James The Least

The assumed authenticity of the seven "undisputed" Pauline epistles appears to the second most sacred cow in Christian textual scholarship. After waging a great war against radicals for decades, scholars reluctantly let the Pastorals pass over to pseudepigraphy (Ehrman: forgery) long ago. But the seven are absolutely by Paul, we are constantly assured, and even people who are willing to engage the Christ Myth theory are seem determined to defend the authenticity of both Paul and these epistles with gusto. Church theology could invent legends and kerygma about a crucified Messiah, but could not possibly do the same for an ex-Pharisee (the people who persecuted Jesus to death) who had seen the error of his ways and repented. Such a figure would of course have no propaganda value at all. No, Paul must be real, and his epistles must be authentic -- at least, the ones that aren't clearly written by another person pretending to be Paul.

Two scholars that I'm aware of, Thomas L. Brodie and George Lyons, have seriously questioned the substance of the Pauline epistles in recent years, rebuking the assumptions of the "consensus" in the process. They do not challenge Paul's historicity, but they do challenge the very heart of what allegedly makes the epistles "authentic" -- the historicity of Paul's "opponents" and the alleged "spontaneity" in which they were written.

I will explore Brodie's ideas regarding 1 Corinthians' intertextual dependence on the Books of Daniel and Tobit in a future post. For now, here are a few quotes to chew on:

"As with the question of authorship, the Pastorals are the tip of an iceberg. They bring to the surface a problem which, on closer inspection, is much greater: to what extent do the implied situations in the 13 Pauline epistles correspond to actual situations? ... if the portrayal of Pauline authorship is partly a pedagogical device, then, to a degree not yet determined, the same may be true of the portrayal of situations. For example, the diatribe -- a rhetorical device used considerably by Paul -- lends itself towards portraying an imaginary audience ... to some degree, at least, the Pauline letters construct their readers.

"The need to think twice in assessing the epistles is particularly well-illustrated in Paul's autobiographical passages. These texts first appear thoroughly spontaneous and realistic, springing directly from his own personal experience, prime material for reconstructing history. But comparison with other ancient authors shows that Pauline autobiography is part of a larger literary practice and that the epistles deliberately use material which appears autobiographical for pedagogical purposes."

-- Thomas L. Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament (2006)

"Various strands of evidence come together to support the conclusion that Paul presents his 'autobiography' as a paradigm of the gospel of Christian freedom ... the consensus approach to Paul's autobiographical remarks, the hypotheses which sponsor it, and the generally accepted interpretive technique, 'mirror reading,' as applied to 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 Thessalonians is clearly a failure … since we have only Paul’s remarks and not his opponents’ accusations, which the consensus assumes provoked them, it is necessary to exercise restraint in asserting too confidently that specific charges actually existed, much less what they may have been. Even the existence of ‘opponents’ in the usual sense of the word is far from certain …what he says is determined by his rhetorical approach and not by his opponents’ reproaches.

"Proper recognition of the rhetorical elements in Paul's autobiographical remarks provides a further challenge to existing approaches, which characteristically reach historical conclusions before the question of literary function has been adequately addressed."

-- George Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (1995), quoted in Brodie 2006.

Duvduv

James, do these scholars like to focus mostly on language or do they look at context such as the confusion and contradictions in the first three chapters of Galatians which indicates more than one hand at work?

aa5874

But, it was the LATE Paul that is the real Paul--there was NO early Paul. The very DATED Pauline Epistles support a LATE Paul.

The Christian Community is TERRIFIED by the thought that all the Pauline writings are fakes. Once ALL the Pauline letters are deemed to be fakes then Christianity as we know it will change.

One does NOT need a Ph.d to examine or present evidence. The evidence will speak for itself.

It can be seen with the Existing evidence that ALL the Pauline letters are FAKES. The Pauline writings had NO influence at all on the authors of the very Canon.

It can be seen with our very OWN eyes that it was the short-ending gMark that had MASSIVE influence on the earliest authors of the Jesus story.

The author of the Long-ending gMark copied Word-for-Word virtually 100% of the short-ending gMark and added 12 verses of the Post-resurrection visit and Commision to preach the Jesus story.

The author of gMatthew copied Word-for-Word virtually 100% of the short-ending gMark and added the birth narrative, and some sayings of Jesus.

We have PRIMA FACIE evidence of the Markan influence and NOTHING, NOTHING at all of Pauline influence.

Whoever wrote the Pauline letters wrote them AFTER gMark was written or after the mid 2nd century.

The short-ending gMark only makes sense BEFORE all the Canonised books because it has NO THEOLOGICAL value it was just a story.

thief of fire

Excellent post. As Galatians is such a thorn in the side for mythicism we must show that Pauls letters are fraudulent. We don't even need any specific theory of who made them or when they did or how they convinced everyone.
The best strategy is not to argue rationally about them but to insinuate that anyone who thinks they are genuine must be a dupes of apologists. We dare not concede anything to religionists.

aa5874

An Epistle that BEGINS by asserting that Jesus is NOT human and was Resurrected is the best gift for MJers.

Galatians 1:1 KJV And when the Pauline writings are dated to the mid 2nd-3rd century it cannot ever be shown, NOT ever be shown, that it was an actual human Jesus that INITIATED the Jesus movement.

There is NO actual dated evidence to show that any early Christian MET Jesus and was DIRECTLY influenced by him.

James The Least

Do you have any specific criticism of Brodie and Lyons?

James The Least

Brodie has some very interesting things to say about Galatians. I will get more into that tomorrow.

James The Least

Of course there is. Peter, James, and John met him. We know this because we have undatable letters that aren't written by them testifying to that non-fact.

mountainman

Excellent response. It sounds like thief of fire likens them to conspiracy theorists.

Grog

Galatians isn't difficult material for the Jesus myth. Far worse is Romans 13 and 1 Cor 2 for historicity.