there's an "increasing trend" to view the council as Authentic is most likely among Conservative Traditionalist Christians, and I'd love to see some NON Christian scholars who agree with that sentiment, fair to ask for I'd think.

 

[Desert Snake]

Okay, thanks for avoiding the question and acting as if there's no difference between Christian conservative scholars (Who do in fact comprise the "Majority of scholars") and non-Conservatives, without getting into detail of who the 'majority of scholars" are or the reasons for the claims, thanks.

A good scholar is a good scholar, they shouldn't be overly biased anyway, it's unfortunate that you assume a bias depending on the scholars religion...

Accusing scholars of having a religious bias is not an argument BTW

 

[Desert Snake]

Unfortunately, more serious scholars agree with that view. Professor Ehrman is but an example of the gods of the new testament who agrees with that view.

Lol! So the scholars that I use as reference aren't "serious"? completely ridiculous.

 

[Shermana]

A good scholar is a good scholar, they shouldn't be overly biased anyway, it's unfortunate that you assume a bias depending on the scholars religion...

Accusing scholars of having a religious bias is not an argument BTW

Sure it is, when the argument is solely about the majority of scholars, without listing their reasons, it's basically a tug of war of people pushing an ideology.

How do we know that these in the majority are "good scholars". Does it list their reasons? Does it list who they are? No. It doesn't. And good luck finding it.

When it comes to how to interpret the evidence, one scholar may say "Well that's enough evidence to say this or that" but another scholar may say "no it's not", and with that you must look at where they are coming from.

Conservative scholars are known well for accusing other scholars of having a liberal bias in their views, such as with the Documentary Hypothesis (in which case there's good reason to accuse them of such), and Liberal scholars accuse Conservatives of pandering to the party line.

However, the point of this was that the Wiki article says that the "majority" of scholars accept the Council of Jerusalem's authenticity, without getting into the reasons. In an event like this, it's important to remember that the majority of scholars do happen to be Conservative Christians.

So when even scholars point out bias in other scholarly assessments, it's not unfair to say similarly when it comes to a situation like this.

Regardless, the point is, that to say that just because the majority of scholars view something as one way without citing the reasons that the view is unfounded is just as much a non-argument.

THerefore, it's important to get into who these scholars are exactly.

For instance, if 100 scholars from the Catholic Church all said that Peter was the first Pope, should we go with that opinion regardless just because it's the majority position?

In the end, Acts 21:25 was considered as the standard opinion to be interpolated, with solid reasoning, earlier in the 20th century, and this view has only been challenged seemingly by the orthodox conservatives. To write off and dismiss and deny the idea that 21:25 is interpolated merely because of a large turnout of Conservative Christian scholars later, who have no real reasoning but just want to use their opinion as weight against the earlier, well-reasoned view doesn't work.

We also have issues like Colwell's rule and Sharp's rule where Scholars are divided, yet the majority sides with their authenticity merely because of their siding with the church authorities.

So yes, it's actually an argument to point out what bias a scholar is coming from when it's about appeal to numbers.

 

[Desert Snake]

I use Christian scholars and Jewish scholars as reference, with a knowledge of Hebrew and the context in which the Bible was written/compiled. It's ironic because "conservative" scholars are sometimes the most critical/analytical when concerning scripture.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sure it is, when the argument is solely about the majority of scholars, without listing their reasons, it's basically a tug of war of people pushing an ideology.

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.

When it comes to how to interpret the evidence, one scholar may say "Well that's enough evidence to say this or that" but another scholar may say "no it's not", and with that you must look at where they are coming from.

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

Conservative scholars are known well for accusing other scholars of having a liberal bias in their views, such as with the Documentary Hypothesis (in which case there's good reason to accuse them of such), and Liberal scholars accuse Conservatives of pandering to the party line.

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

So when even scholars point out bias in other scholarly assessments, it's not unfair to say similarly when it comes to a situation like this.

O.k.

Regardless, the point is, that to say that just because the majority of scholars view something as one way without citing the reasons that the view is unfounded is just as much a non-argument.

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

In the end, Acts 21:25 was considered as the standard opinion to be interpolated, with solid reasoning, earlier in the 20th century, and this view has only been challenged seemingly by the orthodox conservatives. To write off and dismiss and deny the idea that 21:25 is interpolated merely because of a large turnout of Conservative Christian scholars later, who have no real reasoning but just want to use their opinion as weight against the earlier, well-reasoned view doesn't work.

What is an "orthodox Conservative"?

So yes, it's actually an argument to point out what bias a scholar is coming from when it's about appeal to numbers.

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