the_cave

To all you sceptics out there:

If you deny that any Pauline epistles are authentic, do you then deny the existence of Paul?

If you deny the existence of Paul, do you likewise deny the existence of Peter, James, John, and all the apostles?

If you deny the existence of the apostles, do you think that Christianity was still a first-century movement?

If Christianity was not a first-century movement, then why were its origins deliberately set specifically during the reign of Pontius Pilate?

The Evil One

You're misrepresenting the sceptical position. The sceptical position is usually that there is insufficient evidence to establish that X is true, not to deny that X is true.

E.G. the existence of the apostles. The sceptical posiiton on this question is not "there were no apostles!" The sceptical position (which I agree with, to an extent) is "There is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of the apostles."

Jack the Bodiless

the cave: That seems like a rather tenuous line of reasoning there.

Working backwards, you seem to be implying that the existence of Pilate makes it likely that all the Pauline epistles are genuine.

Christianity probably began as a collection of myths (some preceding the first century) that were retrospectively attached to a first-century figure, who may have been either historical or mythical.

Paul probably existed, but some of "his" writings are probably not his.

the_cave

Then, ask yourself if they didn't exist, then what would your answers be to my questions? And if those answers seem unlikely, what does that say about the premises?

Does it seem possible that none of the apostles existed?

Does it seem possible that Christianity was not a 1st century movement?

If it does, how? If not, well, then that's helpful information.

the_cave

No--you are free to answer "no" to any of my questions.

So, you agree that the myths preceded the second century, in some form or another? Very interesting. Does anyone else agree?

Very interesting. Anyone else agree?

The Evil One

I have no idea what you're getting at. Yes, it is (just about) theoretically possible that none of the apostles existed and that Christianity was not a C1 movement.

However, there is good evidence to suggest that Christianity was a C1 movement and that at least some of the individuals identified as apostles (though perhaps not all of them) were real people, although it is much less certain that the descriptions of them in the NT narrative materials is an accurate reflection of the real people.

So?

Vinnie

I used this argument in depth here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81415

Let us now List Some Specific Followers of Jesus and their attestation:

Peter 5x-6x (Paul, GThomas, GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, GJohn, Special L (5:1-11)).
James (brother Jesus), Josephus, Mark and Paul (At least CPD that was real person).
John 3x-5x (Paul with Acts confirming, GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, and GJohn confirming Zebedee).
Mary Magdalene 3x-5x (GMark, GJohn and GLuke 8. Also Paul and GThomas mention an unspecified Mary)
Unspecified Mary (see above) 1x-3x (GMark and Paul and GThomas mention an unspecified Mary
Salome 2x-3x (GMark, GThomas and GEgyptians
Matthew 2x-3x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve and GThomas)
Thomas 3x-4x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, GJohn and GThomas)
Andrew 2x-3x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve, and GJohn
James Zebedee = John's brother 2x-3x (GMark, GLuke's List of Twelve and Zebedee confirmd in GJohn)
Levi 1x-2x (GMark and GLuke's list of Twelve. Levi is also an toll collector potentially fitting the EmCrit.
Philip 2x-3x (GMark, Guke's List of Twelve and GJohn)
Judas Iscariot: 4x-5x ( or more) )GMark, Luke's List of Twelve, GJohn, Stray trdition behind Judas' death found in M and L and also Papias. The EmCrit also factors in here.
Philip 2x-3x (GMark, GJohn and GLuke's list of Twelve

I made the argument from Jesus' followers.

Amaleq's response consisted of 1) dating Thomas too late and 2) assuming straight line devlopment of Pauline kerygma to non-passion Marcan tradition. This material devleoped separately and thats why this type of Marcan material is so widely attested (Q, Thomas, their sources, Speciual L, all the Marcan sources, parable sources and so on.) Its all the overlapp.

Anyone, feel free to jump in that thread.

Vinnie

the_cave

Just trying to hit bedrock, or the closest thing to it...

Toto

No. He was prominent enough that someone decided to forge the letters using his name, and possibly some of his actual teachings.

Without denying the existence of Paul, there is still very little evidence for any of the apostles, and most of it is tenuous. James has more evidence for him that the others, in Josephus, but it is not absolutely clear that Josephus's James is the same James mentioned in Paul's letters, which may or may not have been written at a much later date. There might have been a real person behind Cephas/Peter, but there is so much legendary overlay that it is impossible to know anything with any reasonable degree of certainty. There are some old threads on this very issue.

I suspect that Christianity was a later first century movement - starting after 70 CE.

Pilate was recent enough to still be remembered, but far enough away so no one could actually check up on it?

Amaleq13

I'm not sure why I got dragged into this but you're summary is incorrect. I generally accept the opinions of Meier and Crossan suggesting that at least parts of GTh should be dated as contemporary with Q.

I've told you before that I make no such assumption.

My actual objection to this goofy list you keep trotting out as though it were meaningful is that it is entirely misleading when it ignores the context in which the names are mentioned. It is entirely disingenuous to include Paul in any list of identifications of "followers of Jesus" when he never refers to anybody as such.