Originally Posted by outhouse

Besides his undisputed Epistles, he is mentioned by later church Fathers in which we see their work influenced directly by his writings.

Originally Posted by outhouse

So Paul is a conspiracy LOL :hysterical:

Originally Posted by outhouse

I already told you once, provide a replacement hypothesis that doesnt raise more questions then answers.

You cannot, because the man has historicity.

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

All of these authors suffer from the deficit of unexamined assumptions. The underlying assumption, which they take for granted and never discuss, is the unity of authorship of the seven "authentic" Pauline epistles. By this I mean they assume that these epistles flowed from the pen of the alleged first century apostle in--for all practical purposes--the canonical version (i.e. Nestle-Anand 27 text of Paul's epistles). This is a gratuitous assumption.

We know that another version of the Pauline epistles circulated before the middle of the second century CE, long before the oldest extant documents. It is Marcion's Apostilicon. It can be reconstructed with a good degree of accuracy (esp. Galatians and Romans) through citations in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem, Epiphanius's Panarion and Adamantius' Dialogues on the True Faith, and other sources. Which of these esteemed scholars (noted in your message above) has undertaken a study to determine whether the Apostolicon predates NA27? The answer is none of them. They will never get the right answer because they do not even know the question. The history of mainline scholarship has been to follow snout to tail ever since Tertullian. They are following church tradition about the posterity of Marcion, not engaging in textual criticism. Yet we know that of the scholars who have undertaken to study this question, many of them have become convinced of the priotity of Marcion.

Stylometric studies by Dr. Detering indicate that the authors of the Marcionite Recension (MR) and the Catholic Redaction (KR) are different *within* the same epistles. This is something that traditional scholars have never even thought to examine, and it invalidates the stylometric studies that purport to have validated the genuine seven epistles.

Scholars have with great success subjected the gospels and Torah to higher critical scholarship that has shown that the texts grew by successive redactions. Yet for some reason, the Pauline epistles are claimed to be exempt from such scrutiny. Indeed, the institutional investment in Paul is so great that anyone who dares “cross the line” has found themselves ostracized and eventually out of a job. This is not an accident, but a rear guard action, the last line of defense of those who hold to some semblance of traditional Christian origins in the Levant in the early first century. Without an authentic Pauline corpus, the entire edifice of first century Christianity unravels, and we must cut anchor and look to the second century CE.

To illustrate my point, I am going to ask you, outhouse to provide the objective criteria by which one might surely identify the "authentic" Pauline epistles from the other Pauline epistles that are admittedly inauthentic.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't know what your problem is here. There are many replacement hypotheses, such as the Dutch Radicals, that are at least as credible as the standard hypothesis.

I would call all of the church fathers propagandists. Robert M. Price calls them spin doctors. They are not a source of objectivity or truth.

Originally Posted by outhouse

Dutch Radicals have been blown out of the water, and dont hold any credibility.

Originally Posted by Toto

Really? Where?