mountainman

What if the oppressors fabricated the entirety of their history?

It would not have been the first time, and it would certainly have not been the last time.

Setting aside for one moment the palaeography (which you are discussing in another thread and to which I will respond there).





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

MrMacSon

Exactly. There is little correlation with other documents. Galatians 1 says Paul's doctrine was received by revelation and from no man.

The Dutch Radicals, and others, have thought they are a mish-mash.

Duvduv

If they believe they are a mishmash or composites, then they have to admit it is impossible to develop a theory of the intentions of the redactors of the letters in relation to the mythicism argument. It is entirely possible that the emerging church regime made use of pre-existing writings and put them together with interpolations referring to the same orthodox Christ they believed in at an early stage having nothing to do with mythicism at all.
Titus and Romans look like real composites to me.......using pre-existing monotheistic-friendly letters with interspersed references to Jesus.

Besides, since the NT texts are always presented as a SET, there is no evidence that the emerging orthodox had any other group of texts, i.e. 7 epistles and one or two gospels, or five gospels and 12 letters, etc. This could strongly suggest that the texts were intentionally arranged to COMPLEMENT and SUPPLEMENT each other in a way that would make lots of various groups of people happy.

Sheshbazzar

Actually Duvduv, significant portions of 'Paul's writings look authentic to me.

It is my thesis that the late second century church discovered a stash of genuine pre-christian, Jewish documents of a certain 'Saul', and proceeded to heavily interpolate and edit these basic Jewish texts to conform them to latter Christian views.
This explains what is missing in 'Paul' (knowledge of the life or works a 'HJ')
Very easy to edit in dozens of 'our Lord's' and 'Christ Jesus's'.

My hope and my expectation is, that one day a stash of authentic 'Saul of Tarsus' writings will yet turn up, and no 'Jesus Christ' will be found in them.

Just putting this out there again for those unfamiliar with my stance re the Pauline epistles.
They were originaly Jewish and addressed to the Jewish synagogues of the Diaspora.
A little Christian abracadabra with eraser and pen, and poof! an instant Christian 'Paul' and 'Christian' epistles.

Duvduv

I see what you are saying. It's an interesting possibility. I think it would be fascinating for someone with creative talent to try to reconstruct the "life"
of a Jewish preacher named Saul/Shaul even in the second century from the epistles and Acts who sought to preach the Seven Noahide commandments to the gentiles without conversion to Judaism. Indeed, we see more of that under the surface in relation to the Jerusalem pillars. Therefore, "something" may have been going on prior to Christianity under the surface so to speak, which would portray the "apostles" as a group or sect of preachers seeking to bring gentiles under the 7 Noahide laws, which then got morphed into the whole Christ thing later on.

EarlDoherty

No wonder some of the people here are so confused about Paul. They cannot seem to understand the simplest of concepts. Moreover, I present a reasonable scenario by which problems can be solved. Is it given the time of day, even to consider its feasibility?

Shesh, why is it so difficult to understand that Paul comes "later" to the faith, as you put it, because others before him were preaching the heavenly Son, the same thing he is preaching? I am not placing Paul prior to the original propagation of the "gospel" or the initial "church". But what was that gospel? It certainly wasn't about an historical Jesus. Where are the references in Paul to the Jerusalem group having been apostles of a Jesus on earth? Where are the references to the Gospel events and figures? Why are you reading this into the epistles when it is not there, either for Peter & Co., or for Paul who came along afterward? Why does this preclude the whole thing taking place in the first century, when the idea of an historical Jesus did not yet exist? Instead of foaming at the mouth at me, why not address the feasibility of such a scenario and my case for it?

And to call upon Acts as somehow a witness to what Paul believed in and was writing about in the epistles? A "chronology explicitly laid out in Acts"? An Acts most critical scholars now place in the second century and which contradicts so much of what the letters state about Paul's beliefs, activities, and relations with those 'apostles before him'? Where are you coming from?

And I have answered your objection about Justin and his silence on Paul's views about circumcision. Ignoring counter-arguments as though they were never expressed doesn't advance debate.

Both you and aa need to calm down, come off your high horses, and start to discuss things on a rational, informed basis. Pontificating at high volume doesn't get anyone anywhere, except being ignored.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

And just exactly where is that contradicted by passages in other Paulines, even the pseudo-Paulines? It is not. The epistles consistently give us a picture of a gospel being preached which has its source in scripture and revelation. Even 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 can be so understood, making it consistent with Galatians 1 and elsewhere (such as Romans 16:25-26).

And if we required "empirical proof" (whatever Duvduv envisions by that) of the existence and authorship of every figure and document in the ancient world, we'd be rejecting a good portion of them. And when one's rejection in the absence of that empirical proof leads to another whole set of problems that may be even greater, well, then we're no further ahead, are we?

They are. And that "mish-mash" is more at home and much better understandable when seen as the product of a range of occasional writings written over a period of years, under varying and evolving circumstances, under different pressures, etc., etc., than it is by suggesting that it was all fabricated by one group making up a personality and ideas which don't fit their own time, neither the ethos of the Marcionites or the orthodoxy of the latter 2nd century orthodox church.

A "mish-mash" does not spell second century forgery with an agenda which isn't even clear in the alleged forgery. It far more reasonably spells an emotional, volatile mind on the go, seeking to bring the truth to a world on the verge of apocalyptic destruction. You expect clear, reasoned and consistent content in such a literature? In my view, the Dutch Radicals and our modern Detering have fallen into that trap.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

You seem not to understand that some people here may think that you are the one who is confused.

I will address your confusion.

The so-called Pauline writings did come later but NOT in the 1st century.

What is that so difficult to understand?

You have not been able to provide a single corroborative writing from antiquity which mentioned a heavenly Jesus that was never on earth and have not provided any evidence that there were Jesus cult Christians in Jerusalem .

You have merely presumed your position.

Now, I can show you that the claim by Christians that God had a Son called the Logos who was the Creator and was Not human is found in the late 2nd century--Not the 1st century.

In other words, I will dispel your confusion.

You have been looking in the wrong century for Paul and Christians.

It is already known that the Son of God as the Logos was most likely a late 2nd century belief.

It is in writings attributed to the Christian called Athenagoras of , c 177-180 CE, that we hear of a Son of God who was One with God and was the first product of God.

The Christian called Athenagoras ALSO did not mention Paul about 27-30 years AFTER

Athenagoras' "A Plea for the Christians"

Marcus Aurelius and Commodus were co-emperors c 177-180 CE.

Athenagoras' "A Plea to the Christians" It is already known that the "spiritual Son of God--the Logos" was a late belief.

The Christian Athenagoras wrote NOTHING of the birth of Jesus by a human mother as found in the Canon, Nothing about the Crucifixion of Jesus, Nothing of the Resurrection of Jesus, Nothing about Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

c 177-180 CE the Christian Athenagoras made no attempt to "historicise" the Son of God.

The same Athenagoras wrote "On the Resurrection of the Dead" and wrote Nothing of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul

Athenagoras of Athens showed that his cult called Christians developed their beliefs without Paul.

The Pauline letters are not ONLY AFTER Aristides Justin and Marcion, but also AFTER Athenagoras.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls, the dated NT manuscripts, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius that show NO arguments against a Jesus cult of Christians in the 1st century.

It was in the 2nd century when we find arguments against the Jesus stories and Against the Jesus cult of Christians---there were NO Jesus cult Christians in the time of Pilate and in Jerusalem.

Sheshbazzar

What precludes it is that the 2nd century writers knew of the Gospel story of crucification, on earth and during the reign of Pontius Pilate and show no awareness at all of any 'Paul' or 'Pauline epistles' or 'Paul's Gospel' before circa 180 CE.

The evidence is that the Gospel story of an earthly, living, and interacting flesh and blood 'Jesus' of Nazareth came FIRST (based on 'Mark' and 'The Memoirs of the Apostles') and that the high Christology of 'John' and in 'apostle 'Paul' were latter developed and composed additions and expansions.
Except that the foundational texts of 'Paul's' epistles were NOT originally Christian, but were the pre-Christian Jewish writings of a Jewish Pharisee known as Saul, found and taken over by the late 2nd century Christianity and heavily edited and 'Christianized' through interpolations and pseudo-Pauline additions, which is why they lack significant knowledge of the life and acts of the earthly HJ of the Gospels.



.

Duvduv

The issue is not REQUIRING empirical proof but of admitting that it makes no sense to speak in terms of events as if they were empirically verified as fact. And this includes the hypothesis that the letters called epistles were unified documents composed by single authors with singular intentions that reflect the mythicist idea.

Again, I proposed the possibility that they are composites undertaken during the process when the the entirety of the Canon was put together AS A SET, and where certain Christ references were inserted into pre-existing letters. This of course does not preclude the possibility of a large interpolation as opposed to several lines or words frequently constructed as PARENTHETICAL PHRASES ("though Christ," "in Christ"), and that some ideas emerged after the canon was put together.

I also wanted to suggest that the authors were not bothered by contradictions because polemics were at least as important, and probably more important than theological or contextual consistency, i.e. between Galatians and Acts, or between the gospels, especially if they felt the texts "COMPLEMENTED" one another in those areas.