Duvduv

In 1 Corinthians 9:5 we have a plural use of those related to the Lord ("the BRETHREN"). Is the Greek term used to refer to actual brothers, or can it refer to brethren of a community?

It SOUNDS as though James is being referred to as an actual brother in Galatians 1:19. In both passages the word follows mention of the apostles, suggesting that the apostles are distinct from the brethren, both literally and figuratively, although the reference to "sister" seems more ambiguous.

sotto voce

What would we do without archaic English?

This refers to Pope Peter's Monastic Rule, who set up The Lord's Brethren while in Antioch. Skeptics have complained that Pope Peter did not set an example, because the very same verse refers to his own wife. This is actually reference to Pope Peter's slave girl, who washed and pressed his robes, and polished his sandals.

Tom Verenna

As of now an eBook is a little ambitious. I am hopeful the publisher will go to a paperback format but I wouldn't expect that for at least a year. The book is selling well and the reviews have been positive (so far), so that is incentive for the publisher to go to paperback but usually that takes a while and they ten to see what sales are like at the end of the quarter. But I remain optimistic that that is the direction they are going to take.

aa5874

What??? Your statement is most fascinating. Don't You use Faith to argue that the Pauline writings are early and authentic???

People here claim that Galatians is early Without considering who, how, where and why.

Faith is the Simplest approach to any problem. It produces bogus results.

Now, As soon as Ehrman introduced Galatians as evidence for an historical Jesus then the Galatians writer MUST be "cross examined" for veracity and historical accuracy.

Once the Galatians writings are NOT authentic and Not Credible then we Simply cannot rely on Galatians.

The Preponderance of evidence shows that all the letters under the name of Paul are Fake 1st century writings.

Galatians is most likely NOT an historical account of the Jesus cult.

aa5874

Please explain how Speculation help us to understand the Past?? Speculation is generally employed by those without evidence.

Your speculative statement is extremely troubling. You "know" that "the deepest theological editing" occured before 150-250 CE Without a shred of evidence.

Now, you date the gospels generally to circa 150-200 CE.

Now let us examine the NT.

If the Gospels, as you suggest, were composed c 150-200 CE when did the "deepest theological editing" of the Gospels occur??

About or After c 150-200 CE.

If Acts of the Apostles was composed AFTER the Gospels when did the "deepest theological editing" of Acts occur??

About or After c 150-200 CE.

If the Non-Pauline Epistles were composed AFTER the Gospels when did the "deepest theological editing" of the Non-Pauline Epistles occur??

About or After 150-200 CE.

If the Pastorals were composed After the Gospels when did the "deepest theological editing" of the Pastorals occur??

About or After 150-200 CE.

If Revelation was composed AFTER the Gospels when did the "deepest theological editing" of Revelation occur???

About or After c 150-200 CE.

Now, NO NT manuscript have been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 68 CE so all "theological editing" of the same very Recovered NT Manuscripts would have been After the mid 2nd century or later--After c 150-200 CE.

Based on the Recovered DATED Sources We have a Big Black Hole for the 1st century--No theological activity for the Jesus cult of Christians---No 1st century theological activity of Heretics--No 1st century Theological arguments concerning Jesus Christ by Skeptics.

However, we have Theological activity and arguments from the Jesus cult of Christians, Heretics and Skeptics in the 2nd century.

1. Irenaeus ACCUSED Marcion of Theological Editing in the late 2nd century. See "Against Heresies".

2. Celsus ACCUSED Christians of Theological Editing of the Gospels in the mid 2nd century. See "Against Celsus" 2

3. Tertullian accused Marcion of Theological Editing the Pauline writings in the 3rd century. See "Against Marcion".

4. Origen accused the followers of Marcion, Valentinus and Lucian of Theological Editing the Gospels in the 3rd century. See "Against Celsus".

5. Hippolytus ACCUSED Callistus of Theological Editing in the 3rd century. See "Refutation Against All Heresies".

Based on the Abundance of evidence the "deepest theological editing" occured About or After c 150-200 CE.

We expected Massive Theological Editing--Massive Amount of Textual variations of the Pauline writings based on "Against Marcion" where it is claimed Marcion Mutilated the Pauline writings.

The quantity of Textual variants is similar to the very LATE Pastorals.

It would appear that Marcion NEVER Edited the Pauline writings. The Pauline writings were AFTER Marcion.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Galatians is authentic or credible and we find that the Theological Editing in Galatians is comparable to writings in the Canon that were composed AFTER the Gospels.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

In Philosophy, speculation is not done based on no evidence, but it is based on the best available evidence. It is basically hypothesizing based on the best evidence.

There is wild speculation and fair speculation. If we find that Mitt has bought a company and the company closed within a month, it is wild speculation to say that Mitt has deliberately closed the company. If Mitt has bought 25 companies and they all closed within a month of his buying them, and no other companies in these cities where he bought them closed, it is fair speculation to say that he deliberately bought and closed the companies.

If we find 25 passages where James and John are connected and one passage where they are disconnected, it is fair to speculate on the reasons for that disconnection and to suggest that an edit was made for theological purposes.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

I would really appreciate a more substantive reply to the question I asked about the Greek use of the term for brother/brethren in those passages.

TedM

no

Yes, and I"m saying that is a very narrow way to examine the dating of Galatians. You are comparing the textual variants between the gospels and Paul's epistles and concluding that Galatians was written later since there were fewer variants. That's not evidence. That is an assumption. A more complete analysis would include examining the who, how, where, and why of the contents of all the writings.

Yes, and I'm saying your criteria is lacking, and your conclusions therefore are also likely to be lacking.


When you have not examined most the criteria required for making a reasonable determination, you have no authority to claim you have examined the "Preponderance of evidence".

aa5874

Your response show that you have ZERO understanding of the meaning of "assumption" and the use of or extrapolation of DATA to make a logical deduction and inferences.

Assumptions do NOT require any actual credible DATA--- just rumors and unsubstantiated hearsay.

We have DATA based on analysis of Greek New Testaments.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

The DATA shows that the Gospels have the LOWEST number of Variant Free Verses in the Greek New Testaments examined .

Matthew--59.9% Mark--45.1% Luke--57.2% John---51.8%

The DATA shows that Revelation is very similar to the Gospels with a very LOW number of Variant Free Verses.

Revelation--52.8%


The DATA also shows that all writings under the name of Paul have the very HIGHEST number of Variant Free Verses in the Greek New Testaments examined.

The Pauline letters to the Churches--68.5% to 78.1%

The Pauline Pastorals---76% to 81.4%

This NOT an assumption--it is DATA derived from analysis by Greek New Testament Scholars.

Now, the writings attributed to Justin Martyr show that a Jesus story and Revelation was known but Nothing of Paul and the Pauline writings.

In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian it is claimed Marcion MUTILATED the Pauline writings EXCEPT Philemon. See "Against Marcion 5.21.

If the Pauline writings to the Churches Predated the Gospels and Revelation and were in circulation 100 years EARLIER and Mutilated then we would Expect more or at least a similar amout of Textual variation as the Gospels and Revelation.

The Pauline writings to the Churches show the same or similar Textual variations as the Unmutilated Philemon.

Philemon is 77% Free of Variants.

Galatians is 76.5% Free of Variants.

This is MOST remarkable.

A supposed personal letter to Philemon has the very same quantity of EDITING as a letter that was allegedly PUBLICLY circulated in the Church and supposedly manipulated.

The DATA is clear.

The Pauline writings to the Churches, including Galatians, were NOT composed before the Gospels and Revelation--Precisely as found in the writings of Justin Martyr.

Galatians 1.19 is Fiction.

The Pauline letters to the Churches, based on the Abundance of Evidence, NOT ONLY Textual Variants, are historically bogus.

The Galatians writer did NOT really live in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

TedM

I stand by my statement aa....

You just stated an assumption about what was known about Paul based on silence.


Your expectations are based on assumptions which may or may not be true.

No, your assumptions are clear: You are assuming that the variants Tertullian refers to in the epistles are reflected in the surviving documents, giving absolutely no weight to the possibility that the orthodox purged the 'mutilated' Marcion documents.

Second, you are assuming that variants are linear with time. You have done nothing to support that claim other than appeal to the traditional timeline of the 4 gospels! But if you apply the traditional timeline to the Pauline Epistles your claim falls flat! So what do you do? You hold on to one result (the gospels) as valid, and the other (the Epistles) as invalid. You reject traditional timelines based on your ASSUMPTION that variants increase over time. You certainly may be correct but to appeal only to the gospels and your argument from silence regarding Justin Martyr is rather simplistic. Again, you are not addressing many many other factors, including the who, what, where, how, and why of the writings of all of the documents that your variant theory can apply to.

What you have done is started with an assumption: Variants increase over time. You then use it to support a theory, but in that you include further assumptions: the traditional gospel timeline is accurate, Justin was silent about Paul because Paul never existed. You then use your assumptions to conclude that your theory is supported by the 'Preponderance of evidence'.

I'm just saying while this is somewhat interesting (not 'most remarkable' IMO) it needs a lot more analysis than what you are giving it.