charles

I think this is developing into an argument about the interpretation of Paul rather than whether or not 'it is reasonable to presume Pauline authenticity.' I had problems with this question earlier and the moderator said that this was to be a question about whether or not the works that have come down to us are authentic.

But I still think the question is ambiguous. It would seem now that we are asking what the proper interpretation of Paul is. I don't have a problem with the topic changing. I find the discussion fascinating I just want to say that the conversation with keep changing the deeper we go.

spamandham

The topic really hasn't changed in spite of plenty of side discussion. The topic of the thread is whether or not the epistles generally considered "genuine" are rightfully considered as such. By genuine, I mean that they are substantially similar to real letters penned by someone from a first person perspective whose intent is basically genuine - the ordinary sense of the word.

stephan huller

Hi AA

I am merely suggesting that you tend to have an oversimplified view of what is really a very complex textual situation. You tend to develop arguments from English translations of original sources which gets you into a lot of trouble.

Yet this is only one level to the problem. There is also the difficulty posed by the nomen sacrum. If you ever get a chance to see the original manuscripts of a lot of these documents you won't see the word 'Christ' at all but rather some variation of XC (the first and last letter of the Greek word). I have never heard a convincing explanation of why this developed (although Trobisch might have come up with one but I forgot it).

My guess is that it has the effect of blurring where Chrestos appeared in place of Christos in the Marcionite manuscripts.

In other words, both Chrestos and Christos would have the same nomen sacrum (XC) BUT what few people realize is that the XC symbol actually started with Chrestos (it was used in the margins of ancient manuscripts by editors to effectively say 'OK' or 'right' which is the meaning of Chrestos).

The point is that when you come across a sentence like John 4:25 it becomes obvious that something has been obscured through the employment of nomen sacrum (even though the Greek text eventually introduces 'messias'; the alternative XC must have been Chrestos):

The woman said, "I know the Messiah will come--the one who is called Christ."

WTF does that mean? "I know the milkman called milkman" "the doctor called doctor"

Clearly the original passage must have said either "I know the Chrestos will come--the one who is called Christ" or "I know the Christ will come--the one who is called Chrestos." (I favor the first one because Samaritans don't use the title Christ; Shilo is an equivalent of Chrestos). And this is just the start of the problem sorting out the meaning of the material.

I can't think of a bigger waste of time that devoting oneself to textual criticism. It's misguided on so many levels BUT IT IS UNAVOIDABLE AND NECESSARY.

aa5874

I don't think the Jesus story was meant to be complex in antiquity. After all even the illiterate should have been able to understand the basics of the Jesus story.

I think some people are treating the Jesus story as though it was "rocket science". It is not rocket science. It was just plausible hocus-pocus.

Quite simply, based on the abundance of evidence,. Jesus was just an invented FABLE that people BELIEVED was true but were DUPED.


I don't get in trouble when I use translations that have been done by "professional translators".

It is people who think they know a little Greek who get into trouble.

And please name an original of antiquity which you have seen that was written by authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, and Jude.

What have you seen that no-one else have seen?


It is you who have problems. You have already forgotten that I use whatever the professional translators write.

Why do you keep on referring to "copies" as "originals"?

You have so many questions that you yourself can't answer. You need to start answering your questions by using data from antiquity and not your imagination.

Now, you have gotten yourself into trouble. You are beginning to imagine your OWN history. You are believing your OWN speculation is EVIDENCE.

You are guessing right. OK. XC.

You really don't know if there was anything else there but you imagination is just running wild. Please deal with the EVIDENCE and not what you believe should have been written.

One must deal with the fundamentals and not be burdened with every little nuances.

The Pauline writings as found today MUST be either fundamentally historical or fundamentally non-historical.

There was either a character called Paul who was actually preaching about a Messiah called Jesus who had followers that Paul persecuted before the Fall of the Temple or there was NOT.

The abundance of evidence, even from the Church itself, tend to show that the Pauline writings were later than the author would like us to believe.

The Church historian of "Church History" claimed that there was a tradition that the Pauline writer was AWARE of gLuke.

And that is some of the EVIDENCE that I need to help to show that the Pauline writings, ALL of them, are questionable and should not be assumed to be authentic.

Littlejohn

"..The topic of the thread is whether or not the epistles generally considered "genuine" are rightfully considered as such.."

I thought that with term "genuine" you meant whether or not these letters were actually written by the character that still today is falsely called 'Paul of Tarsus'....


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

spamandham

Not necessarily, IMHO. As long as they were written by *somebody* in the early church from a genuine and first person perspective, and really are letters from that person to various churches under his guidance, then we can call them genuine, even if the author's name was not actually Paul.

I think something like this is a minimum standard.

(I guess I would add also that the editing by later authors must not have fundamentally changed the texts)

stephan huller

No its a fact. XC = Chrestos long before it was adopted by Christians. I can provide the reference.

dog-on

Please do so. Thanks.

aa5874

Well, please provide the reference as soon as possible. Maybe I can ADD IT to the abundance of evidence that helped to show that Jesus of the NT was fictional/mythical.

Littlejohn

Perhaps by the Marcionite church, but not by orthodox roman church!

The exponents by that church (as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Lactantius, etc..) they complained that the pagans, according to them, 'crippled' the attribute 'christians' as 'chrestians'!... Indeed, the romans knew Jesus with the attribute 'CHRESTOS' (see Suetonius), hence OBVIOUSLY derived the attribute 'chrestians' (as derived by Christos attribute 'christians'). Instead, Jesus was known at the Ionian provinces by Asia Minor (western Turkey) with the attribute 'IESOUS'!

It seems that on the plastered wall of a cave in Cappadocia, which was used by the Marcionites as their 'synagogue', were found the words 'ISU CHRESTOS', being 'Isu' the pseudo-name that speaking in 'Syriac' language (western Aramaic dialect ), used to describe Jesus (see Ephraim the Syrian).

Again today in France christians are called as 'CHRESTIENS' (chrétiens = chrestiens). It is obvious that behind all this there must be a logical explanation, just well precise!


Greetings

Littlejohn
.