spamandham

There are 13 epistles traditionally attributed to Paul. Of these, 6 have come under scholarly fire as being pseudepigrapha. The remaining 7 have not been proven to be genuine, they simply have not been demonstrated not to be.

On top of this, we have well qualified scholars such as Price (et. al.) that argue that the epistles appear to be layered works over time.

Combining these two, it seems to me that there is no rational reason to presume that anything in the Pauline corpus we have originates from a historical Paul, or that it is even 1st century. Some of it *might* be, but it is not reasonable to me to start from the position that it is.

Yet, over and over Paul is used here as if what he (I am now using Paul and 'he' to refer to the texts as opposed to an actual historical Paul) has to say is the end-all-be-all. I know it makes things more complex *not* to approach Paul this way, but we're collectively smart, so why is there such widespread refusal to accept ambiguity in regard to Paul?

mountainman

It is reasonable therefore not to presume Pauline authority. For example see The Falsified Paul which argues that all the Pauline letters are all (at least) 2nd-Century fabrications.

aa5874

The implications of a complete fraudulent "Paul" would deal a devastating blow to Jesus believers and the Church.

However, the epistle to the Galatians EXPOSES the Pauline writer as a fraud or that the epistle contains fiction when it can be found that the Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Church in Christ and that[b] he stayed with apostle Peter for fifteen days before the Fall of the Temple.

Both Peter and Jesus Christ were fictitious characters before the Fall of the Temple and there are no external corroborative sources for the Pauline writers.

And, even apologetic sources claim that there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

The Pauline writings are far more compatible with gJohn than the Synoptics.

Only gJohn and the Pauline writers claimed Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, was before anything was made and was EQUAL to God.
Colossians 1.15-17 Elevating Jesus to be EQUAL with God and the Creator was a LATE development of the Gospels. In the Synoptics Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost was NOT called the Creator.

John 1:1-4 - The Pauline writings appear to be backdated to the 1st century since no source external of the Church can account for the Pauline writings, teachings and resurrected Jesus.

Ketura

I think it's more fruitful from a doctrinal standpoint to assess what is actually said. If we can determine to our satisfaction that a particular doctrinal statement is true, then it's good to accept, whether Christ said it or Paul or some third unknown.

This is naturally difficult if there is no determined "genuine" gold standard. Therein lies the difficulty in relying entirely on revelation given to a people two millennial removed.

spamandham

Welcome to IIDB! I think you'll find that most of us here are not interested in doctrine per se, except from the perspective of how it shaped history. Discussions like that are better suited to a theology forum.

spamandham

Although I found Detering's book fascinating and plausible, Detering's case is nonetheless speculative. It's more plausible to me, than the idea that the 7 ambiguous epistles were actually penned by Paul, treated as scripture within his own lifetime such that the churches they were sent to maintained them, and then recollected later by Marcion and subsequently lost by all other sources.

That scenario does not seem at all reasonable to me, but it's what you're stuck with if you presume the letters are even moderately genuine.

aa5874

The theory that some of the Pauline writings were actually written before the Fall of the Temple cannot be corroborated by any external source of antiquity and even internally, or sources from the Church itself, "Paul" was AFTER the writing of gLuke.

The author of Acts placed Saul/Paul AFTER the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus and NO Church writer placed Saul/Paul BEFORE Jesus as they did with John the Baptist.

The NT Canon and Church writers presented STORIES or CLAIMS where John the Baptist was followed by Jesus Christ who in turn was followed by Saul/Paul the supposed author of the Pauline writings.

Virtually every single event in the NT about John, Jesus, and Paul, except that John the Baptist did baptize people in the writings of Josephus, CANNOT be accounted for in any source external of apologetics.

There is ZERO on Jesus Christ and Paul.

There is ZERO on a Messiah called Jesus in sources of antiquity from non-apologetic writers of the supposed time or writers of that time, yet Paul claimed he preached that a Messiah called Jesus was ALREADY betrayed, crucified, dead, buried and resurrected.

There is ZERO external corroborative source for the claims of Paul.

Paul claimed he PERSECUTED the Church in Christ but again ZERO external sources have confirmed that there were churches in Judea where a Messiah called Jesus was preached among Jews as the Saviour.

Neither Philo or Josephus wrote about a Messiah named Jesus and claimed that Jesus the Messiah was the Saviour of the Jews.

Paul claimed Jesus was a Messiah over 100 times, but Philo and Josephus ZERO times.

Again when apologetic sources are examined the Pauline details of Jesus were not even used by the Synoptic authors.

It is claimed by many that the author of gMatthew used gMark and this is based on the seemingly obvious word for word copying of almost all of gMark but some of these people are claiming the author of gMark used the PAULINE writings when there is NOT a single passage or detail of any event in gMark that can be found in the ALL 13 Pauline writings.

Consider the following scenarios.

1. If gMark was removed from the NT Canon, virtually all of the details about Jesus in gMark could be RECOVERED from gMatthew.

2. If gMatthew was removed from the Canon, over 60% of the details about Jesus in gMatthew could be recovered from gMark.

3. If there were only the Pauline writings in the NT Canon, the details about Jesus in gMatthew and gMark could NOT be recovered.

4. If the ALL the Pauline writings were removed from the NT Canon, then most of the SPARSE details about Jesus in the Pauline writings could be RECOVERED from gMark or any Gospel including gJohn.

So, if it is theorized that gMatthew is a copy of gMark, then it is completely illogical or completely flawed that gMark is a copy of any Pauline writing.

The author of gMark did NOT even copy the same passages from Hebrew Scripture as the Pauline writers.

The abundance of evidence supports that the Pauline writings were well AFTER the Jesus story was circulated and are non-historical.

andrewcriddle

Why do you think that, even if some of the Pauline letters are originally 1st century, our existing texts of these letters go back to an edition made by Marcion ?

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Marcion is our earliest authority on Paul. Every early Catholic interpretation of Paul is more a refutation of Marcion than it is an actual historical interpretation of the original writings. I would go so far as to say that most of the Marcionite variants are not corruptions by Marcion but readings not only witnessed in Catholic manuscripts but which so perfectly fit within an original system that was at odds with the new orthodoxy that they had to be systematically altered by later Catholic editors in order to destroy that original - and very persuasive - system.

aa5874

There are no sources of antiquity external of the Church that can show Marcion saw a single Pauline writing. Marcion's God was NOT the God of the Jews and the son of Marcion's God was NOT Jesus the Messiah of the Pauline writings or found in Hebrew Scripture.

There was NO so-called "prophecy" in the NT or OT for Marcion's Cosmocrator and his Phantom son.

A Pauline writer claimed Jesus the Messiah was the Creator of heaven and earth. Marcion taught NO such doctrine. Marcion used the writings of Empedocles.

A Pauline writer preached Jesus the Messiah was crucified. Marcion's son of God had NO flesh. He could not be crucified.

A Pauline writer claimed Jesus the Messiah died but Marcion's son of God was a Spirit or a Phantom and Spirits were not believed to be able to die by human hands.

Not even the doctrine of Dualism cannot be found in the Pauline writings.

It is just highly illogical that Marcion would use writings that contradict his doctrine when those very contradictory doctrine of the Pauline writings were about 100 years before Marcion and ALREADY circulated ALL over the Empire and would have established that the Pauline God was the God of the Jews, not the Cosmocrator of Marcion..