stephan huller

I thought solo's quote was a paraphrase of Nietzsche "all things are necessary but somethings more necessary than others"

Duvduv

Accepted by WHOM using what criteria for works that cannot possibly have been written in the 2nd century. But one dare not challenge this doctrine. And I very strongly doubt the pauline epistles were written in the first or even second centuries.

stephan huller

I would like to have one example of a completely faked from scratch collection of epistles from antiquity

smeat75

sotto voce said:
"The reason that gospels, letters and Acts are put in the same volume is precisely because they do not contradict each other. Or the Old Testament."

I'm sorry, I don't understand that. There are many contradictions all through the various books of the Bible and also between the epistles and Acts.
One example:
Acts 9:26 -27 :And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles
Galatians 1:18-19
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

sotto voce quoted me:
Maybe one author forged the seven or so now supposed to be authentic and other people made up the rest of them.

sotto voce:
Maybe they did. Means, yes. Opportunity, of course. Motive?

Why would a crook forge a letter that insists on moral perfection? How can a crook forge a letter that insists on moral perfection?

my comment:
I am aware of the so-called Dutch school of "radical criticism" of the late 19th century that rejected the idea that any of the epistles were written by the Apostle Paul.

A quote from wikipedia on Abraham Dirk Loman (1823 - 1897):
Loman's " arguments were that the Pauline epistles are not quoted by Justin Martyr and that the first datable references are by Marcion."

Quote from wikipedia on Marcion: (the system will not let me include links as I am too new)

"Marcion was the first to propose a New Testament canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, being a version of the Gospel of Luke,[9] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten letters of Paul the Apostle (whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings). Both sections were purged of elements relating to Jesus' childhood, Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's dualism."

So if Marcion is admitted to have "purged" the letters, perhaps he just made them all up to promote his theology? It isn't a new idea, but one that has rather fallen into neglect.

I am not qualified to argue with biblical scholars and professors and I am not saying that I am convinced that this really is the case. I am wondering why this possibility is not examined more.
I definitely do believe that it is very possible that the "authentic" letters of Paul were made up by Marcion. I also do believe that there is no evidence that there ever was such a person as the Apostle Paul and that the wildly improbable tales of him performing miracles, going on long journeys to places where the inhabitants did not even speak the same language he did and instantly converting them and so on do not reflect any actual events.
I don't see any reason to think that there ever was such a person as Peter either.

smeat75

There is a somewhat similar case to the epistles of "Paul" in Appolonius of Tyana, the Greek philosopher and orator from around the same time as Jesus whose biography written by Philostratus is extant. There are letters and fragments of letters that survive that are ascribed to him but some may be forgeries, or all may be forgeries.

From the wikipedia article on Apollonius of Tyana:


"Several writings and many letters have been ascribed to Apollonius, but some of them are lost; others have only been preserved in parts or fragments of disputed authenticity. Porphyry and Iamblichus refer to a biography of Pythagoras by Apollonius, which has not survived; it is also mentioned in the Suda.[26] Apollonius wrote a treatise On sacrifices, of which only a short, probably authentic fragment has come down to us.[27]
Philostratus’ Life and the anthology assembled by John Stobaeus contain purported letters of Apollonius. Some of them are cited in full, others only partially. There is also an independently transmitted collection of letters preserved in medieval manuscripts. It is difficult to determine what is authentic and what not. Some of the letters may have been forgeries or literary exercises assembled in collections which were already circulated in the 2nd century AD.[citation needed] It has been asserted that Philostratus himself forged a considerable part of the letters he inserted into his work; others were older forgeries available to him.[28] But as all those controversies are based on a prejudice against miraculous events and therefore against Philostratus' trustworthiness, we are left with the text of Philostratus and our personal beliefs or dis-beliefs."

sotto voce

Where's the problem?

Okay, but do you know why anyone would even want to forge the canonical letters attributed to Paul?

It's not a very good idea to quote Wiki anyway, in religious matters, at least.

Why believe that Marcion existed?

Why would anyone do that?

Why are these 'tales' improbable?

Paul knew Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and no doubt Latin. You had to go a very long way to find a place where nobody knew any of those.

Like Wesley and many preachers since.

Ok. But others do, and they require more than you saying that you don't. Sentences that contain personal pronouns are usually completely useless in scholarship.

smeat75

I'm still getting used to this system, I will put sotto voce's replies to my quotes in quotations marks:

OK let me rephrase that although I do not claim to be a scholar, just interested in these matters.
There is no evidence outside the NT that such a person as Peter ever existed.
Or is there? If there is, perhaps someone would provide it, I did not sign up on this forum just to argue but also hoping to learn.
Best wishes.

sotto voce

Let's suppose that's true. Why is the NT not reason enough to believe that Peter existed?

smeat75

Why should anything in the NT that cannot be corroborated elsewhere be believed when it is a collection of writings that were obviously produced, not for historical purposes, but to persuade people of the truth of a religion?

SkyGuy

Another newbie here!

Sotto: I'm not sure I understand. Or maybe I do. Isn't the question Of an historical Peter part of investigating the divine origin of the NT? If it is, then you really couldn't use the NT as a reason for Peter's existance, could you? Any more than saying that Hercules or any character from another book existed.