When Did Paul Return to Jerusalem?

I have yet one more thing to address concerning Paul in Damascus before I go on to discuss his stay in Jerusalem. How long was Saul (Paul) away from Jerusalem? Paul says in Galatians 1:17-18 that he didn’t return to Jerusalem for about 3 years after leaving there to arrest believers at Damascus. Yet, some critics seem to believe that Luke contradicts Paul making it seem like he returns to Jerusalem almost immediately after his conversion. Is this true?

 

Yet Another Contradiction in Damascus?

Before going on to other matters in Acts, I would like to mention one more place that some modern critics point to in their efforts to show disagreement between Luke and Paul. As we have seen thus far, these “contradictions” are really points of misunderstanding whereby the modern critics have read incongruities into the text, and that mentioned below will be no different. One must be very careful not to take a matter for granted when the text isn’t clearly stating one’s presumption.

 

Do We Rescue Luke at Paul’s Expense?

There seems to be a growing number of folks who believe Luke contradicts Paul and ancient history concerning events surrounding Paul’s conversion. Some even claim that in order to rescue Acts we must sacrifice Paul’s credibility on matters that pertain to his own life. Are the critics correct, or are they simply addressing these matters with some preconceived notions of what things were like back in the first century Middle East?

 

Does Paul Contradict Luke in Damascus?

Recently, I’ve been running across websites that claim Luke and Paul disagree concerning the events surrounding Paul’s conversion. Some critics say Paul’s vision was in, not on the road to, Damascus. I don’t know what difference that would make, if it were true, except to undermine the Scriptures’ claim that they are the word of God for us and aren’t contradictory within the text. Nevertheless, little things like these keep jumping out at me as I study the book of Acts and read what others say about it online.

 

Luke vs. Paul – Truth or Confusion

If the Bible can be proved to be in error, what would be our authority for truth about God? Unless we have certain truth about God, all we could have concerning an unseen God would be pure conjecture. Isn’t that so? It would be something like—your guess is as good as mine. Who could authoritatively tell us what God is really like, and who could prove that the false prophet is… well, false? I’ve been reading various websites that concern themselves with disproving the word of God by presuming contradictions in Paul’s conversion either within Luke’s three accounts of the event or between Acts 9 and Paul’s letters, especially Galatians. I thought it would be fun if we dwelt upon these things for a few blog-posts.

 

Paul’s Vision on the Road to Damascus

In recent years textual criticism has placed in doubt in the minds of some what actually took place on the road to Damascus. In a short essay (found HERE) John Dominic Crossan has taken issue with Paul’s vision of Jesus as recorded in Acts – where it took place, how long Paul was away from Jerusalem and who threatened Paul’s life in Damascus that he was saved by the brethren secretly letting him down through a window in the city wall under the cover of night to make his escape to Jerusalem (Acts 9:25).

 

Thousands and Thousands of Errors!

When I first learned that there were about 200,000 errors in the early manuscripts of the New Testament or variants in the texts as they compared with other manuscripts of the Bible, I wondered how one could conclude we have an accurate Bible today. Then I read the fine print. Never overlook the fine print when making an important decision. It may contain the most important data one needs in order to make an informed decision about that very important matter at hand.

 

To Whom Did Mark Write his Gospel?

If we are to believe the testimonies of Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria that Mark wrote out Peter’s Gospel for the Roman Christians, could it be reasonably shown within the Gospel that this is true? The answer to this question is “Yes, and no!” There is no direct evidence within Mark that shows his labor was spent upon Roman believers, but there is some very good indirect evidence that implies Mark’s Gospel was written with the Roman believer in mind.

 

Whose is Mark’s Gospel?

What we know to be the Gospel of Mark is not signed, and neither is there any direct internal evidence linking the Gospel to any individual. However, does this mean the work is truly anonymous? That is, do we have no reasonable idea of who its author is? The answer to this question largely depends upon your personal bias. If one completely rejects early testimony of its authorship and clings to modern criticism stating the author is unknown, then for you the author cannot be known. However, if you are willing to accept ancient testimony as evidence of its authorship, then one can be reasonably certain that John Mark, Peter’s assistant, wrote the Gospel we know by his name.

 

Who Wrote Mark’s Gospel?

Often scholars criticize the Greek syntax in the Gospel of Mark, concluding that the author of Mark didn’t know Greek very well. However, if one were to consider the syntax from a Semitic viewpoint, one would find that the order of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) verbs is preserved in Mark’s Gospel implying that the author translated it from the Hebrew (or Aramaic). In fact, the late Dr. Robert L. Lindsey,[1] when he attempted to translate the Gospel of Mark from the Greek to Hebrew, discovered that what had been poor Greek syntax had surprisingly become good Hebrew! Therefore, it would seem that at least Mark’s Gospel is not the result of a Gentile church writing down an oral tradition long after the Jewish Messiah had died and rose from the dead. Rather, it seems to be a very literal translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic original into the Greek, completely lacking an independent point of view. The Greek of Mark is completely dependent upon a Semitic mother tongue, which preserves the original Hebrew/Aramaic syntax and idiom, making the Greek clumsy with poor word order.

 

Mark and the Other Synoptics

What makes a “Q” Gospel necessary? All scholars admit that there is absolutely no hard evidence for Q. Some scholars are uncomfortable with Q and actually prefer replacing it with a “Mark First” position. Nevertheless, if an oral tradition is presumed, there is absolutely no reason not to allow any one of the Gospel narratives to be the first written account. A known “oral” tradition makes “Mark First” unnecessary. It would also make Q unnecessary. Would it not?

 

Did Everyone Copy Mark?

Many scholars (but not all) claim the New Testament manuscripts (Synoptic Gospels) were copied from one another and were probably written late in the 1st century CE—after the destruction of Jerusalem, or even early in the 2nd century CE. If we assume as reasonably true the tradition of the Christians of the 2nd century, that Mark is actually Peter’s Gospel, written by Mark who traveled with Peter, then we can see how both Matthew and Luke could be very similar to Mark in many places without actually having a copy of Mark before them. How so? Well, if, as is presumed by many, the Gospel accounts were an oral tradition for a number of years, then both Matthew and Luke could be very similar to Mark without their having a copy before them as they wrote their accounts. After all, would any American Christian really need a copy of the hymn, Silent Night, before him or her if one wished to write it out for a friend?

 

Who is the Author of Acts & Luke?

It is apparent from the prologue of Acts that its author is the same as that for what we refer to as the “Gospel According to Luke!” Both were written about the Lordship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3; cp. Luke 4:43) to someone by the name of Theophilus. Moreover, Acts refers Theophilus to his former treatise or account (logos – G3056) concerning all that Jesus began to both do and teach (Acts 1:1; cp. Luke 1:3). Many modern critics try to tell us that, because neither work is signed that we cannot know the author of either.

 

Ancient Jewish Literacy Revisited

I believe we sometimes think, because our culture is so advanced with respect to that of the ancients, that they were somehow mentally deficient. Yet, this cannot be shown to be true. People in ancient times were generally just as intelligent as we are today. Some of the foundational rules governing our math and science are based upon the findings of ancient scholars. There are reasons for our advanced and technologically complicated society, but having a greater intelligence than our ancient ancestors is not one of those reasons.

 

Another Look at Ancient Literacy Rates

Many modern scholars will not admit that ancient folks generally knew how to read and write. They assume illiteracy for the ancients, because they have conducted tests over several hundred years of our modern times and have discovered that the more agricultural a society is, the more illiterate it can be expected to be. However, is this a fair test to superimpose upon ancient nations, particularly the Jews? Today, we have grown to be specialized in almost everything. The medical industry has become so complex that many doctors have zeroed in upon a very specialized field, but if one takes them out of their field of expertise, they need to depend upon the information of a much less educated person. A plumber, for example, may be very well educated in his field, and a medical doctor is usually completely dependent upon his advice, as it pertains to the pipes in his own home.