spamandham

It was shaky to start with. The 'authentic' letters have not been authenticated in any way whatsoever. Rather, they have simply not been proven inauthentic. The fact that ~1/2 the epistles have been proven to be fraud, *should* change the base assumption from authentic to inauthentic among the remaining letters.

I personally have quit pretending that it is reasonable to assume authenticity for any NT book.

Rick Sumner

You're aware that the assumption of homogenity--the position that some are *not* fraudulent--is one of the most important arguments that ~1/2 of the epistles are pseudepigraphic, right?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

bacht

Robert Price has suggested that we need a "Paul Seminar" similar to the analysis done on the gospels in the Jesus Seminar to establish a usable critical text of the Pauline material. He agrees with many scholars who see layers of redaction even in the "authentic" epistles.

jakejonesiv

Hi bacht,

Good observation. Here is an example.

1 Corinthians 1:14-17
I give thanks that I baptized none of you
>>>>> except Crispus and Gaius,
so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
>>>>> I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.

The original above is in bold, the interpolations in italics.

Notice how, without the interpolations, the passage reads smoothly and makes perfect sense. However, after the interpolations, Paul sounds like an idiot.

This demonstrates that the results of the interpolations are not only stupid but often hilarious. There are many other examples like this, and they are not hard to find. If we weren't treading on the "sacred ground" of the Pauline epistles, everyone would readily agree that the texts had been redacted numerous times. Why are we asked to check our brains and text critical skills any time we discuss Paul?

Best,
Jake

rlogan

Thanks jakejones especially for the clue in the Apostolikon. Talk about decisive!

Yea, bacht - moreover, whatever is "authentic" IMHO is only authentic in the respect that the same author can be fingered. It isn't that there was a Paul who did write such things. But rather, that (for example) Marcion forges a set of letters. These are homogenous, sure.

They are "authentic" only in the sense they are the original forgeries by the same author.

bacht

Right, the best we could hope for would be something like Kloppenberg's Q layers, different strata without identifiable authors. For Paul it might be something like i) 1st C ii) mid-2nd C iii) final orthodox redaction, but probably more complex than this.

Toto

How would an alternative assumption work? Would that lead to labeling all of the epistles probably pseudepigraphic or none?

Toto

I think this is evidence that the field of NT studies is not free of its theological basis and biases. Paul is too important for church history and theology. Without Paul, what is left of Christianity before 70 CE? Christians can recognize that the gospels are mythical or allegorical tales, but without Paul, how can one avoid the conclusion that Christianity is a product of the second century, or at least post 70 CE?

Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters can be previewed on Google books. Read his epilogue at p 277, and see how touchy this subject is.

spamandham

There is no underlying assumption necessary that some are not pseudepigrapha. There is merely an underlying assumption that some were written by a single author. Whether that author is Paul, or someone else, makes no difference in the determination that ~1/2 are pseudepigrapha.

Any 2 texts can be compared to eachother to determine the likelihood of common authorship.

rlogan

Ding! Ding! Ding!


I think the tide is turning here. Some excellent work being done, and I don't want to leave anyone out so I won't say names.

But I am really warmed by the growing force of the post-70 arguments.


Not sure how you feel about it Toto but I think you have to take Pliny at his word in Circa 111-113 when he is saying some Christians he questioned had been Christians for 20 years. That puts inception in the 90's. But also Pliny discovers Christians sing hymns to a Christ, as if to a God, and not a martyr who organized a cult. Pliny was specifically investigating such cults because the Emperor had banned them. So the upshot is we have Christianity in the 90's, of size not worth commentary by Jospehus (probably not even originating as a Jerusalem ie Jewish phenomenon).


What I see being done, and it is exciting, is to start reconstructing in full a dating scheme that differs from what some otherwise intelligent people here are using as a crutch - and that is the dating ranges in Peter Kirby's site.

Let's take the end-dates of his ranges. Eight new testament letters. Mark. Plus speculative things like Q, etc. All circulated before Josephus' works.

At the beginning dates of those reported ranges we have all the rest of the gospels, and I think the letters too. The bible is finished before Josephus picks up his pen! The bible has been around for decades before Pliny and Trajan discuss whether Christianity is a religion representing a political threat!

Not in one compilation, but so what. It's absurd! It's preposterous! Marcion in the mid 2nd century makes no sense whatsoever if the bible is half a century old by his time.

I have a great deal of respect for Peter, God who wouldn't. The site is a magnificent resource. Those dates I think are more his synthesis of what has been published, (not comprehensive since the ranges leave out some obvious schools like the Dutch Radicals) and that in turn suffers from apologetic bias. Duh - it has been Christian "historians" at seminaries or within religious studies departments of religoious-based colleges doing the work.

Well now we have our own hands on the literature and there are some people here really ripping it up. I think a timeline similar to Peter's starting afresh with just a sketch outline is in order.

There are some logical markers like Antiquities of the Jews and Jewish wars, the Pliny-Trajan correspondence. I say we shake the last vestiges of apologia and put together a much more sensible and logical timeline.

Mark as we know it is not 65-80. It is in the Mid 2nd century, 130's at the earliest. Galatians was written by Marcion. Tertullian was a forger. Involved in a war over doctrine. Eusebius is a forger. All of the Bible, every scrap of it is forgery.

We are not the marks of these con men. We are detectives unraveling their crimes.