darstec

In other Pauline epistles, 'Paul' did say he also derived his teachings from revelations by god the father and from inspiration by the writings (normally assumed to be the Old Testament, only I tend not to "churchify" words as religious translators are wont to do). Only a few minor problems with that though -- some of his quotes are verbatim from the Septuagint from books both Josephus and some early Christian writers (and of course how early is debatable in my opinion) say did not exist in the first century CE. That seems to be borne out by the paucity of Greek texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls for anything other than the Pentateuch and some Psalms. The same anachronisms appear in both 'Paul' and the gospels. And hallucinations (aural in this case) of daddy are just as bad as those of baby boy.

As far as psychosis is concerned I've read some psychological reviews that diagnosis 'Paul' as an epileptic. It seems to fit better. Many epileptics cannot accept criticism, have hallucinations especially religious ones, loud noises, bright lights and any intense stimuli set off an episodic attack, and they tend toward extreme religiosity.

aa5874

The Pauline writer is talking about JESUS called the Christ who was initially worshiped as the Son of God by Jews. The Pauline writer claimed he himself was a Jew, a Hebrew of Hebrews.

There is no external historical records of any such character Jesus in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish.

dog-on

1.19 is part of a larger catholic interpolation.

Solo

Most likely Gal 1:18-20 is a later insert to prove that Paul was in some way dependent on Peter and James as 'the apostles who were before him'. This modified Paul's original intent of 1:17, which was to deny that he was in any way beholden for his revelations to apostolic figures in Jerusalem. This was a bit too much for a later church scribe, so he modified Paul's account adding his going to Jerusalem after three years to make inquiries with Peter.
The oath in 1:20 was probably intended to overwhelm the more naive Paulines, in case they were confronted with a text of Galatians which did not contain verses 18 and 19. The interpolator would reuse the coordinatitng conjunction 'then' (epeita) at 21 to make the insert look stylistically a part of the script. But as far as the cognitive content goes, 18-19 clashes with 22, which claims that Paul was not known by face in the churches of Judea, and perhaps even more so with the description of Cephas & co as 'so-called pillars' which shows that Paul after supposedly spending two weeks with Cephas years before, did not not know his official function and standing in the church and had to rely - during what would have been the second visit - on recommendations / referrals of some third party that led him to the principals.

Jiri

aa5874

But, your post is all unsubstantiated speculation. You really have no idea about the veracity of what you have written.

Which scribe interpolated the Pauline writings?

It is far better if you dealt with information than speculate.

Galatians 1.18-19 merely placed the writer in the presence of one of the apostles called Peter and some James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem.

The meeting of "Paul" with the apostle Peter in Jerusalem can also be found in Acts of the Apostles, just that the chronology of events is disputed.

But, there is a major hurdle for the Pauline writer.

Acts of the Apostles presented a character called SAUL/PAUL.

SAUL/PAUL met the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

SAUL/PAUL is presented in Church writings as the author of ALL the Pauline writings.

But PETER was most likely a fictitious character so SAUL/PAUL could not have met Peter in Jerusalem.

SAUL/PAUL is a fiction character.

The fiction character SAUL/PAUL, according to Church writers, wrote EVERY SINGLE PAULINE EPISTLE, so much so that the fictitious character's name PAUL can be found in ALL the Epistles.

Now, it is MUST BE clear that the name of the author of ALL the Pauline Epistles was most likely NOT anyone called PAUL.

WHAT we have on our hands is a FRAUD perpetrated by the COMPILERS of the CANON.

IT would APPEAR that all the authors of the ENTIRE NT CANON are unknown. SAUL/PAUL wrote NO Epistles yet EVERY SINGLE EPISTLE bears his name TODAY.

dog-on

Not really unconfirmed speculation. All of this is confirmed by Tertullian.

aa5874

You will need to clarify. Please state what has been confirmed by Tertullian?

I am stating that Solo's post is unsubstantiated speculation. Do you mean that Tertullian has also confirmed the same thing about Solo's post?

Or do you mean that Tertullian has confirmed that SAUL/PAUL wrote ALL the Pauline Epistles?

dog-on

I was referrng specifically to this part: