Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-05-2010, 09:42 AM

The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

I haven't had time to read much, but there is an extensive preview on google books

avi · 06-05-2010, 11:31 AM

Thank you Toto. I appreciate that your citing the reference in no way constitutes endorsement.

I am very dissatisfied with this book.

Here are two quotes, which highlight the problem:

a.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.I.Pervo

Sometime during the opening years of the fourth decade of the common era...

How does the author know this? Where's his data? He acts as though this were a proven fact, whereas, at least in my opinion, there is no reliable evidence regarding the life of paul. I could as easily have written "Fourteenth decade of the common era", and had just as much logic to support my argument, as he does. What he lacks, and which I also do not possess, is evidence to support a supposed record. It seems to me surprising, how little we know of this guy, deemed so important to nascent Christianity.

b.

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.I.Pervo

He is the only Christian of the first two generations whose direct first-person testimony survives....

What does Pervo mean by writing "direct first-person"? One hopes that he realizes that Paul had no contact with a fleshly jesus....

regards,
avi

aa5874 · 06-05-2010, 02:03 PM

But in two conversion stories of the 2nd century the Pauline writings had NO (ZERO) influence on those being converted and was NOT mentioned by those who helped to initiate the conversion.

In "Dialogue with Trypho", c150 CE, Justin Martyr wrote about his conversion in his search for the truth and did not use a single line or passage from the Pauline writings. The Old man who inspired Justin to continue to search for the truth did NOT mention a single line or passage from the Pauline writings.

In Minucius Felix's, Octavius, who converted Caecilius, did not mention a single line or passage from the Pauline writings and neither did Caecilius.

And Celsus in Origen's "Against Celsus" seems not to be aware of the Pauline story where PAUL recieved information from the resurrected dead.

It is most curious that the Pauline writings were not RIDICULED by Caecilius and Celsus.

The Pauline writings are all most likely anachronistic.

Doug Shaver · 06-05-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.I.Pervo

He is the only Christian of the first two generations whose direct first-person testimony survives....

What does Pervo mean by writing "direct first-person"? One hopes that he realizes that Paul had no contact with a fleshly jesus....

The excerpt runs over 100 pages and I don't know where that quote is within it, so I'll be commenting without context.

I would not assume that by "testimony" Pervo means "testimony about Jesus." The point is that, whatever Paul's testimony is, it is his own. He's telling his readers what he himself is thinking, what he himself did, and what he himself heard and saw. We don't get that from any other Christian writer of the first century.

mountainman · 06-05-2010, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most curious that the Pauline writings were not RIDICULED by Caecilius and Celsus.

Celsus (and Porphyry) on "The Nation of Christians" is none other than that thoroughly dishonest "chronographer" Eusebius. See Momigliano's ironic comments about Eusebius' reputation as a competent chronographer.

Quote:

The Pauline writings are all most likely anachronistic.

So the Dutch radicals assert. Richard Pervo appears to espouse a solid early HJ theory.

avi · 06-05-2010, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

We don't get that from any other Christian writer of the first century.

In my view, Christianity didn't exist until the second century, so I am keen to learn of your source, perhaps the same source as had been employed by Richard Pervo, which identifies the dates of Paul's letters.

I hope you are not going to explain that "internal" references within the epistles offers a clue to their origin. By that token, Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar could have been written a thousand years earlier.

Do you have some concrete evidence that Paul lived in the first century?

An original document would be nice. Oh. That's right. We don't have any. The oldest extant copy of Paul's letters, dates from the third century (a date determined by handwriting analysis, the validity of which, I question, notwithstanding spin's assertion that the dates are absolutely correct.)

avi

aa5874 · 06-05-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most curious that the Pauline writings were not RIDICULED by Caecilius and Celsus.

Celsus (and Porphyry) on "The Nation of Christians" is none other than that thoroughly dishonest "chronographer" Eusebius. See Momigliano's ironic comments about Eusebius' reputation as a competent chronographer.

Would you discard the written statements of a person charged with a crime because they lied in their statements about their where-abouts and activities at the time the crime was committed?

I WOULD REALLY like to read everything that the Church presented for their "history of Jesus and his believers".

The Church writers, it would appear, did not lie about everything. Perhaps, they did not have the time.

Quote:

The Pauline writings are all most likely anachronistic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

So the Dutch radicals assert. Richard Pervo appears to espouse a solid early HJ theory.

There is NO solid early HJ theory. Or I have not seen such a theory.

HJ is just a proposal that has not even reached theory stage. People tend to confuse speculation and proposals with theory.

A theory on the historicity of Jesus needs DATA from SOLID credible historical sources.

Pervo can name one SOLID historical source for Jesus?

Doug Shaver · 06-06-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

We don't get that from any other Christian writer of the first century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In my view, Christianity didn't exist until the second century, so I am keen to learn of your source

I could be getting you mixed up with someone else, but I think you and I have already had this discussion. I'm not too interested in reprising it.

aa5874 · 06-06-2010, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

What does Pervo mean by writing "direct first-person"? One hopes that he realizes that Paul had no contact with a fleshly jesus....

The excerpt runs over 100 pages and I don't know where that quote is within it, so I'll be commenting without context.

I would not assume that by "testimony" Pervo means "testimony about Jesus." The point is that, whatever Paul's testimony is, it is his own. He's telling his readers what he himself is thinking, what he himself did, and what he himself heard and saw. We don't get that from any other Christian writer of the first century.

But, that is exactly what is not certain.

In effect, the Pauline writings as a whole are the works of many persons UNDER the PRETENSE of a single person and were NOT from the same time.

The Pauline writings are TRUE representation of the FORGERIES and LIES of the Church where for over 1700 years now the Church has continued to claim that a character called PAUL wrote ALL the Epistles and that he was in a basket in Damascus during the reign of Aretas after JESUS was RAISED from the DEAD.

All claims by the Pauline writers in the Epistles that JESUS (who did NOT exist) was RAISED from the dead on the third day was most likely FALSE.

All claims by the Pauline writers to have heard from a resurrected dead Jesus (who did NOT exist) MUST be FALSE.

All claims that Pauline writers SAW a resurrected DEAD JESUS (who did NOT exist) is most likely False.

All claims that the Pauline writers got their Gospel from a resurrected dead Jesus (who did NOT exist) MUST be False.

We have claims in the Pauline writings that are not even corroborated by apologetic sources. We have claims in the Pauline writings that are blatantly non-historically or fiction.

The Church claimed the author of Luke and Acts was a close companion of and traveled with Pauline writer all over the Roman Empire yet the Pauline writer appear to contradict his very close companion.

It is completely mis-leading to even suggest that the veracity of the Pauline writings can be known when all the writings under the name Paul may have been manipulated even whole books and entire chapters.

The name Paul is synonymous with forgeries and fiction. The Pauline Gospel is DIRECTLY dependent on a FICTITIOUS event, the resurrection of the Creator of heaven and earth.

What PAULINE Fiction!

avi · 06-06-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

We don't get that from any other Christian writer of the first century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In my view, Christianity didn't exist until the second century, so I am keen to learn of your source.

I could be getting you mixed up with someone else, but I think you and I have already had this discussion. I'm not too interested in reprising it.

Here are some excerpts from that previous exchange on the forum:
Doug's explanation of his belief in a 1st century origin of Paul's letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I need a clarification here. Are you suggesting that if the oldest extant manuscripts of two writers are both from the same century, then the default inference should be that the originals must also have been written at about the same time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In my opinion, not a fact, both "Paul" and "Mark" are second century creations.

Yes, I've gathered that. I know where you are. I'm trying to get you to explain how you got there.

....

My opinion is that (a) the original documents on which the extant Pauline writings were based were produced before the First Jewish War and (b) Mark and the other canonical gospels were produced in the second century.
....

I cannot properly elaborate in a brief post. My reasoning has to do with differences among the various sects that produced the documents, the relative influence of those sects at various times, and the manner in which they evolved and were amalgamated into the religion that we now recognize as orthodox Christianity. The Pauline sect was barely visible throughout the first century and practically disappeared sometime in the second. The sect associated with the canonical gospels possibly did not even exist in Paul's day. But, whether it began to exist in his time or soon afterward, it soon became more popular than his.
....

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

There must be some evidence, attractive to you, which propels you to imagine a first century date for Paul's epistles.

I don't think any imagination is needed to reach that conclusion. I think you are being a bit gratuitous in your characterization of opinions that differ from yours.
....

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Then, I am puzzled, what evidence is there, that you find persuasive, for a first century origin?

What do you mean by persuasive? I don't regard my conclusion as final in any sense. I think only that it is justified. The evidence I have is all the known evidence that there is, so far as I'm aware. It might be weak, but if it's all I have, then I go where it goes until I find something better that goes somewhere else.

Paul refers to an apparently vibrant Christian community in Jerusalem. So far as I'm aware, there was no such community left in Jerusalem after the First Jewish War. So, absent good evidence that the letters were forged after the war to make them look as though they'd been written before the war, I presume that they (the originals, I mean) were written before the war.

Hmm. "The evidence that I have is all the known evidence that there is...."
Ok,
BUT WHAT IS THAT EVIDENCE?

Opinion is great, Doug. you have one. i have one. Opinions are terrific. I am not writing this to belittle your opinion. I am writing to ask you, AGAIN, what is that evidence? Your reply that it is "all the known evidence" doesn't answer the question. You seek to deflect my question, by writing excuses.

Your response today, that we have already discussed this issue, as if it had been resolved, is inadequate, friend. Just an outline is sufficient. You don't need to spend an hour. Two minutes of your time is plenty. Frankly, there is not even one minute worth of evidence for any of this stuff, in my opinion. This is arguing quantity of fairies capable of dancing on the head of a pin, part deux.

Where's the data to support a first century origin for Paul's epistles?
avi

06-05-2010, 09:42 AM	#1
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Richard Pervo's new book "The Making of Paul" The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) I haven't had time to read much, but there is an extensive preview on google books

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2010, 02:03 PM	#3
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	But in two conversion stories of the 2nd century the Pauline writings had NO (ZERO) influence on those being converted and was NOT mentioned by those who helped to initiate the conversion. In "Dialogue with Trypho", c150 CE, Justin Martyr wrote about his conversion in his search for the truth and did not use a single line or passage from the Pauline writings. The Old man who inspired Justin to continue to search for the truth did NOT mention a single line or passage from the Pauline writings. In Minucius Felix's, Octavius, who converted Caecilius, did not mention a single line or passage from the Pauline writings and neither did Caecilius. And Celsus in Origen's "Against Celsus" seems not to be aware of the Pauline story where PAUL recieved information from the resurrected dead. It is most curious that the Pauline writings were not RIDICULED by Caecilius and Celsus. The Pauline writings are all most likely anachronistic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.