Freethought & Rationalism Archive

buster · 10-19-2010, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Paul doesn't mention the gospels.
If the gospels had been circulating in Paul's time, we should reasonably expect him to have mentioned them.
Therefore Paul was written before the gospels.

Do you have any problem with the second premise?

IMO this kind of logic assumes a lot about the author's character and context. From where do we get such confidence as to what Paul would have done? Do we really know him that well? Seems like wishful fantasy to think we do. He's on the other side of a chasm of two millennia, speaking a different - and dead - language, in a different world, and here we are acting like we'd know what to order him for lunch. Paul would have mentioned the gospels? Says who. We can't even agree which letters he wrote.

As to Acts, the logic is the same, and I only see it as a double-standard to treat the two cases as different. Acts spends most of its length telling the story of everything Paul said and did. If Paul wrote letters, then you have to explain why this wasn't duly noted by Luke. Of course, that's exactly what happens - scholars know that it's cheating if you don't consider alternatives to Acts predating Paul (not that they entertain the idea).

Scholars conceive of reasons for Luke to ignore or not know of the letters.

And I can conceive of similar reasons in Paul's case.

All in all, it's weak logic. Ehrman OTOH doesn't recognize this - he lists the argument as first and foremost for the priority of Paul.

spamandham · 10-19-2010, 08:30 PM

The gospels don't mention the letters of Paul. Therefor, they were written before Paul wrote. Paul doesn't mention the gospels, therefor he wrote before the gospels.

This is really a terrible approach at reasoning.

stephan huller · 10-19-2010, 09:26 PM

The better question is what the fuck are the Pauline epistles? Who the hell is he writing to? Why would anyone care to hear what he had to say? How could someone who had supposedly never even seen Jesus or had any firsthand knowledge of his Passion or ministry somehow become the guy who defines the whole tradition? Who cares?

spamandham · 10-19-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The better question is what the fuck are the Pauline epistles? Who the hell is he writing to?

I've asked this dozens of times and have never received a good answer. Isn't it obvious that the whole "letter to the {X}" genre is just a clever way of putting words into a hero's mouth?

Of course, if that's what the letters really are - and I do think that's the best explanation - then who the hell was Paul such that he commanded authority?

Steve Weiss · 10-19-2010, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

So, your position seems to be that given little, if any, evidence in support of the existence of a King David you are willing to assume that the biblical stories are true. Do, you also assume that Moses was an historical person? On what basis outside the bible? One is question begging when one assumes what one is required to prove. That someone must have been a king of Judea does not make a case for the biblical David being the correct one. There is scant evidence for the demarcation of the borders of Judea and other "nations" if one wants to use a modern term which does not properly apply to small tribal groupings. So, in the absence of solid evidence in favor of the existence of a King David, no case has been made or even attempted. Such vacuous claims fall into the category of the arbitrary.

One must ask one's self, what would be necessary and sufficient evidence to support the existence of a King David? Lots of written records kept by the tribe and by outsiders as well could be a starting point, though lots of stories about mythical people are readily available and do not prove the existence of legendary characters. A tomb with convincing markings containing a body that is DNA tested along with buried treasure and artifacts might advance one's claim, assuming that these artifacts could be properly dated and matched with biblical accounts. Coinage with the face of King David on it would be circumstantial but might be somewhat convincing to those who want to believe in this personage. In any case, the evidence that is both necessary and sufficient data to even get to the level of possibility does not exist. To go even futher to say that the existence of a King David is probable really stretches the imagination beyond credulity.

Well, there's no stele with Moses' name on it is there? Why couldn't we accept a provisional conclusion of David being an early tribal leader?

The most honest approach is to say that there is inconclusive evidence for the claim for a King David and that the presumption is that until there is necessary and sufficient evidence that there is no case for his existence. The David referred to could be any David, and it is like one piece in a big puzzle. There is a mummy of Ramses the Great, so one can be reasonably sure that he existed. For David, nothing even close. In the case of Moses, many attribute the Pentateuch to him, with no evidence to support same.

maryhelena · 10-19-2010, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The better question is what the fuck are the Pauline epistles? Who the hell is he writing to?

I've asked this dozens of times and have never received a good answer. Isn't it obvious that the whole "letter to the {X}" genre is just a clever way of putting words into a hero's mouth?

Of course, if that's what the letters really are - and I do think that's the best explanation - then who the hell was Paul such that he commanded authority?

Good question!
The argument that he was new to the group (others prior to his time) and somehow was able to command such authority that he sought to lay down the law, so to speak, is a good storyline - but difficult to imagine in reality.

That 'Paul' was able to be a prime mover and shaker within early or pre-christian circles does suggest that he was much more than some recent convert or recruit. What was new was his vision - that is his 'conversion' experience. An experience that allowed for it's own retelling in story form, in a pseudo-historical, 'genesis' type, storyline.

That 'Paul' was able to command authority perhaps had as much to do with who he was as it had to do with his vision. A vision, alone, is no magic wand - a vision can quite easily be ridiculed. Or it can become the flavor of the month only to be replaced by the next one. 'Paul' was in a position that enabled him to market his vision. So - letters to X, Y and Z - marketing tools......

Sure, Paul's vision most probably caused controversy within his circle - hence the opportunity to compose letters to counter the dissension. But for those who did not go along with the vision and it's implications - no way to stop the marketing. 'Paul' retained the upper hand, he had the means.

Who was he? I'll put my money on Marcus Julius Agrippa - Agrippa 11. A man with the authority of Rome and that of his Hasmonean/Herodian ancestry.

Steven Carr · 10-20-2010, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Presented in full, it would go something like this.

Paul doesn't mention the gospels.
If the gospels had been circulating in Paul's time, we should reasonably expect him to have mentioned them.
Therefore Paul was written before the gospels.

Do you have any problem with the second premise?

I can see a lot of problems. The gospels might have been circulating, but Paul didn't consider them authoritative, or they were published by an alternative sect, or. . .

Paul does in fact complain about people preaching a different Jesus to his. For all we know, the 'Jesus of Nazareth' Jesus might be one of the different Jesus's that Christians were preaching.

dogsgod · 10-20-2010, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I've asked this dozens of times and have never received a good answer. Isn't it obvious that the whole "letter to the {X}" genre is just a clever way of putting words into a hero's mouth?

Of course, if that's what the letters really are - and I do think that's the best explanation - then who the hell was Paul such that he commanded authority?

Good question!
The argument that he was new to the group (others prior to his time) and somehow was able to command such authority that he sought to lay down the law, so to speak, is a good storyline - but difficult to imagine in reality.

That 'Paul' was able to be a prime mover and shaker within early or pre-christian circles does suggest that he was much more than some recent convert or recruit. What was new was his vision - that is his 'conversion' experience. An experience that allowed for it's own retelling in story form, in a pseudo-historical, 'genesis' type, storyline.

That 'Paul' was able to command authority perhaps had as much to do with who he was as it had to do with his vision. A vision, alone, is no magic wand - a vision can quite easily be ridiculed. Or it can become the flavor of the month only to be replaced by the next one. 'Paul' was in a position that enabled him to market his vision. So - letters to X, Y and Z - marketing tools......

Sure, Paul's vision most probably caused controversy within his circle - hence the opportunity to compose letters to counter the dissension. But for those who did not go along with the vision and it's implications - no way to stop the marketing. 'Paul' retained the upper hand, he had the means.

Who was he? I'll put my money on Marcus Julius Agrippa - Agrippa 11. A man with the authority of Rome and that of his Hasmonean/Herodian ancestry.

From reading Paul it appears that a risen Christ appeared to the others just as it appeared to Paul, through revelations, visions. No one's experience appears to be any different than Paul's. The apostles claimed to receive messages from God through Jesus Christ by way of revelation, and in turn they passed these messages on to their adherents. It seems that apostles were self appointed, or chosen by God as Paul claims, Galatians 2:7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. so claiming authority was a way of asserting that one knew the truth and was able to pass it on to their respective congregations.

It was a battle between apostles over adherents, and in the midst of a turf war Paul agreed with the Jerusalem group that he would preach to the gentles and they would continue to preach to the Jews. Paul felt he had as much authority as anyone else and why not?

Gal 2:9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

maryhelena · 10-20-2010, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogsgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Good question!
The argument that he was new to the group (others prior to his time) and somehow was able to command such authority that he sought to lay down the law, so to speak, is a good storyline - but difficult to imagine in reality.

That 'Paul' was able to be a prime mover and shaker within early or pre-christian circles does suggest that he was much more than some recent convert or recruit. What was new was his vision - that is his 'conversion' experience. An experience that allowed for it's own retelling in story form, in a pseudo-historical, 'genesis' type, storyline.

That 'Paul' was able to command authority perhaps had as much to do with who he was as it had to do with his vision. A vision, alone, is no magic wand - a vision can quite easily be ridiculed. Or it can become the flavor of the month only to be replaced by the next one. 'Paul' was in a position that enabled him to market his vision. So - letters to X, Y and Z - marketing tools......

Sure, Paul's vision most probably caused controversy within his circle - hence the opportunity to compose letters to counter the dissension. But for those who did not go along with the vision and it's implications - no way to stop the marketing. 'Paul' retained the upper hand, he had the means.

Who was he? I'll put my money on Marcus Julius Agrippa - Agrippa 11. A man with the authority of Rome and that of his Hasmonean/Herodian ancestry.

From reading Paul it appears that a risen Christ appeared to the others just as it appeared to Paul, through revelations, visions. No one's experience appears to be any different than Paul's. The apostles claimed to receive messages from God through Jesus Christ by way of revelation, and in turn they passed these messages on to their adherents. It seems that apostles were self appointed, or chosen by God as Paul claims, Galatians 2:7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. so claiming authority was a way of asserting that one knew the truth and was able to pass it on to their respective congregations.

It was a battle between apostles over adherents, and in the midst of a turf war Paul agreed with the Jerusalem group that he would preach to the gentles and they would continue to preach to the Jews. Paul felt he had as much authority as anyone else and why not?

Gal 2:9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Yep - that the story......but if it's history we are after methinks we should be putting the story aside...

stephan huller · 10-20-2010, 02:17 AM

The Apostle was a real person. There is no evidence to suggest that he didn't exist. He lived very close to the time of the events in question. How can we possibly put his testimony to the side ... unless our purpose is really to put Christianity to the side. Why then pretend we are engaging in objective scholarship? Why not hang a pinata in the shape of Jesus and just beat it with a stick. It will probably be more cathartic than having to engage in all this research.

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

10-19-2010, 08:30 PM	#252
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	The gospels don't mention the letters of Paul. Therefor, they were written before Paul wrote. Paul doesn't mention the gospels, therefor he wrote before the gospels. This is really a terrible approach at reasoning.

10-19-2010, 09:26 PM	#253
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The better question is what the fuck are the Pauline epistles? Who the hell is he writing to? Why would anyone care to hear what he had to say? How could someone who had supposedly never even seen Jesus or had any firsthand knowledge of his Passion or ministry somehow become the guy who defines the whole tradition? Who cares?

10-20-2010, 02:17 AM	#260
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The Apostle was a real person. There is no evidence to suggest that he didn't exist. He lived very close to the time of the events in question. How can we possibly put his testimony to the side ... unless our purpose is really to put Christianity to the side. Why then pretend we are engaging in objective scholarship? Why not hang a pinata in the shape of Jesus and just beat it with a stick. It will probably be more cathartic than having to engage in all this research.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.