dog-on

Seem to know?

avi

Another way, of expressing the same sentiment (thanks bacht, well written!) is this:
simpler = the hypothesis which requires the least data to support its veracity.

Walking on water, raising people from the dead, restoring vision in the blind, these are fairy tales, not reality. There is no data to support such claims, ergo, there is an infinite amount of data required to sustain them.

Either there is evidence, apparent upon reading the text of Mark, that Mark knew, or knew of, the epistles of Paul, or there is not.

Which is it?

avi

bacht

There's the anti-Peter stuff and the pro-gentile stuff, does that count?

spamandham

I think the epistles *as we know them* are certainly 2nd/3rd century works and contain multiple layers of authorship. This position is practically undisputed among well qualified published scholars. Whether or not the first layer was originally penned by a real Paul of the mid 1st century, I have no idea.

It isn't necessary to take a position in regard who Paul really was. I allow for a historical Paul of the mid 1st century, but I also allow for Paul as a constructed character, and as a pseudonym of Marcion. None of these are implausible.

I do find the existence of a collection of letters from Paul to various churches a bit fishy. That letters from Paul would be revered as scriptural within the lifetimes of those who received them (and thus maintained and copied them) does not seem to me to be a very plausible argument, particularly in the case of his more caustic letters such as Galatians. Here we have Paul raking the Galatians over the coals for having disregarded Paul's teachings in favor of some other influence...and yet these very same people who have implicitly rejected Paul nonetheless revere a letter from him, and so they maintain it such that it is later included in a collection of epistles. Come on. But that's the kind of argument you are forced into when you take the traditional view.

On the other hand, if the letters exist as a collection because they never were actually sent to the various churches, then we are left with the strong suspicion they were not penned by a historical Paul, even if there really was a historical Paul.

My approach is minimalism. As a result, the only things I'm willing to say with confidence in regard to the Pauline corpus are:

1. 6 of the 13 are probably fakes.
2. Since 6 of the 13 are probably fakes, it is not reasonable to presuppose that the other 7 are genuine
3. The letters as we know them have multiple layers of writers/editors with a diverse set of Christologies.
4. Regardless of whether or not a 1st century person named Paul wrote the early version of the 7, all the letters (including the fakes) nonetheless capture early Christian ideas and are useful for understanding the big picture.

I'm sorry Abe, but I just don't presuppose that the ancients were modern western textual critics the way you are doing. Nothing I have read in regard to the way ancients thought indicates that they would *ever* take a text literally, or that they most would have understood what the concept of taking a text literally even means. These people were illiterate, absurdly superstitious, unquestioning of authority, and known to interpret all of life mystically.

I'm just going to have to flat out disagree. There is nothing in the gospels to indicate they are attempts at history or even biography (in the modern sense).

Take for example the little apocalypse of Mark you referenced. In it, Jesus is very specific about the temple being razed (not one stone left on another). Well guess what. The temple was not razed in 70 CE, it was merely ruined.

The razing happened over the course of a few years in the early 140s. Further, the rift between Jews and Christians didn't happen until after the Bar Kochba revolt, so "You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues." makes no historical sense until the late 140s. A reasonable person will conclude then that the little apocalypse was written sometime *after* 140. But it is within that very apocalypse where we find Jesus saying all these things would happen within his generation, ...and Jesus had already been dead ~110 years from a Biblical perspective, so it's exceedingly unlikely that the ancients interpreted it literally the way you are trying to. How can you justify such an approach?

The simplest explanations are always best, but the simplest explanations factor in all the evidence, the historical context known to us by all means, and everything we know about the way the universe works as well as

ApostateAbe

There is a reason why I think it would be better to hash out the specifics of your model, not just leave them up in the air.

It would mean much less work for critics, or anyone else wishing to evaluate your theory. If you say, "I think these three mutually exclusive ideas are possible to explain the writings of Paul, but I don't want to stand behind any single one of them because of the uncertainty," then your critics will have to try to strike down all three of them. If they strike down only one of them, then you can jump to the next explanation. You should be the one who has to do the critical thinking, not them.

Moreover, we can effectively compare the relative probability of competing models only when each model has the same level of detail. My model of Paul is that he was a mid-first century ex-Pharisee convert to Christianity who wrote almost all of the contents of the epistles to the Romans, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and 1 Thessalonians. My model can be picked apart, scrutinized, confirmed or falsified.

You claim that the Pauline epistles contain multiple layers of authorship, and you have the backing of scholars. I hope you don't take that as a license to attribute any of the contents of the Pauline epistles to any author according to whatever suits your model. If you are going to claim that the scholars support your position on Paul, then I hope you have in mind the specifics of which passages are thought to be interpolations or redactions. The respected scholars are specific with their claims about interpolations--and they have good reasoning to back them up (or at least they should).

Maybe you think, since Paul has been interpolated and forged, we really don't know for sure what is authentic and what isn't. If so, then you don't really have a model, do you? You have the non-position of Toto, spin, Robert Price, R. Joseph Hoffman and ex-mythicists who lose too many arguments, where all speculations are on the table and we just can't sort it out. It is a stalemate position that doesn't have a place in any debate. If you want to be like the scholars, then choose a detailed position that you believe best explains the evidence, and we can put it to the test against my own position, or the established position. We can use ABE or whatever methodology of comparison you may prefer.
OK. I am willing to grant that those people were illiterate, absurdly superstitious, unquestioning of authority, and known to interpret all of life mystically. I don't know how you go from that set of premises to the claim that the Mark 9:1 means that Jesus was actually talking to the people in the churches of the textual audience, not necessarily the people of Mark 8:34. By the way, when I say, "literal" or "literally," I mean the plainest meaning that comes immediately to mind when reading the text. The "literal" interpretation is common and normal in communication of all sort, and the "non-literal" interpretations are favored by those who want to find meanings that were probably not intended. Regardless of how backward those people may have been, they are expected to believe what is most plainly on the face of the texts upon hearing them, and that is the same meaning the authors likely intended.

That isn't to say that a literal interpretation is ALWAYS correct, but an alternative "non-literal" interpretation demands an explanation that best fits the evidence. For example, there may be a passage within the gospels where Jesus says to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, whoever does not heed the counsel of my apostles will not see the kingdom of heaven." This would make little sense for Jesus to say to his disciples, and the gospel authors would know it, but it would make perfect sense if implicitly Jesus' intended audience were not the disciples but the members of the churches. I think that is the sort of evidence you need.
That point about the temple being merely ruined, not completely razed to the ground, strikes me as an excellent point to argue for a later date for the gospel of Mark. Do you happen to have evidence for suspecting that the temple was merely ruined and not razed to the ground in 70 CE?
I am glad that we are in agreement.

ApostateAbe

OK, so why do you think that Mark seems to know Paul? I am not claiming that you are wrong, but I would like to get further information on the subject. Thanks.

aa5874

What is the opposite of "seem to know"?

spin

So what do you think the context was for these words from Mk 13:2, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down."?


spin

bacht

I don't really understand this argument. You seem to be saying that we MUST have a detailed theory to explain early Chrisitianity even if there isn't enough evidence. This is the method of religion: authoritative answers regardless of evidence. Science is about evidence determining provisional answers and raising new questions.

Consider the idea of extraterrestrial life. Many scientists accept that it's possible, but few would insist that we must assume that it's true, because we just don't have enough data either way to reach a conclusion.

If the discussion here were about some obscure philosopher who no-one actually saw in person it would be a faintly interesting argument, but one which could likely be left open for further research to clarify. But we're talking about the most important person in Western history, so apparently we can't just leave loose ends dangling, we MUST declare a position. This approach is irresponsible and counterproductive imo.

Johnny Skeptic

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. Logically, people "do not" have to take a position on the authenticity of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 if they do not want to, and they "do not" have to take a position on the origin of the universe if they do not want to for that matter. If you have a position on the origin of the universe, and what existed prior to the origin of the universe, please start a new thread at the Science Discussion forum and post your opinions.

There is "no" detailed position that reasonably proves that 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 is authentic.

There is "no" detailed position that reasonably proves that Peter was talking for himself.

There is "no" detailed position that reasonably proves where the unknown Gospel writers got their information from.

There is "no" detailed position that reasonably proves how many of the disciples might have given up being followers of Jesus for the rest of their lives after he died.