Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 10-21-2010, 06:36 PM

Creature,

Well, You have piqued my curiosity, but unfortunately the Google Books preview is only of one section (pages 114-143, I think), so I cannot really tell which verses of the 14 book Pauline corpus (meaning it includes Hebrews) and 1 Peter she(?) identifies with the "pastoral stratum" (a set of trito-Pauline interpolations on the subject of authority that were not in the original edition of the Paulines, or a re-edited publication of them as a 10 book corpus).

I am very unclear just what exactly she is proposing as far as a publication history. Since the chance of this volume being in the stacks of the local library here in Newton Falls, Ohio, is rather tiny, could you provide a selection of these pastoral interpolations?

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by creature

I recently read the book
Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Munro.

It seems to me that the author is making a good case that even the genuine letters of Paul have had some significant interpolations added, at least so far as concerns I Cor 11:2-16 and I Cor 14:33-35 and perhaps even Romans 13:1-7.

The author also claims that romans 1:19-2:1 is an interpolation, but it seems that that claim is wrong, because some of the rest of Rom 2 refers back to certain sins of the Gentiles . . .

My 2 major questions would be:
1) Is it possible that I Cor 5 and some of 6 and Gal 5 are interpolations, given the following:
1a) I Cor 5:9 speaks of a letter, presumably earlier than I cor, in which "Paul" says not to associate with fornicators, but there is no such known letter, but lets suppose that munro is right and there was a chief Pauline interpolator, who interpolated passages into Paul's genuine letters; the earlier letter referred to might simply be obviously II Thess and II Thess 3:14, in which "Paul" says not to eat with those who don't follow his instructions;

1b) we find in I Cor 6:9 and Gal 5:19-21 the 2 and only 2 passages (I think!) in which Paul gives a list of sins and says that those who do such things won't inherit the kingdom of God. However, the usual understanding of Paul as I hear him explained in churches I visit is that all people, even Christians, are guilty in varying degrees of sin in general, and they would cite romans 7 to substantiate that Christians themselves sin in various ways. Even "good" Christians at times get angry or perhaps lust or argue. Some of them even lie in some ways at times. Paul says,
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

So, is it possible that the same fellow who has inserted the "obey the authorities" passages and "women keep silent" passages into the genuine letters of Paul, has also put in the 2 which say, "Those who do these various sins are going to go to hell," and given that the genuine Paul seems to say, Even those who do these things, which is all of us, who yet also believe in and call on Jesus, shall be saved. ?

Toto · 10-21-2010, 06:56 PM

David - I can see much more in my preview. Do you have a gmail account or a Google login? If you want to try to see if that gives you more access, PM me with your email address.

aa5874 · 10-21-2010, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

It seems to me that the author is making a good case that even the genuine letters of Paul have had some significant interpolations

Understatement of the year. Seven letter word M-A-R-C-I-O-N

M-A-R-C-I-O-N would make the Pauline writings WHOLE cloth forgery.

And what external source anywhere can show Marcion first wrote the Pauline letters and claimed he PERSECUTED faith that he now preached.

Even the a Church writer claimed Marcion did not use the Pauline writings but used the system of Dualism from EMPEDOCLES.

stephan huller · 10-21-2010, 08:27 PM

Quote:

And what external source anywhere can show Marcion first wrote the Pauline letters and claimed he PERSECUTED faith that he now preached.

The Marcionites didn't accept Acts THEREFORE the apostle isn't necessarily who we thought he was.

Doug Shaver · 10-21-2010, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

We don't know that any of them are authentic, they simply haven't all yet been proven inauthentic. But based on what we do know ...that 6 of them are inconsistent enough with the others to conclude different authorship, and knowing that we don't know that the other 7 are authentic, the proper conclusion is that they are all inauthentic.

Where is the failed reasoning here?

For one thing, aside from a reference to inconsistency that is as vague as it could possibly be, you don't say the first word about any evidence one way or the other.

squiz · 10-22-2010, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Comparing Schmid to this guy. Sheesh. Was soll das? Ist es, dass die Menschen nicht kennen den Unterschied zwischen feines Gewebe und Tuch verwendet werden, um Kartoffelsäcke zu machen? Kann man nicht vergleichen die gekünstelt Polemik von Hoffmann, die Erhabenheit der Schmid. Es ist wie Megan Fox vergleicht mit Roseanne Barr.

Why are you writing in German here (and French in a previous post)?
If you want to show off your command of so many languages, you would do better to get someone to correct your grammar first.

spamandham · 10-22-2010, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

For one thing, aside from a reference to inconsistency that is as vague as it could possibly be, you don't say the first word about any evidence one way or the other.

Well, not everyone accepts the premise that 6 of the 13 are pseudepigrapha, but supposing for a moment that you did, what would be wrong with my conclusion? I want to focus on this one point, because it's independent of whether or not the premise is true.

hjalti · 10-22-2010, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Or that we don't know

We have evidence that allows us to draw a conclusion. That conclusion is stronger than about anything else that is generally concluded in regard to these texts. Sure, it's a tentative conclusion, but a valid one nonetheless.

Can you explain why it is not a valid conclusion?

Spam, I just don't see why the existence of 6 forgeries would lead us to the conclusion that the 7 others are forgeries as well.

Let's take an example:

Let's say that tomorrow some German scholar claims to have found Hitler's diaries. We all know about the famous case of forged diaries of Hitler.

So should we conclude, from the existence of the forged diaries, that these new ones are forged as well? I don't think so.

And I think I get your point about not having a "baseline" Paul to compare with. But can't we say that about most ancient works? How do you know which of Cicero's letters are original unless you first have original copies to know how Cicero wrote?

spamandham · 10-22-2010, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

We have evidence that allows us to draw a conclusion. That conclusion is stronger than about anything else that is generally concluded in regard to these texts. Sure, it's a tentative conclusion, but a valid one nonetheless.

Can you explain why it is not a valid conclusion?

Spam, I just don't see why the existence of 6 forgeries would lead us to the conclusion that the 7 others are forgeries as well.

Because they are all of the same form, and all arrived to us via the same source. If every single thing that someone tells you that you are able to independently verify turns out to be a lie, isn't the proper conclusion that you are talking to a compulsive liar and should presume that nothing they tell you is true?

Quote:

Let's take an example:

Let's say that tomorrow some German scholar claims to have found Hitler's diaries. We all know about the famous case of forged diaries of Hitler.

So should we conclude, from the existence of the forged diaries, that these new ones are forged as well? I don't think so.

You are ignoring the document styles and source. All the letters came to us via the same source, they were all attributed to Paul, and they all pretend to be personal letters. The proper analogy would be, suppose we discovered a cache of 13 Hitler diaries. The diaries all include a similar table of contents and index. Among them, we are able to confirm that 6 are forgeries. Is it sensible to even consider that the other 7 might be actual Hitler diaries?

This is bordering on insanity.

Quote:

And I think I get your point about not having a "baseline" Paul to compare with. But can't we say that about most ancient works? How do you know which of Cicero's letters are original unless you first have original copies to know how Cicero wrote?

I really don't know anything about Cicero's letters, so I can't say anything about them.

But in the case of Paul's letters:
- All 13 were historically attributed to Paul
- All 13 are of similar form; personal letters from Paul to {X}
- All 13 came to us from the same source
- 6 of the 13 are widely accepted by the experts as fakes

We could discuss anachronisms and other internal inconsistencies within the 'authentic' epistles, but this seems to me a distraction, since it is already valid to conclude that the entire set is fake.

mountainman · 10-22-2010, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

We could discuss anachronisms and other internal inconsistencies within the 'authentic' epistles, but this seems to me a distraction, since it is already valid to conclude that the entire set is fake.

Suppose for the sake of the argument that it is valid to conclude that the entire set is fake. How does this conclusion reflect upon the integrity and assurances of Eusebius who, after all is said and done, is the one and only "historian" upon which everyone must rely for this information concerning the authorship of the books of the new testament canon. Did Eusebius get his "historical facts" wrong or something?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2010, 06:56 PM	#32
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	David - I can see much more in my preview. Do you have a gmail account or a Google login? If you want to try to see if that gives you more access, PM me with your email address.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.