mountainman

The letter exchanges between Paul and Seneca were at one time in the 4th century (when they were piously forged) fabricated as evidence that Paul was a Very Important Person. There we go. These letters were presented as being genuine, and whoever forged them was not expecting too much scholarly opposition at that time.



The Very Very True Cross? The exceedingly NO RUST nails? The foundation slabs of Pagan temples? The bones of saints and martrys? Holy foreskins by the score? Codex Vaticanus? The History of JRR Eusebius?






That's my bet too.




The setting of Paul's letters seems to suggest that Paul was a well known and Very Important Person. His letters must have been collected after his untimely death.

There is most definitely archaeological evidence in the 1st century of a massive church network across the entire Roman Empire and beyond it for the healing god of Asclepius. Apollonius of Tyana for example, being at one time a priest of this church network, might expect to have letters delivered by the people travelling within this network of churches. Paul may have been designed on a model similar to that of Apollonius, who had some reputation in his lifetime as an author, and man of letters. He may in fact be mentioned in Acts as "Apollos" and in Codex Bezae as "Apollonius".

The question is whether the christian church had a physical network of churches in the same manner as did the church of Asclepius. At present there is little christian archaeology, and certainly nothing from the 1st century, unless Oded Galan's James Ossuary is suddenly and unexpectedly found to be genuine.

Toto

New International Version (©1984)
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation.

I don't see anything there to indicate that Paul defers to anyone else's gospel.

I have some doubts about the authenticity of this passage. It seems most likely that this epistle was not originally written to the Romans; I suspect someone has added some human interest to explain why Paul had not yet made it to Rome.

Duvduv

Well, in that case we can definitely say that such texts of what we call the Christian religion are only in existence since the fourth or fifth century.
However, as I mentioned, the only unequivocal statement about the exclusive revelation is in Galatians.

Toto

What is the basis of this? Are you just trying to be annoying?

Duvduv

Toto, if you recall we discussed the issue of redaction and interpolations, and that for all intents and purposes the texts that we know today are from the later periods, whatever the time of their origination.
I don't know why you single my comments out for adjectives such as "annoying" or for special monitoring given the panorama of posters on FRDB including some very unusual individuals. I really don't.

DCHindley

I remember when we first started corresponding (well, I think it was you, Dave) a couple years back, even then you asked a lot of questions to kind of get to the point in a round about manner. You explained that you were an Orthodox Jew, which means a different point of view than most of us raised in the "Christian" traditions (including most athiests).

If I recall correctly, I think what prompted you to e-mail me was a discussion at Jesus Mysteries about G R S Mead's Did jesus Live 100 BC?. I made a comment about the way Jewish tradition associated Jesus with historical figures who lived well before and well after the time Christians say Jesus existed.

Finally, after a lot of back and forth about that and other subjects related to theories about the evolution of the beliefs of early Christians, you came out and said that you were really looking for was something that might bolster your feeling that it was a later fiction projected backwards into history.

We weren't on the same page about that, but that's cool. While you have always had a good knowledge of Rabbinic traditions, I did notice that you have been steadily familiarizing yourself with early Christian writings and some Patristics. That's cool.

I like the way you can talk about subjects sensitive to observant Jews (like Christian claims about Jesus and God, and about Muslim beliefs) without resorting to sneers or expressing ill will. Wish I saw more of that here!

It is IMHO good for the list to have divergant POVs, as it is way too easy to make assumptions from one's own world view that overlook or misinterpret or simply ignore facts in order to confirm our own prejudices. The weaknesses of one's own positions need to be ferreted out, and the eyes of others is an excellent way for that to happen.

DCH

Duvduv

Actually, there are two issues, because of my interest in Jewish history, and especially obscure chapters in that history, the first issue was how the Christian sect(s) emerged from a Jewish environment (if at all) and whether it was possible to identify any elements that reached back into the first century BCE.

Toto

How does this justify a blanket statement "we can definitely say that such texts of what we call the Christian religion are only in existence since the fourth or fifth century." ? Why is the date of the text so important if the surviving text is a copy of an earlier text? Are you implying that the Christian religion is somehow ambiguous?

There are some people here that I have given up trying to discuss anything with.

You, on the other hand, don't seem to be hopeless. The problem I have with your posts is that you post a sentence or two, without fully explaining what you mean OR the source for your assertion.

If you would just spend more time on your posts and explain yourself and why you think what you do, it would help.

In particular, a brief reference to the fourth century brings to mind mountainman's obsession. If you don't want to be associated with that, you need to say exactly what you mean.

Duvduv

I have made my point several times. I have said that the texts of the NT and their ideas did not just appear out of thin air in 325. I also said that I do not rely on the gospel truth the claims of biased party propagandists cum historians/apologists about what appeared when.

My conclusions about Irenaeus and Tertullian are that they did not get written in the 2nd century and that the NT canon texts did not exist in the 2nd century. That pretty well sums it up.

The logical conclusion of this viewpoint is that there were sects in existence before the 4th century who held the teachings and ideas expressed in the gospels and epistles among various ideas that were floating around at the time, and became incorporated later into these texts, i.e. in the world of the brand new empire and religion of this "Chi-Rho sect" of a very possibly celestial Christ sect that eventually became interpreted as a historical Christ, and of necessity was back dated by assorted writers working for the Regime.

mountainman

Third century Christian Origins may be a step in the right direction for anyone who is obsessed with the utter lack of integrity of the ancient historical evidence in prior centuries. There are truckloads of recognised forgeries to be explained by the unbiased investigator who is obsessed with the examination of both the positive and the negative evidence for the origin claims of earlier centuries, particulalry the 1st, and 2nd.

Philosopher Jay has suggested a date after 200 CE in some other threads and this is a scenario taking place in the 3rd century. In the 3rd century, we meet two Origens, and the Yellow Brick Road forks. One fork leads to the 3rd century Christian heresiological intelligentia, the other fork to the 3rd century Platonists.