Why are the epistles useful sources for learning about Paul's experiences?

Answer 1

A:Acts of the Apostles has long been used as the primary resource for learning about the experiences of Paul, often because it is written in an easy, chronological style that does not require detailed analysis. However, New Testament scholars have long been aware that Acts often contradicts Paul's own account in his epistles.

Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Actsshould not be treated as history, but merely an account that serves a theological purpose. It does not really tell us what happened to Paul. We therefore do not know if Paul's original name was Saul and there are good reasons to believe he never studied under Gamaliel or was converted by a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says the three missionary journeys are only a convenient classification developed by students of Acts, and that there is no evidence of this itinerary in Paul's genuine epistles.

The epistles were written by Paul himself (apart from the pseudo-Pauline epistles), and from them we learn a lot about his experiences as a Christian missionary. True, it could be argued that he elaborated some of his experiences, but he was writing to people who knew him and could destroy his credibility if they asked about an experience described in an epistle and he had to admit its untruth. Unlike Acts, written some decades after his death, Paul never claimed to have performed or experienced miracles.

Paul's epistles are not only useful sources of information about Paul, they are the only reliable ones.

Answer 2

A:Acts of the Apostles has long been used as the primary resource for learning about the experiences of Paul, often because it is written in an easy, chronological style that does not require detailed analysis. However, New Testament scholars have long been aware that Acts often contradicts Paul's own account in his epistles.

Many scholars have come to the conclusion that Actsshould not be treated as history, but merely an account that serves a theological purpose. It does not really tell us what happened to Paul. We therefore do not know if Paul's original name was Saul and there are good reasons to believe he never studied under Gamaliel or was converted by a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says the three missionary journeys are only a convenient classification developed by students of Acts, and that there is no evidence of this itinerary in Paul's genuine epistles.

The epistles were written by Paul himself (apart from the pseudo-Pauline epistles), and from them we learn a lot about his experiences as a Christian missionary. True, it could be argued that he elaborated some of his experiences, but he was writing to people who knew him and could destroy his credibility if they asked about an experience described in an epistle and he had to admit its untruth. Unlike Acts, written some decades after his death, Paul never claimed to have performed or experienced miracles.

Paul's epistles are not only useful sources of information about Paul, they are the only reliable ones.