Toto

archibald - you are right, and welcome to FRDB.

dog-on

DC, run this in the other direction and see what you get.

archibald

Sure. And I have no strong desire or intention to make you abandon your honestly held view.

Well.....maybe a little bit, but hey, that's not unreasonable, I hope. But we certainly don't need to cross swords about it. :]

I would say this. Can you see that from an interested layman's pov, it is difficult to readily explain why the vast majority of academic scholars and historians are wrong on this one point, and you be right? I mean, there is much disagreement in detail, but there is virtual unanimity (is that spelled right?) on that one question.

I say this as someone who has participated for quite a while in internet discussions on the issue, and done a fair bit of background reading into the bargain. Nor am I fond of explanations involving the word 'hegemony'. I take it on board that it exists, but too often it just sounds like an ad hom, and I haven't seen much evidence of it operating when people explain their reasonings. Atheists and rationalists, I mean. I can smell hegemony a bit more often when I read material by Christian scholars. This is not perhaps surprising. It must be especially difficult to avoid, on their part., though any of us who have been brought up in a largely religious, Christian culture must also be wary.

Seems to me that if one applies the methodology of the study of ancient history dispassionately and consistently and as objectively as possible, the answer almost has to be that, on balance, it would be inconsistent and unparsimonius to accept that he probably didn't exist.

Though of course, we can never know. But this is also true for hundreds of other minor figures from ancient history. Minor at the time, I mean. :]

archibald

I may have been tempted to make this assumption. I can now avoid making that mistake. :]

Hm. I'm not sure whether this is better or worse than MJ. It's certainly new to me.

I'm using the words 'better' or 'worse' very subjectively, not in actual judgement. I think a sense of curiosity and an open mind are almost essential.

I have to go offline now, but I'm hoping to have a look at the substance of the remainder of your reply later. :]

Ciao.

A.

Sheshbazzar

I had composed a lengthy and detailed reply to this post, but unfortunately it has been lost through a PC glitch, and with my presently heavy travel and work schedule, I do not have sufficient time to cover all of that ground again at this time.
Suffice it to say, even as I did before, that 'We all have our reasons and reasonings.'
I have thousands of specific reasons for rejecting the accounts as given in the NT, and for finding the NT 'figure' of J.C. as being wholly mythological. And am not bound by the institutional constraints that 'the vast majority of academic scholars and historians' are.

Welcome to the Forum archibald, your posts seem sincere and intellegent, and I do hope that you will remain with us through the years and that we may have opportunity to pursue these discussions at length.

Shalom, Sheshbazzar

DCHindley

I'm not sure I get what you are suggesting. Could you elaborate?

DCH

archibald

To be straight up, I may be well out of my depth in this particular thread, because I have virtually no Greek, other than what bits I have picked up as a result of gaining an interest in this topic.

That said, I do recall reading your methodology for detecting possible interpolations, and I thought it had to do with making a case for detecting different writing styles and/or grammar/syntax.

Whereas here, you seem (unless I am missing something, which is quite possible) to be making the case more on......if you don't mind me saying so, the mere possibility of constructing an alternative 'Jewish' narrative by taking out all the Jesus bits.

That wouldn't strike me as a reliable methodology. I am hoping I have missed something.



I'm still wondering what 'it' might have been (my bold), because the text narrative does seem to be on the point of elaborating. Once again, I'm afraid I may not be easily persuaded that just because there is a possibility that there has been a 'replacement' interpolation, that this is anywhere near a good reason to cite interpolation.


And regarding the Church that the text says Paul persecuted, then joined, what was the nature of this earlier sect, in your scenario?

archibald

Thanks. :]

DCHindley

I've just downloaded it, but am disturbed by statements such as this:

Another point is the possibility of interpolation. It is possible that occasionally a clause or phrase may have been inserted by an editor for elucidation, or again a gloss may have slipped into the text. And in the case of Paul s Epistles, which were not written for publication and not collected in their author s lifetime, and often in thought not clear to the simple reader, we might expect such clauses more readily than elsewhere. Probably, however, none bearing on doctrine will be found. And indeed, in strictly literary and theological essays, such as Hebrews or Ephesians or Romans, he would be a bold editor who would venture to enlarge or modify the text. (pp 28-29)

He sounds a bit stuffy.

I think we've discussed possible Marcionite origin for the Paulines. I don't buy into it myself, as I would expect some sort of base document arguing a high christology, whcih would be reworked by the orthodox to "Judaize' it, but I find exactly the opposite. Since the base document appears to be dependent upon the Hellenized Judaism of the Herodian households, I doubt that Marcion and his followers would have modified it but rather created something new in his name.

See this review of his book in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 63, No. 3, Sep., 1944, the first page is available here for free.

Samuel Sandmel evaluates the value of Hawkins book thusly:

... my cherished colleague at Vanderbilt University, Robert M. Hawkins, had presented me with his provocative volume, The Recovery of the Historical Paul. Scholarship had wrestled for a long time with the problems of alleged inconsistencies in Paul. Professor Hawkins turned back to a theory of interpolation to explain the inconsistencies. Such theories, one learned from Schweitzer and Moffatt, were set forth by Weisse in 1855-62 and Volter, 1882-1890; there are on record other such efforts such as supposing that there were two Pauls, one of Tarsus and one of Rome and the like. Professor Hawkins' theory was that Paul's letters were interpolated by the Roman Catholic Church. His procedure in his effort to isolate and remove these interpolations rested primarily on a minute, ruthlessly logical analysis of the Epistles and a renewed comparison of Acts and Galatians. I worked through Dr. Hawkins' book with the double conviction that there was truly in the New Testament literature the problem of isolating the historical Paul, and that all the affection and admiration which I had, and still have, for Dr. Hawkins could not move me from the feeling that his logical analysis involved both a high measure of subjectivity and also an absence of some more or less fixed measuring rod. My essay, then, is derived in its basic quest from Dr. Hawkins; and that my proposal is far-removed from him does not wipe out that debt. His continuing devotion to what I have often heard him speak of as the quest for truth is. so strong that I have no doubt that he will endorse the purpose of my effort, even if he should not agree with my conclusions. One important truth that he taught me is this: It is wrong to begin with theology and then approach the man; first isolate the man, and then you can begin to grasp his theology. (The Genius of Paul, pp 222-223)

Unfortunately, it depends on how we define "interpolation" as well as what function the original and interpolated text served.

DCH

dog-on

A Christian "Jewish" overlay was added to the Marcionite epistles.