Which instances of apologetics in Acts were "sufficient"?

[2PhiloVoid]

This is an interesting essay on Paul’s identification with the poor (working class) and how he used his skills as a tentmaker to function as ministry. Not all scholars think Paul was a tentmaker, some think he simply worked with leather—but that’s off topic. Place and labor had a strong impact on his ministry.


He Identified with the Lowly and Became a Slave to All: Paul’s Tentmaking as a Strategy for Mission

That's a nice little journal article there, Caliban. I'm going to add it to my ongoing bibliographic reserve.

By this, are you suggesting that Paul was focused on grass-roots levels of doing apologetics and was thereby successful on those levels, which also made him not so popular with the elites?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Deep tissue massaging of the question in the OP might yield:
"Where is Acts-style criminal defense apologetics done later in history?".

An example might be Martin Luther and many other accused heretics until separation of church and state.

Martin Luther could be an example. But you don't think that anyone taken by Pliny the Younger might have had to offer apologetics in the legal sense? I'm just wondering since, if I remember right, even the term itself as used in 1 Peter 3:15 refers to a more formal defense with legal connotations, something that some folks seem to miss while reading it in good ol', "plain ol'", English.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well there was a second post that I was working that I didn't post. Where I expounded on the first one where I think Justin Martyr set the template for what we call Apologists today, where they are essentially "philosophers for Christ". Now that is not bad, but definitely a bit different than what saint Paul did.

That could be. How do you think what Paul did on Mars Hill was different than what Justin Martyr did?

There are some though, that have a different vibe. Like I find the late Nabeel Qureshi very compelling. Because while he was using Classical western type Apolgetics, the fact he told his story, from the perspective of being a former Muslim gave it a very gospel feel that reminded you of other kinds of testimonies from Paul and the Christians of antiquity.

That's interesting to note, Pavel. I'm not familiar with Nabeel Qureshi.

 

[Caliban]

That's a nice little journal article there, Caliban. I'm going to add it to my ongoing bibliographic reserve.

By this, are you suggesting that Paul was focused on grass-roots levels of doing apologetics and was thereby successful on those levels, which also made him not so popular with the elites?

I am not sure how successful he was. It is difficult to know this because most scholars think Paul wrote about 50% of the books attributed to him. Ephesisans, Titus, and First Timothy are very likely pseudepigraphs. The two NT books written to churched Paul planted--2 Thessalonians and Collosians--are also suspected of having unknown authorship. If one believes Paul wrote Thessalonians, then they would consider that church to be a success during the time of the authorship. Thessolonica turned from polytheism, it says they, "turned to God from idols.” The Corinthian church however, maintained members who continued in idol worship.

I don't know exactly which books are composed by Paul, I don't have strong opinions either way. I think archeological evidence would better suggest if early Christians were living in these places. I don't think there is a strong case that they were head significant numbers. I'll look more into it.

Paul preacher mostly to Gentiles, it isn't surprising that Mediterranean elites would oppose his message. He would likely appear ineloquent to them and crass. Christianity was a very minor religion until the fourth century.

 

[cloudyday2]

Martin Luther could be an example. But you don't think that anyone taken by Pliny the Younger might have had to offer apologetics in the legal sense? I'm just wondering since, if I remember right, even the term itself as used in 1 Peter 3:15 refers to a more formal defense with legal connotations, something that some folks seem to miss while reading it in good ol', "plain ol'", English.

I suspect we are discussing two different things, because I'm not seeing how the question follows from what I posted. Since you are the OP, it's my job to understand your discussion goal, and it seems I don't get it.

But to answer the question - yes, it sounds like Pliny the Younger tried to give all the accused Christians a chance to defend themselves before executing them. Pliny didn't seem to be eager to execute Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suspect we are discussing two different things, because I'm not seeing how the question follows from what I posted. Since you are the OP, it's my job to understand your discussion goal, and it seems I don't get it.

But to answer the question - yes, it sounds like Pliny the Younger tried to give all the accused Christians a chance to defend themselves before executing them. Pliny didn't seem to be eager to execute Christians.

Ok. Good point. I've just edited the OP thread title and the OP question. I hope I've made it more clear.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

That could be. How do you think what Paul did on Mars Hill was different than what Justin Martyr did?

Well Dialogue with Trypho kind of really lays it out. Justin is somewhere in the city in his philosopher's robes, where he is greeted by Trypho the Jew who is extremely enthusiastic to meet him, he wants to talk philosophy. Justin humors him, and talks a bit of philosophy but he early in introduces himself as a Christian, and found the purest pinnacle of philosophy in Christ and the Bible. His attitude is very reminiscent of Philo of Alexandria who essentially made a Platonic interpretation of Jewish theology etc.

I once made the mistake of trying to get my Coptic Sunday School reading dialogue with Trypho because later on the book is quite good at discussing Types and Shadows. It's basically a dual between the Christian philosopher and the Hellenic Jew. Justin of course wins in the end, and persuades Trypho that the entire OT points to Christ. But anyway, I was going to have my Coptic Sunday School read it because I thought they would enjoy some Coptic pride, since the Church of Alexandria was the big promoter of the allegorical method in Christianity, and I thought they would enjoy all that. But before you get to that this is a lot of Platonistic type stuff to get through in the early part of the book....

That's interesting to note, Pavel. I'm not familiar with Nabeel Qureshi.

He's definitely, worth noting. I stumbled upon a year or so after his death. He gave one of the best Christmas messages I've heard. Especially if you are blue around the Holidays which I was a bit in the aftermath of my divorce going through the Holidays, without any relatives living in my area (moving from my homestate of California to North Carolina).

Anyway, I tend to share this on my Facebook account when the holidays come around.

On this topic, I almost brought up Father Zakarai Botros. He is a Coptic priest with a 60 million dollar bounty on his head. He can fit in as an Apologist or Evangelist depending on how you define those things. Some Apologists can be very heavy on debating etc. David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics for example.

 

[Lukaris]

I think St. Stephen preaching the Gospel in Acts of the Apostles 7 right before being stoned is as probably as far as any human expression of apologetic as can be expressed ( as in the ancient defense of truth in speech). This is probably as far as a person can go in relation to the Cross. apologetic meaning - Google Search

I think Plato’s account of the noble Socrates Apology: Apology (Plato) - Wikipedia
is a lesser but important analogy to what St. Stephen ( & ongoing martyred & persecuted Christians) and probably falls within what St. Paul explains about what is virtuous or not in Romans 2.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think St. Stephen preaching the Gospel in Acts of the Apostles 7 right before being stoned is as probably as far as any human expression of apologetic as can be expressed ( as in the ancient defense of truth in speech). This is probably as far as a person can go in relation to the Cross. apologetic meaning - Google Search

Yes, that also could be counted as an example, I think. Would we want to say that Stephen's defense was successful or "sufficient" since he didn't convince his interrogators? We know from the text of Acts Stephen was executed.

I think Plato’s account of the noble Socrates Apology: Apology (Plato) - Wikipedia
is a lesser but important analogy to what St. Stephen ( & ongoing martyred & persecuted Christians) and probably falls within what St. Paul explains about what is virtuous or not in Romans 2.

Although not really asked for in the context of my OP, I think it is directly relevant to our understanding of what "APOLOGIA" most likely really is and when it's really being "done." Socrates had a legal battle to contend with and through that defend his point of view. Of course, he still apparently had to drink that hemlock.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am not sure how successful he was.

Ok. But were only really looking at was is accounted for in the book of Acts. So, for the moment we can just focus on that, and we don't even have to focus solely on Paul in this OP either really.

It is difficult to know this because most scholars think Paul wrote about 50% of the books attributed to him. Ephesisans, Titus, and First Timothy are very likely pseudepigraphs.

Yeah, I already am well aware of that, but I'm not sure what this would have to do with anything other than to be a passing, additive, statement.

The two NT books written to churched Paul planted--2 Thessalonians and Collosians--are also suspected of having unknown authorship. If one believes Paul wrote Thessalonians, then they would consider that church to be a success during the time of the authorship. Thessolonica turned from polytheism, it says they, "turned to God from idols.”

Well, I don't know about that. If Paul hypothetically preached to 200 people and only, say, 14 responded (again, hypothetically), would we count that as "success" in a way that indicates his preaching and apologetics involved "sufficient" answers?

The Corinthian church however, maintained members who continued in idol worship.

Yeah, Corinth was a mess. Of course, from what I understand about that cities' reputation, it tended to harbor that kind of behavior. Kind of like living in Oregon or Seattle or Las Vegas. Kind of ...

I don't know exactly which books are composed by Paul, I don't have strong opinions either way. I think archeological evidence would better suggest if early Christians were living in these places. I don't think there is a strong case that they were head significant numbers. I'll look more into it.

It's hard to know, isn't it?

Paul preacher mostly to Gentiles, it isn't surprising that Mediterranean elites would oppose his message. He would likely appear ineloquent to them and crass. Christianity was a very minor religion until the fourth century.

Yep. Those are all good points that play into the overall context of Paul's case to some extent. When there's so very many social and psychological factors for Christian apologists to overcome, is it any wonder that their apologetics may often come up with paltry numbers of converts?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suspect we are discussing two different things, because I'm not seeing how the question follows from what I posted. Since you are the OP, it's my job to understand your discussion goal, and it seems I don't get it.

But to answer the question - yes, it sounds like Pliny the Younger tried to give all the accused Christians a chance to defend themselves before executing them. Pliny didn't seem to be eager to execute Christians.

So, Pliny the Younger asked Christians to "give an apologia for the faith that they each had," right? Kind of like those other legal instances in the book of Acts involving the apostles?

 

[cloudyday2]

So, Pliny the Younger asked Christians to "give an apologia for the faith that they each had," right? Kind of like those other legal instances in the book of Acts involving the apostles?

Earlier than the book of Acts but kind of noteworthy, maybe the questioning of Jesus by the former high priest Ananias is the first Christian apologia of the legal style?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Earlier than the book of Acts but kind of noteworthy, maybe the questioning of Jesus by the former high priest Ananias is the first Christian apologia of the legal style?

Uh......yeah! I would definitely say so, too. And what's interesting is that from the looks of it, Jesus wasn't very convincing, nor was he apparently successful in providing "sufficient" reasons to his interrogators, and we all know what that led to.

 

[Caliban]

If Paul hypothetically preached to 200 people and only, say, 14 responded (again, hypothetically), would we count that as "success" in a way that indicates his preaching and apologetics involved "sufficient" answers?

Obviously the Christian religion was successful--Paul' apologetic was successful in the end. Are his answers ultimately sufficient--probably not. Pauline theology changed early Christianity--some see this as progressive revelation--others the natural evolution of religious thought. If limiting the an inquiry to the NT, Paul is definitely an essential figure in the growth of the religion. Most scholars intuit that the religion would not have grown beyond Jewish settlements without Paul.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Obviously the Christian religion was successful--Paul' apologetic was successful in the end. Are his answers ultimately sufficient--probably not. Pauline theology changed early Christianity--some see this as progressive revelation--others the natural evolution of religious thought. If limiting the an inquiry to the NT, Paul is definitely an essential figure in the growth of the religion. Most scholars intuit that the religion would not have grown beyond Jewish settlements without Paul.

So, do we want to say then that neither Jesus nor any of His apostles provided "sufficient" answers to those they engaged?

As far as Paul himself is concerned, I'm not sure how we're going to sufficiently demonstrate that "he changed early Christianity." Based upon all that you've thus said so far in this thread, I don't see how that is the case.

 

[Caliban]

So, do we want to say then that neither Jesus nor any of His apostles provided "sufficient" answers to those they engaged?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by sufficient, but I think Jesus and his disciples were very compelling to some or even many of their listeners. I also think it is evident that Paul changed the theological tradition of early Christianity by his engagement with dietary laws, circumcision, and the atonement. Paul developed these ideas and won over many believers at the incident at Antioch (scholars debate this however).

When I think of the word sufficient, I think of epistemic justification. But of course people who come to believe anything will feel their reasoning is sufficient to warrant belief. I think it comes down to whether we are talking about justified true belief or the personal accent to belief. Maybe there is another sense of the word that I am missing too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by sufficient, but I think Jesus and his disciples were very compelling to some or even many of their listeners.

Don't you think the term "many" is rather vague? It's not a very descriptive term to use, especially if one wishes to convey some semblance of justification for one's point.

I also think it is evident that Paul changed the theological tradition of early Christianity by his engagement with dietary laws, circumcision, and the atonement.

So, should we just take Paul's word on this? Should we just read in what the nature of an "earlier Christianity" would be from some very tiny sound bite from Paul, one that really more or less dealt with Peter and not Christianity on the whole? Do we want to equate some thing called "early Christianity" with some views from Peter that we don't have any evidence that he had prior to the letter to the Galatians?

Paul developed these ideas and won over many believers at the incident at Antioch (scholars debate this however).

Again, you use the word "many," and when it comes to justifying a point, I don't fine "many" to be very quantifiable? Do you?

When I think of the word sufficient, I think of epistemic justification.

I don't.

But of course people who come to believe anything will feel their reasoning is sufficient to warrant belief.

I don't know that I'd agree that believing in "anything" ---another of what I'd call a universal 'weasel word'---has much to tell us about sufficiency or processes or actual warrant.

I think it comes down to whether we are talking about justified true belief or the personal accent to belief. Maybe there is another sense of the word that I am missing too.

As for this so-called 'thing' that goes by the term "Justified True Belief," I think it's a lot of hoakem, really.

 

[Caliban]

Don't you think the term "many" is rather vague? It's not a very descriptive term to use, especially if one wishes to convey some semblance of justification for one's point.

Of course it is vague--when I want to quantify something, I use exact numbers--it isn't my fault that we have no idea how many people believed Jesus when he was alive.

So, should we just take Paul's word on this? Should we just read in what the nature of an "earlier Christianity" would be from some very tiny sound bite from Paul, one that really more or less dealt with Peter and not Christianity on the whole? Do we want to equate some thing called "early Christianity" with some views from Peter that we don't have any evidence that he had prior to the letter to the Galatians?

I'm not sure what you are getting at--it is clear from the NT that theological belief evolved in the pages of the text. A person can read the text chronological and see it clearly. Some Christians consider this progressive revelation. But everyone sees it.

I don't know that I'd agree that believing in "anything" ---another of what I'd call a universal 'weasel word'---has much to tell us about sufficiency or processes or actual warrant.

That wasn't my point. I am not suggesting people will believe anything; I mean that when a person believes a thing, they think they have good reasons for their belief. This is a human universal, a given--unless the person has a mental disorder. We all think we have good reasons--even if those reasons turn out to be flawed. Then we likely change our mind. This does not mean however, that cognitive dissonance isn't a problem.

As for this so-called 'thing' that goes by the term "Justified True Belief," I think it's a lot of hoakem, really.

That's pretty much a foundation of epistemology. It doesn't mean a person can arrive at absolute knowledge, justified true belief is usually described in term of levels of confidence. For example, what is my confidence that 2+2=4: pretty high. Am I justified in claiming this is a fact--yes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course it is vague--when I want to quantify something, I use exact numbers--it isn't my fault that we have no idea how many people believed Jesus when he was alive.

For my part, I don't think Jesus was compelling to many, nor was Paul. And as far as supposed factual content in their statements is concerned, it's highly debatable that what we have today in the Bible can "count" as compelling stories about the extent to which Jesus and His Apostles were or were not compelling in their own time. No, I think there are some other details and factors involved with whether or not any one person who encountered either Jesus or one of His earliest disciples or Apostles came to think that "Jesus was THE Way, THE Life and THE Truth."

So, sure. I'm not imputing fault to you for having made a vague statement. I'm simply pointing out that I don't find your statement to be clear enough for it to be either compelling to me or one that I'd outright reject.

I'm not sure what you are getting at--it is clear from the NT that theological belief evolved in the pages of the text. A person can read the text chronological and see it clearly. Some Christians consider this progressive revelation. But everyone sees it.

I don't think it's all that clear that choosing the word "evolve" is even appropriate in the context of the Bible, specifically even 1st century Christianity.

That wasn't my point. I am not suggesting people will believe anything; I mean that when a person believes a thing, they think they have good reasons for their belief. This is a human universal, a given--unless the person has a mental disorder.

Personally, I don't find the Bible very compelling on rational grounds, but I do on other grounds, those that pertain mainly to existential decisions on my part that I KNOW are existential. So, no, some people "believe" for other causes rather than just having good reasons, even when they KNOW they don't have 'good reason' to do so by the cognitive measures of 21st century intelligence.

We all think we have good reasons--even if those reasons turn out to be flawed. Then we likely change our mind.

Well, as I've said elsewhere, I think this depends on whether we're trying to touch the face of God or we're trying to send, land and recoup a space-craft from the face of the Moon.

This does not mean however, that cognitive dissonance isn't a problem.

...Oh, you're definitely right about that.

That's pretty much a foundation of epistemology.

Oh, not really. Of course, I can understand that you may disagree if you haven't read the books, articles and/or scholars that I've read. One could read, say, some singular book that positions itself squarely upon the notion of Foundationalism, and that person might come away from having read that book thinking that Foundationalism is not a way to do epistemology, but "THE" way. But, you and I both know (he he, funny that notion---we both know) that Foundationalism isn't really "THE" way. Nor is (solely) plain ol' Evidentialism. But, I realize that since this isn't a perfect world we live in, some folks will try anyway to assert that it is "THE" way.

It doesn't mean a person can arrive at absolute knowledge, justified true belief is usually described in term of levels of confidence.

Not always. Again, the structure and expectation as to what justified true belief is and what it can or should do will depend upon the theorist that one chooses to trust in. I happen to trust various theorists who don't trust that any epistemic mode is concretely stable enough to necessarily provide the kinds or extents of justified true beliefs that a number of folks often think they arrive at.

For example, what is my confidence that 2+2=4: pretty high. Am I justified in claiming this is a fact--yes.

And that would be a pretty shallow and simplistic example to offer to one such as I. I'm confident you have better ones. I mean, if every problem in the world was a mathematical problem of a 1st grade level, I'd think we'd have solved all of humanity's problems by now.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Obviously the Christian religion was successful--Paul' apologetic was successful in the end. Are his answers ultimately sufficient--probably not.

I don't agree. Had they been insufficient, he would not have been as successful as he was. His reasoning might not hold water today, but it was certainly sufficient for the times he was in... which is why apologetics today has a different feel.