Originally Posted by steve_bnk

There is a reason why the JC character may not have given much detail.

If you look at the Jesus in the stories he is a conservative Jewish rabai preaching to Jews invoking Jewish scripture and prophets. He was a Jew who 'kept kosher' so to speak, he did not invent a new religion or reject Judaism. The Christian interpretation is that JC fulfilled the old covenanet and kicked off a new one inclusive of all people. Hence the Jewish restictions were no longer required.

The Christianity that developed though Rome post Nicea is more aptly called Paulism.

Originally Posted by mountainman

Perhaps a third appear addressed to communities and/or groups in contrast to individuals.

It is notable that some letters are to the priests of "Pagan Churches" (bolded).
But everyone knew the location and existence of many "pagan churches" (i.e. temples).
The question here really points to the absence of any letter to the House-Church at Dura-Europos.
But then again, the "house-church" at Dura may not have been operative in the 1st century.




XI.—To the Chief Councillors of Caesarea.
XII.—To the Chief Councillors of Seleucia.
XIII.—To the same Persons.
XXIV.—To the Presidents of the Olympic Games and to the Elians.
XXV.—To the Peloponnesians.

XXVI.—To the Priests in Olympia.
XXVII.—To the Priests in Delphi.

XXX.—To the Roman Quaestors.
XXXI.—To the Procurators of Asia.
XXXII.—To the Scribes of the Ephesians.
XXXIII.—To the Milesians.
XXXIV.—To the Wise Men in the Museum.
XXXVIII.—To the People of Sardis.
XXXIX.—To the same People.
XL.—To the same People.
XLI.—To the same People.
XLII.—To the Platonic Thinkers.
XLVII.—To the Senate and People of Tyana.
LIV.—Apollonius, to the Censors of Rome.
LVI.—To the People of Sardis.
LVII.—To certain learned Publicists.
LXIII.—Apollonius To The Ephors And To The Lacedaemonians.
LXIV.—To the Same.
LXV.—To Those of the Ephesians who frequented the Temple of Artemis.
LXVI.—To the same Persons.
LXVII.—To the same Persons.
LXVIII.—To the Milesians.
LXIX.—To The Trallians.
LXX.—To the people of Sais.
LXXI.—To the Ionians.
LXXIV.—To the Stoics.
LXXV.—To the people of Sardis.
LXXVI.—To the same Persons.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

Thanks for this.

These all seem to be more pronouncements aimed at certain groups of people. They do not seem to be deliverable historical letters. For example take LXXIV.—To the Stoics. The Stoics were philosophers who lived throughout the Roman Empire. There would simply be no way to deliver letters to all of them. The same thing applies to XLII.—To the Platonic Thinkers. His letters to entire cities would also be rhetorical pieces rather than actual letters. So he writes XXXIII.—To the Milesians, XXXVIII.—To the People of Sardis, XLVII.—To the Senate and People of Tyana, LXVIII.—To the Milesians, LXIX.—To The Trallians, LXX.—To the people of Sais, LXXI.—To the Ionians. He even writes to whole territories which contained hundreds of thousands of people - LXXXV.—To Idomena, XXV.—To the Peloponnesians. These are no more deliverable then addresses "to the Greeks" or "to the Hebrews." If real titles, they were meant to be published books.

In this way, that they are composed as rhetorical pieces for publication and not for actual delivery, they do match Paul's letters.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

We know that the letters that Cicero wrote were real historical letters. Here is a sample list:

To Atticus (At Athens)
To Atticus (At Athens)
To Cn. Pompeius Magnus
To Atticus (In Epirus) (A I, 17)
To Terentia, Tulliola, and Young Cicero (At Rome)
To His Brother Quintus (On His Way to Rome)
To Atticus (In Epirus)
To His Brother Quintus (In Sardinia)
To Atticus (Returning from Epirus)
To L. Lucceius
To M. Fadius Gallus
To M. Marius (At Cumæ)
To His Brother Quintus (In the Country)
To His Brother Quintus (In Britain)
To P. Lentulus Spinther (In Cilicia)
To C. Trebatius Testa (In Gaul)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To M. Porcius Cato (At Rome)
To Atticus (In Epirus)
M. Porcius Cato to Cicero (In Cilicia)
To M. Porcius Cato (At Rome)
To Tiro (At Patræ)
To L. Papirius Pætus (At Naples)
To L. Papirius Pætus (At Naples)
To L. Papirius Pætus (At Naples)
To Aulus Cæcina (In Exile)
Servius Sulpicius to Cicero (At Astura)
To Servius Sulpicius Rufus (In Achaia)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To Atticus (At Rome)
To C. Trebatius Testa (At Rome)
M. Cicero (The Younger) to Tiro
Quintus Cicero to Tiro
To M. Iunius Brutus (In Macedonia)

Looking at the Letters of Cicero, we immediately see one thing. They are all addressed to a single person.

Looking at the historical letters of Pliny, we find the same thing:

I. -- To Septicius.
II. -- To Arrianus.
III. -- To Caninius Rufus.
IV. -- To Pompeia Celerina.
V. -- To Voconius Romanus.
VI. -- To Cornelius Tacitus.
VII. -- To Octavius Rufus.
VIII. -- To Pompeius Saturninus.
IX. -- To Minutius Fundanus.
X. -- To Attius Clemens.
XI. -- To Fabius Justus.
XII. -- To Calestrius Tiro.
XIII. -- To Sosius Senecio.
XIV. -- To Junius Mauricus.
XV. -- To Septicius Clarus.
XVI. -- To Erucius.
XVII. -- To Cornelius Titianus.
XVIII. -- To Suetonius Tranquillus.
XIX. -- To Romanus Firmus.
XX. -- To Cornelius Tacitus.
XXI. -- To Plinius Paternus.
XXII. -- To Catilius Severus.
XXIII. -- To Pompeius Falco.
XXIV. -- To Baebius Hispanus.

All these real historical letters are addressed to a single person.

This makes sense. There was no post office, so to deliver a letter the sender either sent a slave or sent it with a friend traveling to a particular place. When the slave or friend arrived, he would find the person that the letter was addressed to and deliver it.

Would it be possible to send a letter to a Church? Today, we can do it because there are buildings called Churches and the post office delivers mail to them. But there were no buildings called churches in Paul's time. There were household churches, which meant that people met in a person's house. Did they always meet in the same person's house or was the meeting at different person's houses?

In any case, the messenger would have to deliver the letter to a specific person. This is the problem with Paul's letters. He never addresses the person who must have received the letter. If Paul was sending an actual letter which he wished to be read to members of the Church, he would have had to explain this in the letter to the person he sent the letter to. We would expect Paul to have some kind of relationship with the recipient of the letter, something on the order of "Hi Woody, remember when we got drunk together in Philadelphia. how are the wife and kids doing? If people are still gathering in your house for meals, Please read the following words to them: Greetings to the Church at ..."

Even if Paul had told his messenger to deliver it to Bob or Jerry or anybody he could find who was a member of the Church, Paul would still need to instruct the person receiving the letter in what he wanted done with the letter.

Let us assume that this part of the letter had been cut out. We still would expect Paul to mention the receiver of the letter in his sermon, at least to thank him for delivering his message to the congregation.

There is also the problem of reception. How would Paul know if the letter was in fact read in the Church or what the reaction was. How does Paul know if the letter is being read to four people who have never heard of him or one hundred people who have discussed his every word at length? In most of the genuine letters of Cicero and Pliny, an answer is requested. How does a Church give an answer?

It appears that all the Pauline letters addressed to a church are undeliverable rhetorical exercises, not real letters interacting with real people.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Originally Posted by Chili

The philosophical points contained in 'those letters' are far to deep to be just pulpit material...

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I must agree with my friend Chili on this.
Reading and parsing the dense content these of texts would only be appropriate to an individual reader, or among very small discussion group of perhaps not more than 3 or 4 individuals working under very quiet and isolated conditions, discussing each sentence and their individual interpretations and views.
These -could have been- read from the pulpit but would have been little more than a monotonous drone of mantra with most of its meaning going right over the heads of the majority of listeners, that is if they could stay alert and awake enough to even hear or concentrate on what it was that was being read.

I write this from experience, texts like these are for deep and contemplative thinkers, reading with full concentration under undistracting conditions, but are extremely boring and uninformative for any average diverse and large listening audience.

That is why every sermon consists of the gem's of 'proof texts', where only a single statement, or a series of similar and supporting statements are drawn from these dense blocks of written prose and expounded upon, according to the interpretations, leanings, and elaborations of the individual speaker (preacher) Who to be effective in getting the points across has to retain his audiences attention.
This requires individual oratory talent and persuasive ability, this is the hallmark of every effective preacher or teacher.
Simply reciting some dense religious document, no matter how well the reader might understand the content, and droning on and on and on, will only lose the audience and get one nowhere.

Think of how long, and how often us participants here can argue over the correct interpretation and meaning and intent of even a single verse of these texts, even with many of us having devoted decades of intense study to the entire context of the writings it appears within..
Now imagine these same texts being read for the first time to largely illiterate groups of 20 to 150 or more individuals of differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds and professions, and whom had never heard, nor had any opportunity to quietly contemplate and ruminate over their content. Which is what some still naively believe to have been the case.

Religious people gather from week to week, and have little bits of church doctrine and dogma hammered home bit by bit, and even then it is only the 'catch phrases' and 'proof text' sound bites that remain with them.
It has often been observed, that the atheistic participants in these forums possess a far more extensive knowledge of the Bible's contents than most Christian's they encounter. Often because we are the only ones willing to go deeply into discussions of those texts that are never even touched on in a lifetime of church sermons, and which most christians get distracted from, or fall fast asleep while reading.
It is a rare individual that reads the entire Bible from cover to cover, and even rarer is the one who has done so, and that actually understands or retains even 5% of what it is that they have 'read'.



ששבצר העברי
Sheshbazzar the Hebrew

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It appears that all the Pauline letters addressed to a church are undeliverable rhetorical exercises, not real letters interacting with real people.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

There is a reason why the JC character may not have given much detail.

If you look at the Jesus in the stories he is a conservative Jewish rabai preaching to Jews invoking Jewish scripture and prophets. He was a Jew who 'kept kosher' so to speak, he did not invent a new religion or reject Judaism. The Christian interpretation is that JC fulfilled the old covenanet and kicked off a new one inclusive of all people. Hence the Jewish restictions were no longer required.

The Christianity that developed though Rome post Nicea is more aptly called Paulism.

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Great point from Chili - and Shesh has added the necessary logic!! And thanks to PhilosopherJay for getting this on the table. Great stuff. :notworthy:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Thanks.

I hope that people will see that the letters of Paul are not to be taken as direct historical source documents accurately describing a history. Rather they must be taken as pieces of rhetoric written by later Christians for their own purposes....