aa5874

Why does a fiction story writer have to "know" about events that did not occur when he wrote his fiction novel?

The mere idea that the author of Acts did not appear to know the contents of the Pauline Epistles may be INDICATIONS that Acts of the Apostles was written BEFORE the Pauline Epistles.

Another INDICATION that Acts of the Apostles may have been written BEFORE the Pauline Epistles can be found in Galatians1.17-19 where a Pauline writer appear to have CORRECTED Acts of the Apostles 9.20-27 by claiming that [b]he went to Arabia then back to Damascus and AFTER three years went to Jerusalem.

The author of Acts did not appear to know that Saul/Paul went to Arabia.

It would appear a fiction story writer fabricated a fiction novel called Acts of the Apostles where Saul the Persecutor was one of his main characters and then LATER some other fiction story writer used Saul's name as the author of Epistles to non-existent churches and fiction characters.

It must be noted that Pauline writers "supposedly corroborated" Acts of the Apostles.

1. Saul/Paul was in a basket by the wall in Damascus. See Acts 9.25

A Pauline writer ADMITTED he was in a basket by the wall in Damascus. See 2 Corinthians 11.32-33.

2. Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus believers. See Acts 8.1-3

A Pauline writer claimed he persecuted the Church in Christ. See Galatians 1.23

3. Saul/Paul was with a character called Barnabas in Jerusalem. See Acts 9.27

A Pauline writer claimed he was in Jerusalem with Barnabas. See Galatians 2.1

4. Saul/Paul traveled all over the Roman Empire.See Acts 16-Acts 28.

The Pauline writers supposedly wrote letters to churches that they initiated all over the Roman Empire. See ALL the Epistles under the name of Paul.

5. Saul/Paul was shipwrecked, stoned, beaten and jailed. See Acts 27, Acts 16 and Acts 14.

A Pauline writer claimed he was shipwrecked, stoned, and beaten. See 2 Cor. 11.25

6. Saul/Paul met Peter in Jerusalem. See Acts 15.

A Pauline writer claimed he met and stayed with Peter in Jerusalem. See Galatians 1.17-19

7. Saul/Paul heard from Jesus after he was RAISED from the dead. See Acts 9.5, Acts 22.8, Acts 11.23, and Acts 26.15.

A Pauline writer claimed he received DATA, including his gospel and his apostleship from Jesus after he was RAISED from the dead. See Galatians 1.1, 1 Cor. 11.23.

Acts of the Apostles appear to have been supported by the Pauline writers.

In effect, the Pauline writers have ADMITTED they are SAUL/PAUL of Acts. But SAUL appeared to be a fiction character in the fiction novel and was only believed to have existed by those who have been duped.

spamandham

I'm really not referring to the person Paul, but am instead using "Paul" to refer to the Pauline corpus. The ambiguity is in regard to the texts as we have them. We really have no idea if the 7 "authentic" texts were substantially written by a mid 1st century personwho really was writing letters to churches.

The gospels are filled with miracle stories. I guess we must accept them, because the alternative is some unlikely conspiracy theory? It is widely believed that Socrates is a literary creation. How can that be if it requires some unlikely conspiracy theory!?

These are just texts. They are easily authored or edited by a single person to say whatever that person desires, or by multiple people over time. In ancient times there really was no concept of authorial ownership, and people freely rewrote other people's work, changing it however they saw fit. This was an ordinary practice, and is the very reason we have multiple gospels.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Spamandham,

Good points. It takes as much energy for me to write:

as it does for me to write:

Did any Christian community in the late Second century (when we first hear about these letter) really have a methodology of distinguishing genuine from faked letters? What could that methodology have been and who applied it? How advanced was the technology of authorship identification in the late 2nd Century?


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

spamandham

The argument of layering is not original to Price. I'd have to go dig through sources to recall who he referenced, and I'm feeling too lazy to do that because I've already concluded it's a waste of my time. For those who accept the idea of layering, it's a reason. If you don't want to accept it without me first proving it to you to your satisfaction, I'm ok with that.

You may think it's shallow, but of those that we can reasonably show to be frauds, all of them are, and that amounts to about half. All 13 come to us from the same source. I wasn't born yesterday, and I don't give the benefit of the doubt to a pathological liar. As far as I'm concerned it's reasonable to presume all the letters are frauds.

That said, they still have historical utility. Afterall, they really are ancient and seem to date to some time prior to the 3rd century, and surely they represent the ideas of someone. Also, even presuming they are in essence fraudulent, they may still contain pieces of earlier works that might help us clear the haze of early Christian history.

There are anachronisms within the "genuine" epistles as well. That's the basis of the layering argument. For example, 1 Cor 15 is oft cited as anachronistic and I don't think requires discussion. Romans 10 contains another anachronism in which Paul condemns Jews as a people for having heard the gospel and rejecting it. Doesn't the church already have to have grown reasonably large for that to make sense?

Maybe the anachronisms are there due to layering, or maybe they're there because the letters are wholey fraudulent. I don't know which, but I do know it's credulous to assume anything in Paul is genuine in light of all this.

I don't know which Paul you're reading, but the Paul I read has absurd delusions of grandeur. The humility expressed is the same type of false humility used car salesmen use. Not that the degree of humility makes any difference anyway. A later writer can make Paul humble or arrogant or both just as easily as a real Paul could.

....why would 2nd and 3rd century Christians not be concerned with the types of things expressed in Paul's letters? Were they not worried about apostasy and false teachings? Were they not worried about moral imperatives and distinguishing themselves form Jews? I don't understand this argument at all.

stephan huller

Really? If you buy into the Catholic paradigm Acts was certainly written after the letters were composed and read. One would expect a reference - a 'greatest hits' package - of things that made the Apostle worth remembering and even honoring.

I suspect that the Mar Saba document's reference to a stolen gospel was really part of a larger theft that included the Apostolikon (or the rest of the Alexandrian NT canon). I can't prove any of this of course. But my guess is that the first time that the Catholics ever saw what made the Apostle great was once they got their hands on the Alexandrian New Testament.

aa5874

But, that could not be the case at all. For example, we have the "Life of the Twelve Caesars" by Suetonius and it is still attributed to Suetonius up to this day after 1900 years.

It appears that it was the Church who was responsible for the MASSIVE forgeries of the history of their own God Jesus Christ.

Virtually the entire Canon is filled with bogus information, and the authorship, dating and chronology of the books in the NT Canon has been deduced to be in error.

The Church writings show signs of MULTIPLE authorship even though bearing the name of a single author which have created chronological and historical errors.

The Pauline writings are a PERFECT example of attribution of a single author when multiple authors were used which have severely distorted the true history of the God Jesus the so-called Messiah .

But, it is very likely that many other writings are in the same mold.

It is not conceivable that it was ONLY the Pauline writings that are bogus since it must logically follow that the corrupted data in Pauline writings were used by other Church writers for their HISTORY of their God Jesus the Messiah of the Roman Empire.

We know the CORRUPT material. All the Church writings that used the Pauline writings under the guise that they were ALL authentic are part of the fraud.

This is a partial list:

Writings under the name of Paul, Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome and others from the Church.

aa5874

You mean someone would forge a letter to a church saying in the letter "I Paul am coming to see you soon" and the person who forged the letter would come instead of "Paul"?

What benefit would there be for some UNKNOWN person to have forged a letter using the name Paul?

The beneficiary of the ALL Pauline letters were the Church of Rome. The fraud must be known to the Roman Church. The Roman Church Canonised the Pauline writings for a specific purpose.

The Pauline letters are fraudulent and were part of the scheme to present a bogus history of the fictitious resurrected Jesus Messiah of the Roman Empire.

spamandham

I'm not actually arguing that they're forgery. I'm arguing that a presupposition of authenticity is unjustified in light of what we know.

The remaining 7 epistles *might* be mostly authentic, but their partners in crime and their own shadiness indict them. The case is not strong enough to declare them forgery, but it is strong enough to declare it unknown and favoring forgery - a preponderance of evidence, but not beyond reasonable doubt.

You have a container filled with 13 marbles. For 2000 years, people have claimed the marbles were all blue. The marbles are stuck in there real good and it's hard to get them out, and you really can't see well into the container. But over time you develop some techniques that allow you to at least grab some of them. The ones you are able to grab with these techniques are all yellow. Looking into the jar as best you can, you can kind of see that some of the others are at least partly yellow. Isn't it time to drop the pressuposition that the remaining marbles are blue, or even mostly blue?

If you have any arguments for why we should presume them authentic, please bring them to bear.

aa5874

Once it has been deduced that the Pauline letters were written by more than one person then the Pauline writings must become questionable.

Who authorized the Canonization of these letters?

What benefit or advantage would an unknown person have gained by pretending to be "Paul".

Examine 2 Timothy 4.13 Why would an unknown FAKE Paul tell Timothy to bring the REAL PAUL's coat and books to him (FAKE PAUL)?

How would the unknown fake Paul benefit from such an arrangement?

Only if the unknown FAKE PAUL was an IDIOT.

The Pauline writings are fraudulent writings Canonised by the Church to appear as history.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Here's a thought experiment. Let us say that your name is Mumbles Mimnermus and you are a poor scribe and Marcionite living in Ephesus around 160. You hear that the Marcioinite house church at Corinth has been debating turning back into a Jewish synagogue. You decide to write a letter. Which are you going to write: or Assume that Mumbles Mimnermus knows that Mumbles Mimnermus has no authority and is unknown to the Corinth community, so a letter from the unknown Mumbles Mimnermus isn't going to have any effect on the contemporary situation in Corinth, but a 100 year old letter from the apostle Paul, if placed in the right hands could be just the thing to correct the situation.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay