Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Logical · 05-08-2012, 07:01 AM

The lack of details in Paul's letters about Jesus does trouble Ehrman. Imagine yourself writing 10 letters over the course of a year to a sister or brother about, say, your father. And nowhere in these letters do you ever mention anything your father said. That's a little weird. Such letters usually have a lot of "remember what dad said about ..." statements.

Ehrman says that perhaps there was no need for Paul to say such things because everyone knew from existing sources what Jesus said. That's not a strong argument. Paul probably didn't need to inform people what Jesus said, but there were plenty of places where he needed to REMIND them in order to bolster an argument he was making, especially about issues that we actually know Jesus specifically addresses according to the Gospels.

Toto · 05-08-2012, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ever try Google?

Pastoral interpolation in 1 Corinthians 10-11

Neil Godfrey discusses Winsome Munro’s Authority in Paul and Peter (or via: amazon.co.uk) on this topic. The topic is a little too complex for a sound bite, but you can read there an argument from a prominent scholar that this any many other passages have been interpolated. If you are familiar with this area, you know that conservative scholars refuse to allow for interpolations and have imposed an artificially high burden of proof on any claim of interpolations.

You have this habit of making things up based on some rules of logic in your own mind. But you need to check things against reality.

Yikes! I feared that someone would dig through the recesses of the literature and blow the dust off some book that agrees with the mythicist point that Paul did not write 1 Corinthians 11:23-26, thereby disproving my absolutist claim. Robert Price claimed that there are "some" who doubt that the passage is authentically Pauline, but he didn't say who and he said no more of it, despite his extraordinary skill at digging through those recesses, ...

Winsome Munro was a preeminent scholar, hardly the obscure source you seem to think. She is so well known Robert Price didn't have to bring her name up.

Quote:

I should have known better. There will always be some scholar who disagrees with everyone else about anything. In this case, 1 Corinthians 11 includes an anti-feminist passage, and Winsome Munro was a feminist. Lucky for me, Winsome Munro is no longer alive, and I happened to make my claim using the present tense.

You claimed that no mythicist cites any scholar in the present tense. I showed you that a few years ago, Neil Godfrey, who is alive, cited Munro. Munro may be dead, but her work is still influential, which you would know if you knew anything about this area. I haven't checked Walker, but he tends to follow her.

hjalti · 05-08-2012, 07:15 AM

Quote:

In this case, 1 Corinthians 11 includes an anti-feminist passage, and Winsome Munro was a feminist. Lucky for me, Winsome Munro is no longer alive, and I happened to make my claim using the present tense.

ApostateAbe, interesting approach, instead of engaging her arguments (or even just saying nothing about them) you choose to insinuate that she was just suggesting that interpolation because of her feminist agenda!

So when William. O. Walker argues for that anti-feminist passage being an interpolation, is it also because he's a feminist? Or maybe, just maybe, is there something suspucious about the composition of 1 Corinthians?

ApostateAbe · 05-08-2012, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

In this case, 1 Corinthians 11 includes an anti-feminist passage, and Winsome Munro was a feminist. Lucky for me, Winsome Munro is no longer alive, and I happened to make my claim using the present tense.

ApostateAbe, interesting approach, instead of engaging her arguments (or even just saying nothing about them) you choose to insinuate that she was just suggesting that interpolation because of her feminist agenda!

So when William. O. Walker argues for that anti-feminist passage being an interpolation, is it also because he's a feminist? Or maybe, just maybe, is there something suspucious about the composition of 1 Corinthians?

Right. I take Toto at Toto's word that the argument is complex, and I don't want to get into it any more than Toto. In such cases, I take an available shortcut--going along with the overwhelming majority of the relevant scholars. If you really want to get into it, then I am willing, though I don't think I will have enough time in the next two weeks (maybe after that). I know it will be a positive learning experience, one way or the other.

Juststeve · 05-08-2012, 07:28 AM

Abe:

I'm not sure that a lone dissenter from an overwhelming consensus weakens you point much, but you must guard against overstatement. When mythers resort to scholarly opinion it is usually a lone dissenter. Who else could it be? Therefore they are good at finding lone dissenters and then placing far too many eggs in their baskets.

Steve

ApostateAbe · 05-08-2012, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Abe:

I'm not sure that a lone dissenter from an overwhelming consensus weakens you point much, but you must guard against overstatement. When mythers resort to scholarly opinion it is usually a lone dissenter. Who else could it be? Therefore they are good at finding lone dissenters and then placing far too many eggs in their baskets.

Steve

Right, but don't forget in this case I was the one who introduced scholarly authority, not the mythers.

Vorkosigan · 05-08-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You claimed that no mythicist cites any scholar in the present tense. I showed you that a few years ago, Neil Godfrey, who is alive, cited Munro. Munro may be dead, but her work is still influential, which you would know if you knew anything about this area. I haven't checked Walker, but he tends to follow her.

Quote:

I'm not sure that a lone dissenter from an overwhelming consensus weakens you point much, but you must guard against overstatement. When mythers resort to scholarly opinion it is usually a lone dissenter. Who else could it be? Therefore they are good at finding lone dissenters and then placing far too many eggs in their baskets.

Walker thinks 1 Cor 11:2-16 is an interpolation. So does Christopher Mount (2005, in JBL)

Logical · 05-08-2012, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

. Why don't you pick up copies of books on HJ methodology?

Vorkosigan

Like what?

Vorkosigan · 05-08-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

. Why don't you pick up copies of books on HJ methodology?

Vorkosigan

Like what?

Crossan The Birth of Christianity
Porter The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research
Bock's review book
The new Keith book
Ludemann's Jesus After 2000 Years has a good discussion
Theissen and Merz The Historical Jesus has lots of useful stuff.

Vorkosigan

Logical · 05-08-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

In any case Price's position on global warming is not relevant to this discussion.

Vorkosigan

Unless it makes him seem like a denialist, an unreasonable skeptic to whom no amount of evidence is ever enough .

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

05-08-2012, 07:01 AM	#121
Logical Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA Posts: 802	The lack of details in Paul's letters about Jesus does trouble Ehrman. Imagine yourself writing 10 letters over the course of a year to a sister or brother about, say, your father. And nowhere in these letters do you ever mention anything your father said. That's a little weird. Such letters usually have a lot of "remember what dad said about ..." statements. Ehrman says that perhaps there was no need for Paul to say such things because everyone knew from existing sources what Jesus said. That's not a strong argument. Paul probably didn't need to inform people what Jesus said, but there were plenty of places where he needed to REMIND them in order to bolster an argument he was making, especially about issues that we actually know Jesus specifically addresses according to the Gospels.

05-08-2012, 07:28 AM	#125
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Abe: I'm not sure that a lone dissenter from an overwhelming consensus weakens you point much, but you must guard against overstatement. When mythers resort to scholarly opinion it is usually a lone dissenter. Who else could it be? Therefore they are good at finding lone dissenters and then placing far too many eggs in their baskets. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.