Steven Avery

Hi Doug.

Oh, I would never claim to be able to prove that the pastorals or any other book was written by their first-person asserted author to a mythicist. Their presups and glasses will not allow for that, why roll boulders up hills sisyphus-like.

What I do defend is simply the full consistency of the NT and Tanach documents. The words mean what they say, and when a writer says "I am writing this to Timothy", "I met with Peter" "we went here and there", "Jesus said to me ..". I see no reason to reject the honestly and integrity of the writers. They have proven themselves to me time and again.

(The corollary to this is that I see them as a unit, and rejecting one is rejecting all).

So then the skeptic and mythicist comes along and says --
"don't you know, Paul didn't write this.. why even the (liberal) Christian scholars tell us that" .. and I say "wowzow.. big deal "

Generally then when I actually look at the arguments, there is simply very little there. I've through it on sections of the Bible (ending of Mark, Pericope Adultera) and the authorship of books (Pastorals, 2 Peter) . Every time I have these discussions I end up more surprised than ever as to how weak the "mainstream scholarship" ideas are, when they are trying to project theories of textual manipulation and error.

Now, that does not mean that there are no arguments of substance. e.g. on the Pastorals, the chronological arguments is definitely an attempt a "hard" argument of substance (I usually divide the arguments into hard and soft).

However, it simply means that I will share an apologetic of consistency and pefection of the text. Such can never be proven to those with animus to the scriptures, however I can do my best to offer a consistent and accurate portrayal of the Word of God.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

pharoah

The problem is that Luke-Acts is anonymous. So anyone who claims that a particular person wrote it automatically assumes the burden of proof. This works both ways. If I claim that Paul didn't write the pastorals then the burden of proof is on me. So are you asserting that Luke the companion of Paul wrote Luke-Acts or do you concede that the author is unknown?

hallq

Re: Carrier article - How accurately does Josephus describe the Quirinius census? This is a point Luke screws up (he says it was empire-wide) so if Josephus made clear that it was local, this would undermine the idea that Luke used Josephus.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no source anywhere for Luke's claim that Augustus ever called for a census of the world.

Vorkosigan

As noted before, the idea that the Pastorals and Deutero-Paulines are not Pauline is almost 200 years old and is the result of mainstream analysis that existed long before there was anything like Jesus Mythicism. That Paul wrote the Pastorals is a fantasy of conservative Christians. See any mainstream intro text, Schnelle, Brown, Ehrman, Koester, etc.

Vorkosigan

mata leao

actually, the book of acts has not technically been written..it is "being" written, it is the only unfinished book in the Bible.

hallq

I think the author ended Acts right where he needed it to end to suit his purposes. It's generally agknowledged that he was trying to pitch Christianity to gentiles. If that was his purpose, it makes more sense to end as he does, with Paul declaring "Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles" than to end with the uncomfortable fact of Paul's death at Gentile hands.

Steven Avery

These theories were developed under the German higher criticism schools, which worked from a similar type of rejection of the New Testament texts as those of today's mythicists. Error begets error. If they are "mainstream" (whatever that means, as it implies some universal river of scholarship, flowing who-knows-where) then that is because the folks in the "mainstream" are looking at the NT text from al hermeneutic of suspicion.

You acknowledge that for 1800 years it was the accepted scholarship, a period when there were debates on issues like inerrancy and authority of the scriptures. The Reformation had a key component of defending the Word of God from such attacks, and yet it took the great insight (cough) of 19th century liberalism to attack the text in this particular manner.

Since I have little regard for Brown, Ehrman etal, your appeal to their authority shows yet again your inconsistent usage of scholarship. It's important to you, it is your big angle, when your 'mainstream' can be referenced in partial agreement, yet when they disagree with your mythicism you take a whole nother tact. It is a combination of funny and tiresome.

To be clear, if I felt those folks you reference were right, the mythicist aspect would be irrelevant. Between abject corruption of the text and mythicism there is nothing to choose, neither is of interest to me.

The view that is significant is that which fully defends the authority of the scripture text, and the Messiah declared in the scriptures. You face no real challenge from Ehrman, and you know it, so you are always cozying up to Ehrman types. Especially since he gets on NPR.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

Yes, that hermeneutic is called "scholarship."

...so it was wrong. Accept it, get on with things. Nobody in astronomy moans about missing Ptolemaic theory. I don't here people in mechanical engineering complaining about the passing of the Newcomen engine. Time passes, scholarship improves. It's the way of the world.

No, prax, it is a recognition of where sound methodology lies. Sound methodology supports the conclusion that not all the Paulines are from the same hand. Even conservatives admit this when they argue that a secretary wrote the Pastorals. Everyone admits that the Pastorals are not Pauline. Only a few conservative religious wackos deny modern stylistics -- which is quite well-established, thank you, and regularly used in other fields.

By the same contrast, as practicioners in the field admit, methodologically the historical Jesus is not on a sound basis. This accounts for my differing stance regarding where the mainstream is on certain issues. I look at methodology first, as it is the basis of fact-construction.

Finally, the overwhelming number of exegetes align themselves with the mainstream view that the Pastorals are not from the same hand as the authentic Paulines. Those are Schnelle's words, not mine, and no one would ever mistake him for a liberal scholar.

But since your point of view is determined by your religious beliefs, that is not surprising. It is only when you decided to let the evidence talk to you, rather than demand of the texts that they align themselves to particular religious interpretations, that you will begin to do real scholarship. You have the drive and the learning, but not, alas, the willingness. Nietszche said once that scholarship was ruthless, and he was write. You lack ruthlessness, prax.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

There are all sorts of Pauline references that indicate consideration or help in writing some books, from his eyesight to imprisonment to special references to individuals.

If that is the case in the Pastorals, tis fine, it could simply be one aspect of counterpoint to how overblown so many stylistic accusatory claims are, since they tend to not want to take many factors into account.

However, sylistic claims on small works are notoriously squirrelly in any event.

===
Oh, I am going to stop here.
Since really all Vork really says in this post...
"some scholars like the sytlistic arguments"

I have learned that Holding did a nice job
(similar to my earlier dialog but with more scholarship reference depth) at
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...508#post504508

eg.
Objection #7 - Suspended Literary Licenses

And now, here's the last major objection, my special pet peeve -

The language and style is not that of Paul. Kummel refers to word counts, special vocabulary, and "logarithms of vocabulary" as literary proof against Pauline authorship. Others cite unusual phrases such as "faithful is the saying" which occur in these letters but nowhere else in Paul's works (1 Tim. 1:15, 3:1, 4:9, 2 Tim. 2:11, Tit. 3:8). More often called upon is the use of many particles in the Pastorals that appear nowhere else in Paul.

I would like to begin by repeating something I said elsewhere: Things like choices of words should be disregarded forevermore as a determination of authorship. Over the years I have seen many NT and Bible scholars (on all sides) make outrageously absurd statements about literature that would send a literary symposium into fits of giggles. Word choice and writing style are NOT suitable criteria for saying that a person did or did not write a particular piece of literature - especially when we are dealing with writing samples as small as the Pastorals! In this regard, conservative scholars rightly cite the work of Yule [Knig.PE, 39; Oden.12TT, 13], who notes that samples of at least 10,000 words are needed to make such determinations - and the Pastorals are rather short of that mark! To put it bluntly, quoting one commentator who has a modicum of literary sense: "...literary art cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation." [Guth.PE, 214]

Beyond that, critics need to test their theories more broadly before they make outrageous statements like the above. I have yet to see these sort of guidelines applied to other literary works and authors as a guide, and the same sort of conclusions reached; for example, Plato's later works show a broader range of vocabulary that his earlier ones, and Hamlet has more unique words than any other Shakespearian play - yet no one denies Shakespeare its authorship!....

And your big answer boils down to..
"oh no.. my fav 'scholars' say ..."
very sad, Vork, I thought you would at least put up a fight.

(yes, you also contest the Lucan possibility, but that is all auxiliary anyway)

Topic, context, situation, mood, audience affects style and vocabulary.
Take this summary I found in my meanderings...

"Udo Schnelle has shown that 2 Thessalonians is significantly different in style from the undisputed epistles, being whole and narrow rather than a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Neither does 2 Thessalonians have significant open or deep questions, unlike much of the remainder of Paul's writing. "

.. this is your type of stuff ...

Well..duhh, the Pastorals are not as lively because they are largely "Pastorals" about chuch situations meant for a focused purpose, pastoral direction. The topic is simply not as 'lively' as gnosticism, law and grace, the Ark of the Covenant (if Paul wrote Hebrews), Israel and the Jews.

Sheesh, my letters very tremendously too in "liveliness" and "abruptness", depending on who, when, where, how much time, significance and a dozen other things.

No, that is just a deception of yours. Even scholars who I consider relatively liberal, like Daniel Wallace, defends Pauline authorship of the Pastorals and Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. You simply want to hand-wave away any scholarship that might be truly "conservative".
You fail miserably.

We are here, we defend the scriptures, as Holding (who I sometimes commend and sometimes not, and would do better to not call you chicken vork) did here.

And we see how insipid so many of the arguments are. The cultural church structure arguments are downright laughable, it seems the folks never even read the Book of Acts, or they pull a Vorkian/skeptic circularity (well, Acts is 2nd century, this is interpolated.. yada yada).

You get away with this nonsense stuff only because it is a home-court skeptic forum. In fact "religious wackos" are the bane of your theories, because they actually ACCEPT and BELIEVE the Bible as the Word of God. Seems to kind of make you go a bit haywire.

And is often abused and confused, and grossly misapplied..

I just dealt with this junque from another. Vork, I came TO my views on the Bible step-by-step, and they are part of an integrated scholastic and spiritual view. It is actually a very dubious tactic to accuse me otherwise.

The 'ruthlessness' of much modern scholarship is a mask hiding an animus to the Creator of the universe, and our accountability before Him. You, sadly, despite good smarts, given to you as a potential blessing and gift, have joined Nietzsche in that morass of animus.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic