Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 07-29-2013, 01:42 PM

This sounds quite good!

Quote:

In the second part of his trilogy Van Manen discussed the epistle to the Romans.[78] This second part is the most important volume. In this volume Van Manen presented his outline of the history of earliest Christianity and he argued that the epistle to the Romans is inauthentic. It is not by accident that just this second part of Van Manen’s trilogy has been translated in German.[79] He tried to prove that the epistle to the Romans must originate from the beginning of the second century.[80] The Christians addressed are sometimes former gentiles (Rom. 1:5-6; 11:13), sometimes former Jews (Rom. 2:17-29; 4:1).[81] The theology shows a long development since Jesus’ first disciples. Christianity has learned to break with Judaism. The position of the law has been defeated.[82] The persecutions spoken of in this epistle suggest a time after Nero.[83] According to Van Manen all these points indicate that this epistle must be dated in a later time and can therefore not have been written by Paul, who lived in the middle of the first century A.D.

In this second book on Paul Van Manen wrote a chapter on the development of Christianity in the first and second centuries.[84] This chapter is very instructive. It is crystal clear that he thought he had now found the solution to the problems he was confronted with. In agreement with Holsten, Van Manen speaks of a succession of Petrinism, Paulinism, Judaism and Catholicism.[85] Petrinism is a Jewish movement. The Petrinists were obedient to the law, true to the ethics and the institutions of their forefathers.[86] The difference between them and the Jews concerns ta peri tou Ihsou, the facts about Jesus (Acts 18:25) and to khrugma Ihsou Cristou the preaching about Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25). The gospel they preach is corresponding to the law; cf. the pseudepigraphic epistle of Peter to James 2:3 where Peter speaks about the gospel corresponding to the law preached by me.[87] It is logical in Van Manen’s view that the Christians in that period were never in trouble: the difference between Christians and Jews was too small.

Only after the destruction of Jerusalem did a more liberal movement arise. And it was this liberalism which gave birth to Paulinism.[88] Paulinism had learned to go its own way, far removed from Judaism. Defending the value of the law was regarded old-fashioned.[89] The Christians could live under grace (Rom. 6:14). Jesus was not the Messiah of the first disciples, but he had become a supernatural being, the Son of God.[90] From now on it was possible to obtain by God’s grace in Christ what could not possibly be obtained by obedience to the law: salvation.[91] In Van Manen’s opinion this Paulinism was connected with gnosis.[92] The gnostics understood what it meant to be liberated from the law. They held the Paul of the epistles in high esteem.[93] Obviously the ‘historical Paul’ had died long before. He was a younger contemporary of Peter and like Peter he lived within the boundaries of Judaism.[94] Later his popularity caused his name to be attached to the epistles we know now as Paul’s epistles.

It is obvious that Paulinism would have triggered a sharp reaction from the side of the Jews. The value of the law was denied. A new party, Judaism, vehemently defended that everyone should be obedient to the law. Paul was contended because his name was connected with the message of a new life without the law. It was argued that he did not have the right to call himself an apostle because he had not met Jesus.[95]

According to Van Manen the ‘Pauline’ writings can be understood as later products of Paulinism.[96] We find in them fragments and revisions of older texts. In these writings we can see the opinions of different groups which took part in the development of Christianity.[97]

Then a new group arose, Catholicism. Representatives of this new movement tried to mediate in the discussions between ‘Paulinists’ and ‘Judaists’. They wanted to overcome the difference in opinions. ‘This new religion is not to be identified with Hellenism or with Judaism, but it was a really new religion.’[98]

http://www.radikalkritik.de/nashville.htm

outhouse · 07-29-2013, 02:45 PM

He makes to many false assumptions to be taken with any amount of seriousness.

One can simply imply that the original movement with the apostles died when Jesus died.

The movement that exist today started right after his death throughout the Diaspora as people took the legends home with them when that Passover that Jesus died was over.

We also do not know The Petrinists, as he states, were not just Proselytes and Gentiles in Jerusalem who held on to a tighter hold of Jewish law, that Paul argued with. James, Peter and similar are all typical names for the time period.

Toto · 07-29-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

He makes to many false assumptions to be taken with any amount of seriousness.

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

Could you identify these false assumptions and exactly how you know they are false?

outhouse · 07-29-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

He makes to many false assumptions to be taken with any amount of seriousness.

Your arrogance is breathtaking.

Could you identify these false assumptions and exactly how you know they are false?

Did you even read the whole article? :constern01:

It states it for me under that tricky little word called conclusion

Regarding Van Manen’s outline of the oldest church history we must conclude that most scholars do not accept anymore the arguments he used in the books and the articles he wrote after his ‘conversion’.[111] The succession of Petrinism, Paulinism, Judaism and Catholicism cannot be upheld. On the contrary, we think we know now that at the very beginning of Christianity a surprising diversity could be found in the Christian communities.[112] These different movements, whatever they may be called, existed next to one another, not necessarily after one another. The way Van Manen described the history of oldest Christianity made the conclusion inevitable that the ‘Pauline’ epistles were inauthentic. This outline of the history of the early church and consequently the inauthenticity of the Pauline epistles are the identifying marks of the Dutch Radicals.

Toto · 07-29-2013, 04:11 PM

So the winds of scholarly opinion have shifted on this issue. Does this invalidate all of van Manem's work, so that no one has to take him seriously? Did you miss the many positive references in the article?

outhouse · 07-29-2013, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So the winds of scholarly opinion have shifted on this issue.

First these are not winds as you so call them. Is this your personal bias for Price showing again?

His methodology was shown to be faulty with more current research on the topic at hand.

Quote:

Does this invalidate all of van Manem's work, so that no one has to take him seriously?

Definitely. What points did he make that are still considered valid from the nineteenth century?

Good lord, you could follow Herman Detering and Price if you wanted a modern version of radical Pauline scholarships.

Toto · 07-29-2013, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

...

His methodology was shown to be faulty with more current research on the topic at hand.

What methodology? Who showed it to be "faulty?"

Quote:

Does this invalidate all of van Manem's work, so that no one has to take him seriously?

Definitely. What points did he make that are still considered valid from the nineteenth century?

Good lord, you could follow Herman Detering and Price if you wanted a modern version of radical Pauline scholarships.

Or you could actually look at the arguments and judge for yourself.

Clivedurdle · 07-30-2013, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Regarding Van Manen’s outline of the oldest church history we must conclude that most scholars do not accept anymore the arguments he used in the books and the articles he wrote after his ‘conversion’.[111] The succession of Petrinism, Paulinism, Judaism and Catholicism cannot be upheld. On the contrary, we think we know now that at the very beginning of Christianity a surprising diversity could be found in the Christian communities.[112] These different movements, whatever they may be called, existed next to one another, not necessarily after one another. The way Van Manen described the history of oldest Christianity made the conclusion inevitable that the ‘Pauline’ epistles were inauthentic. This outline of the history of the early church and consequently the inauthenticity of the Pauline epistles are the identifying marks of the Dutch Radicals.

interesting. I deliberately left that out of my OP because I felt the reviewer was concluding stuff not in his own exposition!

I think starting from a position that none of it is authentic has fascinating implications, for example the beliefs about gnosticism being later than xianity...

Cheerful Charlie · 07-31-2013, 03:25 PM

I find this interesting. Some year ago, I download the ante-Nicene fathers and extensively searched them for teachings on predestination, determinism, and free will stemming mainly from Romans. There was nothing, as if Paul never existed. Not until Augustine did all of that seem to become problematic dogmas based on Paul. It may well be that Paul's Romans as we know it did not exist in the form we know it today during the first two centuries. If it did, its a problem that needs explaining, why did no early theologians seem to know Romans 8 - 11? Why did the doctrine of predestination seem to not interest anybody?

Cheerful Charlie

MrMacSon · 07-31-2013, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

... The movement that exist today started right after his death throughout the Diaspora as people took the legends home with them when that Passover that Jesus died was over.

The evidence and today's contemporary commentary say otherwise.

There are no records or commentary from the first century that supports your assertion/s.

I think these points are pertinent -

Quote:

On the contrary, we think we know now that at the very beginning of Christianity a surprising diversity could be found in the Christian communities.[112] These different movements, whatever they may be called, existed next to one another, not necessarily after one another.

and

Quote:

According to Van Manen the ‘Pauline’ writings can be understood as later products of Paulinism.[96] We find in them fragments and revisions of older texts. In these writings we can see the opinions of different groups which took part in the development of Christianity.[97]

as are Cheerful Charlie's points
.

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

07-29-2013, 02:45 PM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	He makes to many false assumptions to be taken with any amount of seriousness. One can simply imply that the original movement with the apostles died when Jesus died. The movement that exist today started right after his death throughout the Diaspora as people took the legends home with them when that Passover that Jesus died was over. We also do not know The Petrinists, as he states, were not just Proselytes and Gentiles in Jerusalem who held on to a tighter hold of Jewish law, that Paul argued with. James, Peter and similar are all typical names for the time period.

07-29-2013, 04:11 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So the winds of scholarly opinion have shifted on this issue. Does this invalidate all of van Manem's work, so that no one has to take him seriously? Did you miss the many positive references in the article?

07-31-2013, 03:25 PM	#9
Cheerful Charlie Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 3,884	I find this interesting. Some year ago, I download the ante-Nicene fathers and extensively searched them for teachings on predestination, determinism, and free will stemming mainly from Romans. There was nothing, as if Paul never existed. Not until Augustine did all of that seem to become problematic dogmas based on Paul. It may well be that Paul's Romans as we know it did not exist in the form we know it today during the first two centuries. If it did, its a problem that needs explaining, why did no early theologians seem to know Romans 8 - 11? Why did the doctrine of predestination seem to not interest anybody? Cheerful Charlie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.