Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 05-02-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

There was no Paul.

Writings of the alleged Paul are clearly specious on the face of them - obviously liturgical devices (exactly how they are used, imagine that) written with phony pretexts.

Although I tend to agree with the latter, the former does not follow from it.

After all, why attribute texts to some 'Paul' guy, if no-one had ever heard of him? The fact that they used his name to give authority to the phony epistles (which may well be all of them), implies that he already had legendary status. Why?

spamandham · 05-02-2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Unless the particular letter of Galatians is the autograph then it is simply a copy of a much earlier letter of Galatians.

Ok, so we have a papyrus dated to the late 2nd century. How does that imply that the original was much earlier?

We do not have a papyrus dated to the late 1st century, and a late 2nd century authoring for Acts seems to be almost a concensus here. So is it really that surprising that we have a copy from that same time?

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi show_no-mercy,

Another possibility is that the text of Paul's letter or letters could have been changed to eliminate the idea that he was married.

The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a discrepancy between the writings attributed to Polycarp and Clement and the current canonical writings of Paul. There is no way to decide if Paul's wife existed or not based on the current texts. This is a shame because Polycarp and Clement are two of the main sources for Eusebius' "Church History"

It seems we have to question the reliability of these two extremely important witnesses to the early development of Christianity. One may suspect that they passed along wrong information or that the letters of Paul pass along wrong information about the existence of Paul's wife. In either case, this seems to call all our sources into question.

One would think that we could give a clear answer to this question of Paul's marital status after some 15 letters and 80 pages of writings about his most personal thoughts, and half a book (Act of the Apostles) on his travels.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives this description of him:

Quote:

a man little of stature, thin-haired upon the head, crooked in the legs, of good state of body, with eyebrows joining, and nose somewhat hooked, full of grace: for sometimes he appeared like a man, and sometimes he had the face of an angel.

It is hard to know if "eyebrows joining" would have been an attractive feature in those days.

The following depiction of Paul with a unibrow would make Frida proud

Source:http://bibleprobe.com/archive/messages/877.html

arnoldo · 05-02-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Unless the particular letter of Galatians is the autograph then it is simply a copy of a much earlier letter of Galatians.

Ok, so we have a papyrus dated to the late 2nd century. How does that imply that the original was much earlier?

We have for example 1 Clement quoting Paul in his writings which are dated approximately in the late first century. . .

Quote:

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

1Clem 47:3
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

spamandham · 05-02-2009, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

We have for example 1 Clement quoting Paul in his writings which are dated approximately in the late first century. . .

Clement didn't quote Paul, he referred vaguelly to [b]an[b] epistle by Paul. Secondly, 1 Clement could be as late as mid 2nd century by concensus dating. Third, Clement was writing to the Corinthians, not the Galatians.

(...no need to even go into the idea that 1 Clem is as bogus as Acts)

arnoldo · 05-03-2009, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Reading the entire chapter (Polycarp 11) in context it appears that Polycarp is refering to Valens (Polycarp 11:1 "My hear is sore for Valens, sometime one of your clergy, that he should have so little understanding of the office that was conferred on him"), rather than Paul, when he writes, "I feel the deepest sorrow for that man and his wife." Apparently Valens was a church leader who, along with his wife, was involved in some kind of financial mismanagement.

Before the derail, the above post actually referred to the OP. Does Polycarp in fact write that Valens is married rather than Paul? :constern01:

arnoldo · 05-03-2009, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

We have for example 1 Clement quoting Paul in his writings which are dated approximately in the late first century. . .

Clement didn't quote Paul, he referred vaguelly to [b]an[b] epistle by Paul.

My bad, Clement only referred to Paul, however he actually quoted Jesus.

Quote:

. . .most of all remembering the words of the Lord Jesus which He spake, teaching forbearance and long-suffering:

1Clem 13:2
for thus He spake Have mercy, that ye may receive mercy: forgive,
that it may be forgiven to you. As ye do, so shall it be done to
you. As ye give, so shall it be given unto you. As ye judge, so
shall ye be judged. As ye show kindness, so shall kindness be
showed unto you. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured
withal to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Secondly, 1 Clement could be as late as mid 2nd century by concensus dating. Third, Clement was writing to the Corinthians, not the Galatians.

(...no need to even go into the idea that 1 Clem is as bogus as Acts)

Any sources you can provide to back up the dating and authenticity of 1 Clement would be appreciated. Meanwhile the following source does not agree with your claims;

Quote:

The First Epistle of Clement. . is one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament. There are many references to it -- Polycarp betrays knowledge of it in his epistle; Denys, Bishop of Corinth (in about A.D. 170) refers to it; and it is much quoted by Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 180-200). . . Of the authenticity of this epistle there is no doubt. Its author was the Clement who is mentioned fourth (after Peter, Linus and Anencletus) in the most reliable lists of the Bishops of Rome
Source: Early Christian Writings (Max Staniforth/Andrew Louth)

andrewcriddle · 05-03-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Reading the entire chapter (Polycarp 11) in context it appears that Polycarp is refering to Valens (Polycarp 11:1 "My hear is sore for Valens, sometime one of your clergy, that he should have so little understanding of the office that was conferred on him"), rather than Paul, when he writes, "I feel the deepest sorrow for that man and his wife." Apparently Valens was a church leader who, along with his wife, was involved in some kind of financial mismanagement.

Before the derail, the above post actually referred to the OP. Does Polycarp in fact write that Valens is married rather than Paul? :constern01:

Yes. Polycarp is refering to Valens being married not Paul.

The person and his wife have to be alive at the time of writing in order for the passage to make sense. And there is no indication that Polycarp saw Paul (unlike Valens) as in need of repentance.

Andrew Criddle

rlogan · 05-03-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

There was no Paul.

Writings of the alleged Paul are clearly specious on the face of them - obviously liturgical devices (exactly how they are used, imagine that) written with phony pretexts.

Although I tend to agree with the latter, the former does not follow from it.

After all, why attribute texts to some 'Paul' guy, if no-one had ever heard of him? The fact that they used his name to give authority to the phony epistles (which may well be all of them), implies that he already had legendary status. Why?

Good question.

If you are starting completely cold, you have to make up the name and a pseudo-biography.

But if there is an existing legend then you just piggy-back off it.

In the case of Jesus, we have pre-existing Christ cults sans Jesus that were competing, and the introduction of a historical Jesus served as a check-mate on competition by laying claim to linear descent from Christ himself.

I guess I should revise my assertion to say that there was no "Paul" as author of the Texts Marcion came up with.

spamandham · 05-03-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I guess I should revise my assertion to say that there was no "Paul" as author of the Texts Marcion came up with.

If you are not already familiar with the well qualified scholar H. Detering, I think you would find what he has to say about Paul very interesting (free on-line translation available).

In a nutshell, he argues that Paul did not actually exist per se, but that his character is loosley modelled after Simon Magus and the life of Marcion...by Marcion.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.