Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-03-2008, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I do not consider any of the epistles to be authentic since it cannot be determined who "Paul" actually was and what he actually wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok. Sounds to me like you choose to be skeptical here without addressing the scholarship position. You know, scholarship has become a lot more critical over the years, and yet there seems to be widespread agreement that "Paul" wrote 7 or so of the epistles when tradition says he did. This isn't simply because they want to believe it, though I'll admit that I dont' know all of the arguments to support their positions--probably literary style, theological style, certain references that show an accurate understanding of the regions and cultures of that day, etc..

But, you must see the problem. There were 14 so-called authentic epistles and now it is down to about 7, there comes a point for me when the word "authentic" with respect to the epistles becomes meaningless or useless. What makes the "Paul" of Romans authentic and not the "Paul" of 2 Timothy or vice versa, when both epistles only mention "Paul" once in the 1st verse?

Romans 1.1

Quote:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle...

2 Timothy 1.1

Quote:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God....

There is nothing in any of those verses to determine authenticity one way or the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I was at least hoping you would address my questions which seem to be relevant to your skeptical position, as without considering those issues it seems to me you have no coherency in your position--preferring to doubt because you want to doubt and because of a lack of certain evidences and some ambiguities (Justin, the existence of some epistles that are possibly inauthentic, etc...). That being said, you of course may be correct.

ted

I have no idea of your hypothetical scenarios and questions. You speculate about the unknown without making your position clear and hardly refer to any sources. You need to address your questions, I cannot help you with your hypothetical problems. What exactly is your position?

I consider "Paul" of the NT to be fictitious based on the fact that Acts of the Apostles contains fiction, also it is believed that the "Pauline Epistles" have more than one author who used the name "Paul" and Justin Martyr and Philo did not mention "Paul" in their extant writings.

For example, "Paul's" conversion in Acts appear to be fictitious, Acts 9, and in 2 Corinthians 12, "Paul's" knowledge of Jesus appears to be ridiculous.

neilgodfrey · 02-04-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahrens

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Well, the letters were written by someone - we can just call him Paul, and we've shown that Paul existed and wrote the letters. But that doesn't tell us anything about who Paul really was or when he lived.

And it is within the realm of possibility, if not probability, that the letters we have that people think were written by Paul were heavily edited or interpolated by later Christians.

Ok, where can I see some information on that proof that Paul existed and wrote the letters? I'd love to be able to study it. I agree that someone had to write them. I'd just like to see whether there is specific proof that it was really the guy the letters claim him to be.

I found Rosenmeyer's discussion of ancient epistolary fictions interesting. It does not address Paul's letters but it does expose the hollowness of some of the assumptions that are brought to bear when genuineness of the letters is asserted.

Neil Godfrey

TedM · 02-04-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What makes the "Paul" of Romans authentic and not the "Paul" of 2 Timothy or vice versa, when both epistles only mention "Paul" once in the 1st verse?

What indeed! It certainly isn't the verse in which Paul's name is mentioned. As I said there are REASONS certain epistles have been rejected as authentic and others haven't. If you don't know THEIR reasons your rejection is without ANY basis!

MY acceptance is on the basis of belief that after 2000 years and especially detailed analysis by many skeptics over the last 100 years--they still have 7 with a fairly unanimous endorsement. Does that mean nothing to you? Obviously it doesn't. We can't discuss this because I can't appreciate your viewpoint if you aren't willing to give me more substance (other than Justin and theories) nor are you willing to interact with the problems your wild theories don't try to address.

Quote:

I have no idea of your hypothetical scenarios and questions. You speculate about the unknown without making your position clear and hardly refer to any sources. You need to address your questions, I cannot help you with your hypothetical problems. What exactly is your position?

You have it backwards. I asked questions ala Doherty style of glaring omissions in the work if there was some kind of conspiracy to create Paul and then have him write or highjack epistles of the nature that we see. If the epistles were manufactured to belong to a ficticious "Paul" then there was some kind of "historical reconstruction" at work and "theological agenda" to go along with it. My questions get to the heart of both. That's why your interesting skepticism needs to be fleshed out to be taken seriously.

Quote:

I consider "Paul" of the NT to be fictitious based on the fact that Acts of the Apostles contains fiction, also it is believed that the "Pauline Epistles" have more than one author who used the name "Paul" and Justin Martyr and Philo did not mention "Paul" in their extant writings.

And I think that these reasons are extremely weak until you are willing to deal with the obvious implications that result--and that my questions attempt to bring to light.

Quote:

in 2 Corinthians 12, "Paul's" knowledge of Jesus appears to be ridiculous.

How so? And why didn't the author or interpolator of Paul's works create and validate more of the Paul we see in Acts? The fact that they don't appear to be written with that in mind strongly suggests to me that your theory is just plain wrong. Yet the fact that they DO validate much of what we see in ACTS suggests to me that the epistles are likely written by the real Paul. But that's my opinion. I want to know yours..

ted

TedM · 02-04-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't know that any "references that show an accurate understanding of the regions and cultures of that day" have been identified. There are references that indicate that the writer of the letters was familiar with Greco-Roman theater and culture. There is a lot of dispute over whether he understood Jewish culture.

Maybe someone here can give us some examples. I recall reading a book about Paul a few years ago, and the author gave a number of examples showing Paul's accurate knowledge of Corinth and a few other cities dated to the 1st century. It sounded reasonable to me at the time, but I no longer remember any details. Maybe someone else here can fill us in.

ted

Toto · 02-04-2008, 10:56 AM

Mentioning a few cities does nothing to validate Paul's letters. Compare this: Luke's Story of Paul in Corinth: Fictional History in Acts 18

Quote:

MOST investigations of Luke's story of Paul in Corinth in Acts 18 take for granted that what is presented there derives, at least in part, from historically reliable source material - and then strive to demonstrate that this is the case. If it is assumed, for example, that the writer's dramatic portrayal of Paul's missionary journeys must be based on a historically reliable "itinerary source," the challenge is to identify items in this passage that derive from such a source. Otherwise, the task is to show that certain crucial information derives from historically reliable sources of some kind. Sometimes the presence of "names" and "details" and "local color" suffices to identify the presence of trustworthy information. Most often, however, the question is whether what Luke relates is confirmed by what we know from the Pauline writings, or at least is not contrary to what we find in these writings.1 Such interpretations, however, represent [4] something different from the historian's normal concern about the reliability of his or her source material, where credibility is not an assumption to be validated, but a question to be critically investigated.

More is at stake for such interpretations, however, than the reliability of what Luke tells us. For Corinth is thought to have been the center of Paul's missionary enterprise in Achaia, a community which he founded, where he worked for a number of years, to which he wrote two magnificent epistles, and where the wondrous epistle to the Romans flowed from his pen. For such interpretations, therefore, the crucial issue finally has to do not merely with the historicity of what we read in Acts, but whether our traditional assumptions about Paul and Christian origins in Corinth are confirmed by what Acts presents.

I doubt very much that there is any basis in Acts 18 for an affirmative answer to this question. A critical analysis of this material shows that the depiction of Paul in Acts 18 as the founder of the Christian community in Corinth is not only Luke's own construction, but is also an imaginative apologetic rewriting of earlier traditions having quite different views of Christian beginnings in Corinth - and the same is true for Luke's portrayal of Paul's work in Ephesus.

TedM · 02-04-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mentioning a few cities does nothing to validate Paul's letters.

As I said it looked reasonable. It wasn't just a mention of a few cities, for Pete's sake. Whether it was enough critical analysis to conclude a date is beyond my knowledge. Maybe someone else here can give actual details for discussion. Your quote is about Act's accuracy. Not Paul's.

ted

Toto · 02-04-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mentioning a few cities does nothing to validate Paul's letters.

As I said it looked reasonable. It wasn't just a mention of a few cities, for Pete's sake. Whether it was enough critical analysis to conclude a date is beyond my knowledge. Maybe someone else here can give actual details for discussion. Your quote is about Act's accuracy. Not Paul's.

ted

This is just remarkably unhelpful. Do you remember the author? Something that would help you identify the book?

TedM · 02-04-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

As I said it looked reasonable. It wasn't just a mention of a few cities, for Pete's sake. Whether it was enough critical analysis to conclude a date is beyond my knowledge. Maybe someone else here can give actual details for discussion. Your quote is about Act's accuracy. Not Paul's.

ted

This is just remarkably unhelpful. Do you remember the author? Something that would help you identify the book?

Well, I really only mentioned it as a prompter for others who have a better memory and/or actual info to chime in on anything they have read on the subject. If I get some time and inclination I'll see if I can find it again in the library.

ted

aa5874 · 02-04-2008, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What makes the "Paul" of Romans authentic and not the "Paul" of 2 Timothy or vice versa, when both epistles only mention "Paul" once in the 1st verse?

Quote:

What indeed! It certainly isn't the verse in which Paul's name is mentioned. As I said there are REASONS certain epistles have been rejected as authentic and others haven't. If you don't know THEIR reasons your rejection is without ANY basis!

What are those REASONS? Who is "Paul" in 2Timothy and who is "Paul" in Romans? Why were all the "PAULINE" EPISTLES considered authentic and now some are considered fake? You know the reasons.

TedM · 02-04-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What makes the "Paul" of Romans authentic and not the "Paul" of 2 Timothy or vice versa, when both epistles only mention "Paul" once in the 1st verse?

Quote:

What indeed! It certainly isn't the verse in which Paul's name is mentioned. As I said there are REASONS certain epistles have been rejected as authentic and others haven't. If you don't know THEIR reasons your rejection is without ANY basis!

What are those REASONS? Who is "Paul" in 2Timothy and who is "Paul" in Romans? Why were all the "PAULINE" EPISTLES considered authentic and now some are considered fake? You know the reasons.

Not much. I've heard some arguments regarding theological development and linguistic differences. To my knowledge those don't apply well at all to the "authentic" epistles. So, that doesn't really help you here. Your reasons are very cherry-picked. There are many arguments against your view. For example, your view requires an explanation for many references to Paul's works from Ignatius and Clement that are typically dated before Justin.

But again, to me the biggest problem with your view is that it is difficult to see what theolgical agenda or historical reconstruction your rejection implies. That's why I asked the questions I did.

I can't help but wonder from your continued refusal to address the implications of your skeptical and very unaccepted viewpoint--just how familiar you actually are with the "authentic" writings.

ted

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.