Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

We had five books accused of being forgeries on this thread,
(kudos to Gamera for calling out the circularity of the claim).
The three Pastorals, 2 Peter, and even 1 Peter.
And it was wrongly stated that nobody defends 2 Thess.

Anyway all of this has been discussed in its own threads.
eg. the following post references eight articles defending the
authorship of the Pastorals -
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...45#post2954145

Afaik, we have not had a similar thread on 2 Peter, however this
post leads to various references, which could be augmented.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...14#post2945314

On this forum I do not know of any serious accusations against
1 Peter, despite its also being included in the accusations. Of
course to those who declare a view of the NT as a fraud 1 Peter
would is included as a subset. However that would not justify
their lumping it with 2 Peter, especially as arguments against
2 Peter are often focused on concepts of differences from the
presumed-authentic 1 Peter.

Personally I consider this a fundamental issue. If these books
were in fact forgeries the basic discussion between evangelicals
and skeptics would be over and we could go to other endeavors
and be reflective, and even morose or sanguine (depending upon
our viewpoint) about the fact that God did not leave us his word.

So it is rather improper for the skeptic to assume that for which
he has given only sketchy evidence (and which in fact would be
his only necessary victory in his big hope of fighting the
scriptures as the word of God) in order to further more subtle
scholastic agendas which ultimately he hopes to lead to the same
result as that which he has already assumed.

Circularity abounds.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Hi Andrew,

Photius indicates that Philo had been the former for a season.

105 - Philo Judaeus, Censure of Gaius and Censure of Flaccus
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ph...otheca.htm#105
Read, also, his two tractates, Censure of Gaius and Censure of Flaccus in which, more than in his other writings, he shows vigour of expression and beauty of language....I believe that it was from him that all the allegorical interpretation of Scripture originated in the Church. It is said that he was converted to Christianity, but afterwards abandoned it in a fit of anger and indignation. Before this, during the reign of the emperor Claudius, he had visited Rome, where he met St. Peter, chief of the apostles, and became intimate with him, which explains why he thought the disciples of St. Mark the evangelist, who was a disciple of St. Peter, worthy of praise, of whom he says that they led a contemplative life amongst the Jews. He calls their dwellings monasteries, and declares that they always led an ascetic life, practising fasting, prayer, and poverty.

This is the Photus who is referenced here in regard to the quote about Justus of Tiberius.

What writings Philo may have that are non-extant, exactly how many years he lived after the crucifixion, which of the Philo literature was written post 33AD, and how Jesus or John the Baptist might have fit into the Philo corpus are all interesting questions. And exactly what writings Photius was referencing above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jakejonesiv

Gamera claimed circularity, but it will not withstand inspection.

Here is what Gamera actually wrote, and upon which you are expending your kudos:
The Pastorals were not included in Marcion's canon. Therefore, one may argue that they were not yet written. Whether you agree with this conclusion or not, it demolishes the allegations of circularity; that the Patorals are rejected because selected texts (i.e. 1 Tim 6:13) can be interpreted as supporting HJ.

Jake Jones IV

TedM

Thanks Roger for the clarification. Based on this information, those who think that if the TF existed before Eusebius we should see quotations from Christians who came before him only have two people for which they need to formulate an argument in support. That's it. Two. This really narrows down the field. Anyone care to make an argument as to why and where these two people should have mentioned the TF?

ted

Steven Avery

Sure, you can argue that. However, you claimed Thessalonian non-Pauline authorship as a fact.

And Marcion's canon is irrelevant to using the argument circularly, it is only relevant in trying to give some support to the anti-pastorals argument. (Against that one can put all sorts of usages of the Pastorals by early church writers, the paypri, consistent manuscript evidence, the relative lack of controversy on the books and more.)

Maybe you could explain why Marcion would have anything to do with your using the argument circularly. Were you discussing the Marcion canon ?

Now frequently this Pastorals claim is presented within a circular argument.

Example:

- the Pastorals are not by Paul because Acts was late and church structures came later
- Acts was late because the NT documents are not authentic, Paul did not actually give Luke sanction, the Pastorals are by somebody else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv Whether you agree with this conclusion or not, it demolishes the allegations of circularity; that the Patorals are rejected because selected texts (i.e. 1 Tim 6:13) can be interpreted as supporting HJ.

As mentioned, I have seen those arguments used circularly time and again.

If you think your unsupported assertion wrongly claimed as fact is substantially helped by not being directly circular in this context then we could analyze the logic of your thread closer, if there is any. We would have to see what the motive was for the claim.

Marcion has nothing to do with the circular question.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jakejonesiv

Where did I do that?

Really? Who made these circular arguments. A straw man?

Are you refering to this?
It is a fact that the Pastorals were not included in Marcion's canon. So contrary to your assertion, it is indeed supported. It is also a non-circular argument.

Thank you! But it is not circular at all.

Oh, why did you have to get all ad hominem on me? Just when I thought we were getting along so well!
Shhhh! its a secret. Paul didn't exist. Don't tell anybody


Except that it refutes it.

Jake Jones IV

Gamera

Well stated. These are the text we have. They constitute what we mean by "Paul." The status of an author is always problematic, as Foucault points out in his great essay, "What is an Author?" So when we try to figure out what Paul taught, we must start with these texts. But those with a particular agenda (such as trying to construct a gnostic Paul) instead cherry pick the texts to fit a preconcieved notion of Paul, and then say since this is Paul, those portions of the text must not be authentic. It's pure circularity.

Gamera

[QUOTE=jakejonesiv;3738774]That of course doesn't follow as Marcion's canon isn't dispositive of authenticity or inauthenticity. Marcion also didn't include the entire Old Testament or any other gospel but Luke. Marcion had a habit of not including a lot of texts that he knew were in existence.

No, just a seque to an even stronger argument.

Very weak. I've established that Paul preached that the crucifixion of Jesus was a stumbling block to the Jews. That's in I Cor., so you can't claim forgery for that. It's a very unconvincing claim that the crucifixion of a spiritualized Jesus somewhere in the world at some time in the past would cause the Jews to even lift an eyebrow.

It was meaningful to them not because they were being preached at, but because the content of the preaching was Jesus was the messiah who came to Jerusalem and was crucified under the auspices of Jewish authorities who rejected his claims. That's what the gospels teach, that's what is implied in Paul's comments about the Jews being put out about the crucifixion. The idea that the Jews, given their history of persecution and religious upheaval, would get worked up about a nondescript Jesus dying sometime or other somewhere is, well, unconvincing.

As to the Greeks, most in fact didn't care -- which is why he didn't even mention the crucifixion in his sermon to the Athenians, but rather emphasized his resurrection. This only supports my point.

It is wise to move from stronger to stronger arguments. You've failed to rebut the first two, now to the third.

So if silence about the details of the resurrection means Paul didn't have the details (after you've already admitted he had the detail Jesus was crucified, since I forced you to), then silence by the medieval clerics means they didn't have the details. But forget about clerics. Look at John's letters. No details there either. Are you saying the author of John's letters didn't know the details either? Did anybody?

What about them?


Being a medievalist, I sort of read a lot of medieval clerics. Some have no interest in the details of Jesus' life or death. Hmm, using your argument, they didn't know them.

But not too late to rebut your argument that lack of details is evidence of lack of knowledge of Jesus narrative. Focus on your logic, man. It's bad.

Even they hardly mention many details, so if they were forgeries, it's almost as if you're claiming the forgers also didn't know the details.

And yet most of the Pastorals don't mention details. How does that fit into your construct? Forgers who missed the point?

But while they missed the point back then, they were prescient enough to realize that this would become an issue in the 21st century, so they added just enough detail to fool some of us into thinking Paul knew the details, which somehow was an issue for them, way back when.

Gamera

Nothing like a theorized interpolation of a text that makes perfect sense the way it stands.

Steven Avery

Post #78
"The Pastorals weren't written by the same author as the alleged genuine seven epistles. They weren't included in Marcion's cannon."

You assumed the above to make the claims that Paul did not know a/b/c. One of the reasons why you and various skeptics claim Pauline non-authorship of the Pastorals is because of what they say about Jesus, as Gamera properly pointed out. Circularity. A second circularity deals with the early church structure, claiming Acts as late and non-Lukan, and using that as a crutch for the Pastorals assertion.

The fact that there is another potential (weak) contributing factor to your assertion that you lay out for convenience does not take away the circularity component. Its only a type bit of debate shape-shifting.

No, the unsupported assertion claimed as fact is above. The fact that you add a transparently weak supporting factor only changes it to a weakly-supported assertion falsely claimed as fact.

A bit of special-pleading. If you didn't have the goal to somehow justify your bald assertion about the Pastorals, the Marcion canon wouldn't even be on the radar.

In my couple of debates on the Pastorals, I don't think the Marcion canon issue was even raised, simply because it is as close to a non-issue as one could find.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic