Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
Perhaps the gaps is cuz whoever the author of Luke/Acts was, who admits to gathering information, just didn't have the necessary info in the piles he was working from, and left us hanging about the fate of Paul because he was lacking that info. The scholars just need to apply Occam's razor, and stop jumping to hordes of unsolvable assumptions. That seems to be the simplest answer to lacks in Acts.
|
Yes well as Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler. What about the possibility that Luke knew more than he was saying in some places and less than he was saying in others?
I've shown evidence that the purpose of the book known as The Acts of the Apostles is not to recount the stories of the Apostles. Nor is it to tell us how the churches were founded.
Whatever Luke's purpose was, if the facts didn't support his thesis he may have suppressed them. A critical reader should be alert for evidence in the text of that possibility.
The narrator recounts the stories from the omniscient point of view. The author may also make assertions that go beyond knowledge or even the possibility of knowledge.
In any case, it seems to me, before we apply Occam's razor, we need to ascertain what the author's purpose is in this book. Do we not?