outhouse

Here is some real knowledge on Romans that isnt laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans

According to traditional scholarly consensus, Paul authored the Epistle to the Romans. Only few scholars have argued against Paul's authorship.

C. E. B. Cranfield, in the introduction to his commentary on Romans, says:

The denial of Paul's authorship of Romans by such critics... is now rightly relegated to a place among the curiosities of NT scholarship. Today no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin. The evidence of its use in the Apostolic Fathers is clear, and before the end of the second century it is listed and cited as Paul's. Every extant early list of NT books includes it among his letters. The external evidence of authenticity could indeed hardly be stronger; and it is altogether borne out by the internal evidence, linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical and theological.[5]

jakejonesiv

All of these authors suffer from the deficit of unexamined assumptions. The underlying assumption, which they take for granted and never discuss, is the unity of authorship of the seven "authentic" Pauline epistles. By this I mean they assume that these epistles flowed from the pen of the alleged first century apostle in--for all practical purposes--the canonical version (i.e. Nestle-Anand 27 text of Paul's epistles). This is a gratuitous assumption.

We know that another version of the Pauline epistles circulated before the middle of the second century CE, long before the oldest extant documents. It is Marcion's Apostilicon. It can be reconstructed with a good degree of accuracy (esp. Galatians and Romans) through citations in Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem, Epiphanius's Panarion and Adamantius' Dialogues on the True Faith, and other sources. Which of these esteemed scholars (noted in your message above) has undertaken a study to determine whether the Apostolicon predates NA27? The answer is none of them. They will never get the right answer because they do not even know the question. The history of mainline scholarship has been to follow snout to tail ever since Tertullian. They are following church tradition about the posterity of Marcion, not engaging in textual criticism. Yet we know that of the scholars who have undertaken to study this question, many of them have become convinced of the priotity of Marcion.

Stylometric studies by Dr. Detering indicate that the authors of the Marcionite Recension (MR) and the Catholic Redaction (KR) are different *within* the same epistles. This is something that traditional scholars have never even thought to examine, and it invalidates the stylometric studies that purport to have validated the genuine seven epistles.

Scholars have with great success subjected the gospels and Torah to higher critical scholarship that has shown that the texts grew by successive redactions. Yet for some reason, the Pauline epistles are claimed to be exempt from such scrutiny. Indeed, the institutional investment in Paul is so great that anyone who dares “cross the line” has found themselves ostracized and eventually out of a job. This is not an accident, but a rear guard action, the last line of defense of those who hold to some semblance of traditional Christian origins in the Levant in the early first century. Without an authentic Pauline corpus, the entire edifice of first century Christianity unravels, and we must cut anchor and look to the second century CE.

To illustrate my point, I am going to ask you, outhouse to provide the objective criteria by which one might surely identify the "authentic" Pauline epistles from the other Pauline epistles that are admittedly inauthentic.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Kenneth Humphreys?
Then refute him, Plumpsklo.

outhouse

These are called scholars and proffessors, not authors.

The only thing they suffer from is education and knowledge and reasonable research.



They dont use internet blogs as resource centers.

outhouse

Duh! where else would you expect to find it.

Get real.

Toto

Hello there.

If Paul did the things that Acts records, he stood up in synagogues and claimed to interpret scripture. He interacted with some famous Roman officials. If he did the things his letters record, he was all over the Roman empire. But there is no mention of him in any Jewish or Roman record from the time. Later Christians even felt the need to forge some letters between Paul and Seneca, but they are patent forgeries.

So your only sources for Paul are Christian propagandists. And we don't know who they were, or if they even intended to record actual history, or anything else about them.

Maybe you should get real.

outhouse

So Paul is a conspiracy LOL :hysterical:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans

According to traditional scholarly consensus, Paul authored the Epistle to the Romans. Only few scholars have argued against Paul's authorship.

C. E. B. Cranfield, in the introduction to his commentary on Romans, says:

The denial of Paul's authorship of Romans by such critics... is now rightly relegated to a place among the curiosities of NT scholarship. Today no responsible criticism disputes its Pauline origin. The evidence of its use in the Apostolic Fathers is clear, and before the end of the second century it is listed and cited as Paul's. Every extant early list of NT books includes it among his letters. The external evidence of authenticity could indeed hardly be stronger; and it is altogether borne out by the internal evidence, linguistic, stylistic, literary, historical and theological.[5]


In other words, your laughed at.

MrMacSon

What is known about Paul other than what is said in writings-attributed-to-him^* - nothing?

* 'writings-attributed-to-Paul' by christian theology-trained scholars who exhibit confirmation bias

outhouse

I already told you once, provide a replacement hypothesis that doesnt raise more questions then answers.

You cannot, because the man has historicity.


Isnt that a lie your telling? We know who they were. They were not propagandist, thats a joke.


We have multiple attestation form multiple church fathers who are known and their historicity not in question.

Episcula Apostolorum, Acts of the Apostles,
Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon
Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, Polycarp,
Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?)
1 Clement (Catholic redaction)
2 Peter,
Irenaeus,
Ignatians (Catholic redaction),
Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction),
Tertullian, Third century CE
Origen, Third century CE


<edit>

outhouse

What does that have to do with a man who has solid historicity?

Besides his undisputed Epistles, he is mentioned by later church Fathers in which we see their work influenced directly by his writings.