Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 05-04-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away!

He must have been the first internet forum poster...

kcdad · 05-04-2009, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Can someone here who knows ancient Greek please tell me what the name 'Paul' means? I seem to have forgotten.

Paul, IIRC, is Latin for "small" or "humble". In Greek I don't think it has any meaning (Παυλος) other than being a Hellenization of the Latin equivalent (Paulus). He makes a play on his name in 2 Cor 10

Quote:

1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away!

Comparing Paul to Saul... "asked for" in Hebrew, The man who stood head and shoulders above anyone else...

Johnny Skeptic · 05-04-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

What evidence do you have for any type of Christianity, or Disciples for that matter, do you have showing any activities in 1st century Jewish communities?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Other than Church documents?

Are you proposing that people today should trust the documents?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Hmmmmm.......how about churches spread out over the Middle East and Eastern Africa from Ethiopia to India dating their origins back to the Apostles?

What does that indicate to you about the truthfulness of Christianity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

They do exist. Now perhaps they are lying and were just trying to cash in on.......big money.......

Or perhaps the Bible writers were largely guilty of innocent but inaccurate beliefs and revelations just like many other religious writers were.

arnoldo · 05-04-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Can someone here who knows ancient Greek please tell me what the name 'Paul' means? I seem to have forgotten.

Paul, IIRC, is Latin for "small" or "humble". In Greek I don't think it has any meaning (Παυλος) other than being a Hellenization of the Latin equivalent (Paulus). He makes a play on his name in 2 Cor 10

Quote:

1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away!

Herman Detering attaches another interpretation for the Paul's description as being "small."

Quote:

i) First the question of the origin of the name of "Paul" requires elucidation. Between Saul and Paul there is no linguistic relationship. The possibility, often discussed, that in the name of Paul we have to do with a supernomen (Paulus = the Small one), is to be reconsidered. In this connection it should be pointed out that in numerous Nag Hammadi texts we meet with the denomination "the small ones" for a certain faction of Christians (Apoc. Pet.; 2 Apoc. Jas). What is the connection between these "small ones" and Paul the "small one"?

ii) It should be investigated anew, why in a certain branch of the primitive Christian literature, the so-called Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata Petri, Paul is identified with Simon Magus. The basic problem found here may be formulated as follows: In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is mentioned by name and combatted. The heresies he is reproached with are Marcionite. And the words that are put into his mouth are those of Paul.

The identification of Simon-Paul put forward in the Pseudo-Clementine literature has up to the present been one of the most difficult problems for New Testament scholarship. There is a series of solutions for it; in my Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? I have thoroughly described the theory of the Tübingen scholars, who saw in Simon a caricature of Paul; today the problem is, in the majority of cases, solved in a most complicated, literary-critical way.

In our search for the historical Paul, the question, I think, forces itself on us more than ever: How seriously should we consider the statement that, for the author, or authors, of this Judaistic, anti-Pauline literature, Paul is indeed no one but Simon Magus? Also in the recently discovered Nag Hammadi document The Apocalypse of Peter we meet, in the picture of the "multiform imposter," with the image-mixture of Simon and Paul already well-known from the Pseudo-Clementines.

e) In this connection the fundamental question, too, should be clarified, how the striking similarities in the images of Paul and Simon come about. A few parallels in the Simon-Paul image that would have to be cleared up:

Simon/Paul tries to please men63
Simon/Paul has visions64
Simon/Paul performs miracles65
Simon/Paul is successful as a missionary66
Simon/Paul is an antinomian67
Simonian/Pauline soteriology68
Simon/Paul as a persecutor of the saints and as 'Fiend'69
Simon/Paul and the Cross70
Simon/Paul and disease/the external humbleness71
Simon/Paul change their appearances72
Simon/Paul in Rome (in reign of Claudius, 41-54)73

f) Finally it should be asked, how it comes about that Marcion explicitly appeals to Paul (as his spiritual father), although the Fathers of the Church emphatically stick to the opinion, that Marcion is connected with Simon Magus through the heretic Kerdo, i.e., that he comes from the school of Simon the Magus, whom again Marcion mentions nowhere.74

All in all, we have before us in these questions a rich field of activity as our task: the search for Paulus historicus as well as—directly connected with it—the traditio-historical problem of the relationship Paul-Simon Magus. This field of activity is in need of detailed studies and a thorough investigation of the details.
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

bacht · 05-04-2009, 12:20 PM

Interesting too that the book of Acts mentions Simon by name (ch 8) and distinguishes him from Paul, implying that there might have been an identification of the two

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Herman Detering attaches another interpretation for the Paul's description as being "small."

Quote:

i) First the question of the origin of the name of "Paul" requires elucidation. Between Saul and Paul there is no linguistic relationship. The possibility, often discussed, that in the name of Paul we have to do with a supernomen (Paulus = the Small one), is to be reconsidered. In this connection it should be pointed out that in numerous Nag Hammadi texts we meet with the denomination "the small ones" for a certain faction of Christians (Apoc. Pet.; 2 Apoc. Jas). What is the connection between these "small ones" and Paul the "small one"?

ii) It should be investigated anew, why in a certain branch of the primitive Christian literature, the so-called Pseudo-Clementines and Kerygmata Petri, Paul is identified with Simon Magus. The basic problem found here may be formulated as follows: In the Pseudo-Clementines Simon is mentioned by name and combatted. The heresies he is reproached with are Marcionite. And the words that are put into his mouth are those of Paul.

The identification of Simon-Paul put forward in the Pseudo-Clementine literature has up to the present been one of the most difficult problems for New Testament scholarship. There is a series of solutions for it; in my Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? I have thoroughly described the theory of the Tübingen scholars, who saw in Simon a caricature of Paul; today the problem is, in the majority of cases, solved in a most complicated, literary-critical way.

In our search for the historical Paul, the question, I think, forces itself on us more than ever: How seriously should we consider the statement that, for the author, or authors, of this Judaistic, anti-Pauline literature, Paul is indeed no one but Simon Magus? Also in the recently discovered Nag Hammadi document The Apocalypse of Peter we meet, in the picture of the "multiform imposter," with the image-mixture of Simon and Paul already well-known from the Pseudo-Clementines.

e) In this connection the fundamental question, too, should be clarified, how the striking similarities in the images of Paul and Simon come about. A few parallels in the Simon-Paul image that would have to be cleared up:

Simon/Paul tries to please men63
Simon/Paul has visions64
Simon/Paul performs miracles65
Simon/Paul is successful as a missionary66
Simon/Paul is an antinomian67
Simonian/Pauline soteriology68
Simon/Paul as a persecutor of the saints and as 'Fiend'69
Simon/Paul and the Cross70
Simon/Paul and disease/the external humbleness71
Simon/Paul change their appearances72
Simon/Paul in Rome (in reign of Claudius, 41-54)73

f) Finally it should be asked, how it comes about that Marcion explicitly appeals to Paul (as his spiritual father), although the Fathers of the Church emphatically stick to the opinion, that Marcion is connected with Simon Magus through the heretic Kerdo, i.e., that he comes from the school of Simon the Magus, whom again Marcion mentions nowhere.74

All in all, we have before us in these questions a rich field of activity as our task: the search for Paulus historicus as well as—directly connected with it—the traditio-historical problem of the relationship Paul-Simon Magus. This field of activity is in need of detailed studies and a thorough investigation of the details.
http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

aa5874 · 05-04-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Interesting too that the book of Acts mentions Simon by name (ch 8) and distinguishes him from Paul, implying that there might have been an identification of the two

I am not impressed at all with the theory that Simon Magus could have been Paul.

But, perhaps Simon Peter was based on Simon Magus. It will be noted that Simon Peter converted Simon Magus to Jesus in Acts 8.

arnoldo · 05-04-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Interesting too that the book of Acts mentions Simon by name (ch 8) and distinguishes him from Paul, implying that there might have been an identification of the two

I am not impressed at all with the theory that Simon Magus could have been Paul.

But, perhaps Simon Peter was based on Simon Magus. It will be noted that Simon Peter converted Simon Magus to Jesus in Acts 8.

Perhaps seems to be the key word on these speculations which, in part, originated with the The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles.Such speculation is entertaining along the same lines as other speculative works such as The Da Vinci Codes. In any event Acts 8 indicates that Phillip "converted" Simon Magnus to Jesus.

aa5874 · 05-04-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

In any event Acts 8 indicates that Phillip "converted" Simon Magnus to Jesus.

You are absolutely correct.

Solo · 05-04-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

As for methodology, the authenticity is established by complex textual analysis, which examines the consistency of language used by the letters (i.e. frequency of words, stylistic preferences, and even scaling patterns).

I applaud the analysis, but all that this tells us, is that they were penned by the same author. It does not tell us that author was Paul...or even a mid first century writer.

The text analysis does not establish absolute timeline, only how the letters sit relative to more or less reliable milestones established by other writings. As for the name Paul, it's a convention based on the writer's self identification. The task would be to determine if letters so identified are from the same author.

Quote:

If the letters were written later, would they be ignorant of the organization of the church?

I am not sure I am explaining it well. If the genuine Paulines were written about the same as the forged ones, they would betray - it is reasonable to expect - some knowledge of a later church and its preoccupations, as do the fakes or heavily interpolated ones. In 1 Thessalonians Paul, without a doubt, preaches a speedy parousia, in his life time, in which the Lord descends blowing God's trumpet and beams up his flock with no complications or hindrance. 2 Thessalonians, the would-be Paul warns his readers of suspicious characters posing as Paul (!!! 2:2) who claim that the Lord has been back already. He operates with a new mysterious entity of the Lawless One who causes the ever-growing delay with the Lord's coming by not showing up for his pre-ordained rebellion and slaughter by the 'breath of Jesus' mouth'. But this hyper charged metaphor and scheme does not look a bit like Paul's Christology. The original apostle Paul's imagination was free of attaching body parts to his risen Lord. Neither is the real Paul's Lord Jesus known to hang about with and use exterminating angels (2 Th 1:7-8).

Quote:

I guess I don't see how this helps establish either the author or an early date. Once you allow for the possibility of a later fake, it's difficult to come up with a test to determine whether it really is earlier or later.

Is it ?

Quote:

One test to determine if it really is later rather than earlier, would be to look for anachronisms. If they exist, then the weight of evidence favors a later dating. If there are none, ...well, this argues for an earlier date, since a later writer who writes a large enough volume is expected to inadvertently introduce some.

Another way to determine if it really is an earlier dating, is too find where other sources have referred to the writings by name. (correlation in text doesn't work well, since a later fraud pretending to be from an earlier period would be expected to be constructed from known historical sources).

Well, there you go - so there are ways to test to texts to determine (with reasonable accuracy) whether they are from the same author and which one is older or dependent on the other.

Quote:

Using the projections Stark came up with (see The Rise of Christianity, Table 1.1), in the mid first century Christians represented about 0.002% of the population....arguably, much too small to have garnered official attention. This throws into serious doubt some of the persecution ideas found in several of the 'authentic epistles (Romans, 1 Cor., 2. Cor, Gal, Thes.). This comes across to me as anachronistic. Detering has argued this is an anachronism for a totally different reason - namely - that it is not mentioned prior to Nero. So we have two independent approaches arriving at the same conclusion - strong stuff.

It would help if you were more specific. Paul makes no mention of mass persecutions. as for his "fellow prisoners": You should know that delusions of persecution are one of the staple diagnostic clues in mania, and the authentic Paul often uses the metaphor of prison(er) to describe not actual imprisonment but a metaphor for a persecutory, depressive miasma that takes hold of him.
(eg. 1 Th 2:18 .....we wanted to come to you--I, Paul, again and again--but Satan hindered us. Paul's "empowerment through suffering" is best articulated in 2 Cor 12:7-9 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
)

In the note of Philemon and in Romans the term 'fellow prisoner' (synaichmalotos) points to people who suffer from similar debilitating spells as Paul, which he likens to the suffering (and death) of Christ, and therefore he places them high in his apostolic hierarchy and refers to them as his 'kin'.

The prison metaphor does not come from Paul alone. 1 Pe 3:18-19 deploys it: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison So does Revelation: 2:10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Later, the original 'martyrdom' which meant witnessing Christ's suffering through the mortification of flesh in the earliest Pauline communities, gave way to a new meaning. The martyrs went out and 'proved' their faith by voluntary acts of self-sacrifice in defying the earthly authority. This is where the legend of Peter & Paul's martyrdom in Rome probably sprang up.

Quote:

Ok, so we have some strong evidnece that at least portions of the 'genuine' epistles come from a later time period. We also know that ~half the epistles are later fakes. What then is the argument for an earlier dating? Establishing an early date is critical to establishing that a mid-1st century Paul is the real author.

I would say the strongest argument is that the core of the 'genuine' Paul is deeply at variance with the latter Church theology. The physicality of the later gospel Jesus is completely alien to Paul. It is not that he does not know it but that he rejects it. (2 Cr 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more. ). I can't imagine the creating "Paul" at a time when the half of what gospel Jesus says and does can in one way or another be related back to Paul. Paul fought with the Nazarene sectaries in Jerusalem over their messianic kingdom for Israel. He told them that it was not going to happen. He told them that God sent the messiah to redeem humanity from sin. He was killed by men (as ordained). God does not save what is perishable. But if you believe and behave accordingly, heaven of Jesus awaits you. It is inconceivable to me that Mark could have written his Passion gospel without being familar with that dispute, and siding with Paul. That establishes Paul as earlier than Mark.

Quote:

Can someone here who knows ancient Greek please tell me what the name 'Paul' means? I seem to have forgotten.

here.

Jiri

kcdad · 05-04-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Johnny Skeptic;
Are you proposing that people today should trust the documents?

Nope.

Quote:

What does that indicate to you about the truthfulness of Christianity?

Nothing.

Quote:

Or perhaps the Bible writers were largely guilty of innocent but inaccurate beliefs and revelations just like many other religious writers were.

Absolutely a possibility, maybe even probability.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.