jakejonesiv

Hi Vinnie,

Surely you aren't counting Philemon among your "seven authentic Pauline epistles"?

Ephesians and Colossians are both inauthentic. Why should we accept Philemon, which arose in the same circles? The names in Philemon are the same as Colossians. The dead giveaway, Onesimus a "brother beloved."

Philemon 1:23-24 (NIV)
23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings.
24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

How can an inauthentic epistle confirm an authentic one?

Epaphras Col 1:7; 4:12
Mark and Aristarchus Col 4:10
Demas and Luke Col 4:14

Philemon has strong similarities to a correspondence between Pliny and Sabinianus.

Pliny wrote to Sabinianus concerning a freedman (libertus) of Sabinianus who had escaped and been staying with him. “YOUR freedman …has been with me…” The runaway had known Pliny previously. The occasion of the letter was to intercede on the behalf of the runaway, so that he may return with full pardon. Pliny has authority over Sabinianus if he chose to exert it, “I should seem rather to compel than request you to forgive him…” Yet he is careful to use persuasion rather than authority. Pliny asks for clemency by appealing to Sabinianus’ affection, kindness, mercy, and mildness of temper.

Paul wrote to Philemon concerning an escaped slave of Philemon, one Onesimus (v. 10) who had been staying with Paul. The occasion of the letter was to intercede on the behalf of the runaway, so that he may return with full pardon, no longer a slave (v.16). Paul had a superior position over Philemon. “I have the full right in Christ to order you to do what is proper” v8. Yet he is careful to use persuasion rather than authority. “but I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that the good you do might not be forced but voluntary.” v. 14. Paul appeals to Philemon’ good will in Christ and love (v. 9).

Philemon, full of Christian charity, filled the same purpose for Marcion as the story of the prodigal son did for the proto-othodox.

Vinnie, are you agreeable to whittling down your list of authentic Pauline epistles to six? (A slippery slope! :devil1

Jake

spamandham

No, we don't know that. What we know is that 6 of the letters were not written by the same author as the remaining letters. Given that ~half the letters are proven to be inauthentic, it boggles that mind that people still assume the remaining ones are authentic. It's amazing that even skeptics fall into this irrational trap.

We know the late 2nd century saw a veritable cottage industry of noncanonical pseudepigrapha. We know that at least (not at most) 6 of the letters attributed to Paul are not authentic. The probability that the remaining letters are authentic is dramatically diminished by these facts.

It is not a valid scientific approach to simply ignore relevant facts.

bacht

Steven said:

"Just to be clear, if the proposal of Luke writing to Theophilus is shown wrong, I would happily discard the identification. For many years I had read the NT, and listened to theories about Luke as the Gentile physician, without being even aware that Theophilus was the name of the Jewish high priest around 40 AD. (A few years ago I saw that some were pointing out the likelihood of Luke being a Hebrew, like Paul.) All I say now is that this proposal, going back at least to Johann Michaelis and Theodore Hase, more recently brought to the fore by Richard H. Anderson and now discussed vibrantly by many, looks like the most sensible identification and timing that I have seen."

here's the wiki:

Theophilus was the High Priest in the Second Temple in Jerusalem from 37 to 41 C.E. according to Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews. He was a member of one of the wealthiest and most influential Jewish families in Iudaea Province during the first century. According to some Christian traditions he was the person to whom the Gospel of Luke is addressed, which would date Luke to within 4 to 8 years of the death of Jesus.

Theophilus was the son of Annas and the brother of Eleazar, Jonathan, Matthias and Ananus, all of whom served as High Priests. He was also the brother-in-law of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest before whom Jesus appeared. In addition his son Matthias served as the next to the last High Priest before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

Archeological evidence confirms the existence of Theophilus the High Priest as an ossuary has been discovered bearing the inscription, Johanna granddaughter of Theophilus, the High Priest. The details of this ossuary have been published in the Israel Exploration Journal. Therefore Theophilus had at least one other son named Jonathan, father to Johanna.

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

Spamandham's question is still a propos: why would a Christian author write to a Jewish high priest, especially one related to the high priest who condemned Jesus?

Also, there's the larger issue of Jesus' invisibility to 1st C commentators. Wouldn't the high priest have had something to say about Christians, either postive or negative, and wouldn't Josephus have reported this?

DCHindley

What has always bothered me about the "authentic" vs "inauthentic" debate among critics is that it is based on the doctrines contained in them. Critics tend to assume that the letters to churches, which are dripping with Christ theology, MUST be authentic. The letters that do not (mainly letters to individuals), which tend to be less heavy with Christ theology and mention levels of church organization that seem advanced for our simplistic models for the development of Christianity, MUST be pious imitations.

All sorts of justifications for this artificial segregation are put forward: Differences of vocabulary - usually ignoring the differences that might be expected between the genres of instructional treatises and personal letters; and differences of theology - usually ignoring the tremendous variations and contradictions that are to be found in and between the generally undisputed treatises, which by the same logic should also brand them as inauthentic, and the use of similar terms and concepts among the DSS.

Even the arguments of church organization and what were based on words thought to be technical terms from the Gnostic and Marcionite debates, or the use of EPISKOPOS (bishop/overseer) versus PRESBYTEROS (elder), is simplistic when viewed against the tremendous sophistication that is now known to have existed in wealthy extended households, which frequently included slaves and freedmen termed "overseers," the existence of "overseer" as a formal officer in some voluntary associations, the use of Hebrew cognates to "overseer" to describe organizational leaders in the more sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls, and 1st -2nd century BC terms found in the Hebrew and Aramaic DSS that closely follow the "technical terms" that were supposed to be related to 2nd century AD "gnostic" and "Marcionite" debates.

The critical world is really ripe for a well researched and carefully argued monograph that explodes these quaint ideas and brings the data together better than the old arguments that now leave so many loose ends untied.

DCH (on lunch break boss)

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

spam .. I do not insist that anyone agree with the dating, my view is something like that of William Paley (1743-1805) who I referenced in the thread, that this is highly probable. Clearly to a post 70 AD dater the identification is simply impossible, unless they consider changing their NT dating parameters. While to a mythicist the identification would be irrelevant, since it would only be docudrama anyway.

The Horæ Paulinæ of William Paley, D.D.: carried out and illustrated in a Continuous History of the Apostolic Labours and Writings of St. Paul on the basis of the Acts, with Intercalary Matter of Sacred Narrative Supplied from the Epistles and Elucidated in Occasional Dissertations by James Tate (1840 edition)
http://books.google.com/books?id=I08...age&q=&f=false

But it may naturally be asked, Allowing the Gospel to have been written at Cesarea in the time of St. Paul's imprisonment there, who was Theophilus, to whom the Gospel is dedicated ? Here again we enjoy the decisive advantage of referring to a real person, the only one known to us by that name at that period ; a person belonging to Judea, as having been high priest, who from the time about which he held that office, and from the early age at which it could then be held, was likely enough to be alive at the very date required, and who, as having held the high priesthood, was entitled to the address of rank, κατηχήθης "most excellent."

We are indebted to the acute perspicacity of Theodore Hase (Michaelis, u. s. pp. 238...240.) for this most ingenious and highly probable supposition, in all its principal points. And I am disposed to go farther than Michaelis as to the satisfaction with which we may contemplate it. He, after examining all the other notions which have been advanced upon the subject, declares (p. 266.) of this, that though not confirmed by (direct) historical evidence, it is supported by its own internal probability, and is on the whole more eligible than any of the merely traditionary reports.

For my part, I see no difficulty whatever in Theodore Hase's hypothesis, except it be from a point of chronology which shall be noticed at the close of this section. And I am strongly inclined to recommend its adoption to the readers of these pages, not only as harmonising well with all the phenomena of the case, but as favoured by positive considerations already stated, and therefore as greatly superior to the other hypotheses which have nothing but obscure tradition to rest upon.

As to a high priest's having become a Christian convert, what should hinder it ? At an early period, and in Jerusalem, we read, A. vi. 7., that " a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith." In Corinth, several years after, we find one ruler of the synagogue at least, Crispus, A. xviii. 8., to have been so converted. And why should we doubt but that some even of the highest dignity might be converted in Jerusalem ?

=========================================

Paley "is best known for his exposition of the teleological argument for the existence of God in his work Natural Theology, which made use of the watchmaker analogy." (Wikipedia)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

bacht

Of course many things are theoretically possible, but the probability of a high priest in Jerusalem switching teams to Christianity and no-one saying anything about it seems small.

The high priest was the figurehead of traditional Mosaic Judaism both at home and abroad. He still had status in Judea though the Romans were the administrators. Also as part of the upper class he would tend to work to preserve the status quo. And what about Jesus' prophecy of the fall of the temple, or passages like this:

"Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and love salutations in the market places and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation."

Lk 20.46-47

or Jesus' remarks about the rich and the poor?

spamandham

I completely agree, but until that happens, laymen such as myself are to some degree at the mercy of the professionals. Within Biblical history, apologetics has often dominated real scholarship. That being the case, when a consensus is reached that is counter to apologetic pressure, I tend to give it relatively more weight, as it indicates the argument must be truly compelling. Such is the case with the identification of inauthentic letters.

spamandham

What is the basis for saying that it is "highly probable" that Luke's Theophilus is the Jewish high priest?

aa5874

But, why do you claim I am ignorant when you really do NOT KNOW who wrote Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon?

You appear to be ignorant of the facts concerning the so-called Pauline letters.

It can only be DEDUCED that some of the so-called letters were written by the same person but it cannot be ascertained when any of the Pauline letters were written or how many persons used the name of Paul..

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are NO corroboratnve sources for the Pauline letters outside of apologetics.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that Acts of the Apostles contain a fictitious account of Saul/Paul conversion to Jesus.

You also appear to be ignorant of the fact that the Jesus described by the authors of the NT did not exist at all, which means that it was hardly likely a writer called Paul could have been a contemporary of Jesus.

Now, if Paul wrote or told Jews that Jesus died, was resurrected and ascended to heavenand that over 500 people saw Jesus in a resurrected state then [b] virtually all the PEOPLE, including the governor or procurator of Judaea, especially people in Jerusalem and Galilee would have known that Paul was lying or that his information was unreliable.

It is just absurd to think that Paul could have written or told his Jewish contemporaries from around 40-64 CE that Jesus was a God and was able to forgive the sins of Jews while the Temple was still standing.

The Pauline letters or message must have been written or most likely circulated after the Fall of the Temple of after 70 CE and probably after the writings of Justin Martyr who never did mention Paul or Acts of the Apostles, the doctrine of Paul, the activities of Paul nor any of his churches in any of his extant writings.

This is the so-called Paul supposedly before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Romans 1:1-7 - Ga 5:2 - Ro 8:3 - It is totally unrealistic for Paul to have preached and written such blasphemy and yet allowed to preach in the JEWISH Synagogues, Sabbath after Sabbath, when even according to Church writers Jesus and Stephen were executed for making similar blasphemous statement.

Jesus was executed within about 3 years based on gJohn. Stephen was executed by stoning within a short time, based on Acts, yet Peter and Paul propagated the very blasphemy and publicly preached blasphemy to the JEWS for over 30 years.

The post-ascension history of PAUL IS IGNORANCE.

The Pauline writers are 1st century FICTION.

DCHindley

As the list of 28 known HPs since the time of Herod (from the revised edition of Schuerer's Jewish People) makes clear, if you want to choose Theophilus the HP of AD 37 - AD 41??, you have maybe 20 years from the known start of his appointment to presume he flourished. Unlike other HPs mentioned, this one does not show up later in history, except as the possible father of #27, Matthias (AD 65 - AD 67??). Why him??

I'll hazard to guess Steven, and Paley, think so because its possibility, however small, is convenient, and therefore must be the case. How do they know it wasn't the Theophilus who was the father of Matthias, assuming he was not the Theophilus of AD 37? Or a completely different Theophilus.

FWIW, the author of Luke calls Theophilus KRATISTH (from KRATISTOS, 1. mightiest, strongest, noblest, most illustrious, best, most excellent 1a. used in addressing men of prominent rank or office) in vs 1:3, not KATHCHQHS (from KATHCEW, 1. to sound towards, sound down upon, resound 1a. to charm with resounding sound, to fascinate 2. to teach orally, to instruct 3. to inform by word of mouth 3a. to be orally informed) which is in vs 1:4.

KRATISTH is used in Josephus' Life 1:430 (But to you, O Epaphroditus, you most excellent of men! do I dedicate all this treatise of our Antiquities), and Against Apion 1:1 (I suppose, that by my books of the "Antiquity of the Jews", most excellent Epaphroditus). This Epaphroditus was in no way a High Priest, only a Roman citizen of some rank who was Josephus' patron at the time he wrote those works.

DCH (taking a union mandated afternoon break, boss)