Sheshbazzar

And I agree with your observations about the Hellenization and mythology.
In fact, although I do not reply to your every post, we are in agreement on much more than you are aware of.

maryhelena

OK - I will repeat myself - I don't have a hotline to the mind of whoever wrote under the name of 'Paul'. Why do people use pseudonyms? Anonymity most probably is the primary reason.

Agnostic75

Simple logic, I assume. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, and did not appear to anyone in tangible form after he rose from the dead, what did Cephas, the twelve, James, over 500 people in Corinth, and Paul see and hear, not to mention Mary Magdalene and the rest of the group of women who went to the tomb? Obviously, either something, or nothing. If the former, what did they see and hear? If the latter, then the best answer is an interpolation that was inserted as a later apologetic argument. I believe that the latter is the most logical conclusion.

I do not buy the theory that all of those people were hallucinating the same thing, especially in groups.

And I most certainly do not believe that Paul was way over in Corinth reminding a group of over 500 people that they had all, at the same time, seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. That is ridiculous. How could over 500 people hallucinate the same thing at the same time?

mountainman

I define early christianity as that before "the peace" of Bullneck.

I have reviewed "Ante Pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine", by Graydon F. Snyder, here. In this book Graydon Snyder claims to present evidence of "Christian Church life before Constantine". However when these claims are examined, one after the other, these claims do not appear to be a justified inference from the evidence presented.

Conversely, provide a brief list of items that you consider would unambiguously support the notion of archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine.


I have already found and cited the answer from Momigliano, who mentions that Eusebius may have been a man of Jewish descent.





No. Mainstream palaeographical attestation processes have managed to convince themselves that this fragment *could* be dated early. But this is hardly any form of unambiguous evidential proof.

The city of Oxyrynchus had a massive population explosion in the mid 4th century, at which time it is to be expected that the depositing of rubbish on the tips of that city hit the high tide mark. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that these fragments (at Oxyrynchus at least) therefore are largely sourced from the mid 4th century.


I see a number of parallels between Eusebius's "Historia Ecclesiatica" and the 4th century forgery, also called a mockumentary, known as the "Historia Augusta".


I have researched the field myself for quite a number of years. I have already explained that my conceptions of ancient history, and judgements of accounts of the early christian movement are based on Arnaldo Momigliano.

Agnostic75

These are not just any claims. They are claims about alleged supernatural events. We can hypothesize that any portion of any text about supernatural events is an interpolation or not. How do we decide? Often, by using simple logic.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, and did not appear to anyone in tangible form after he rose from the dead, what did Cephas, the twelve, James, over 500 people in Corinth, and Paul see and hear, not to mention Mary Magdalene and the rest of the group of women who went to the tomb? Obviously, they either saw and heard something, or nothing. If the former, what did they see and hear? If the latter, then the best answer is an interpolation that was a later apologetic argument. I believe that the latter is the most logical conclusion.

I do not buy the theory that all of those people were hallucinating the same thing, especially in groups.

And I most certainly do not believe that Paul was way over in Corinth reminding a group of over 500 people that they had all, at the same time, seen Jesus after he rose from the dead.

If Paul wrote the passage, he was probably a deliberate liar, but I believe that an interpolator wrote the passage.

tanya

Well, I completely disagree with this.

"the christ concept", means, to me, "THE anointed one". Anointment is not particularly Jewish in concept. It is an ancient practice, coming from India or Persia, possibly from Mesopotamia first, or, perhaps from Egypt.

Again, only my opinion, not a fact: It is to ancient Greece, not Rome, one must turn, to understand the early history of Christianity.

The confusion, regarding "the christ concept", is caused by the "messiah" business, which is Jewish. Anointment (mashiakh) does not equal salvation obtained by efforts of a human hero, riding a big white horse, leading thousands of warriors against the occupation force, i.e. the messiah--moshiah.

That idea was introduced, in my opinion, by Alexander of Macedonia, who "liberated" the Egyptians, from the Persian tyranny, including the Palestinians, a large portion of whom, were Jewish. I think that Alexander of Macedonia is the one, ultimately, behind the creation of LXX. As he traveled through, what we call today, Lebanon and Israel, he must have been very impressed by the Jewish temples, architecture, civilization, and especially, their WRITING.

I doubt that the 20 year old student of Aristotle was converted to Judaism, but, I suppose he recognized that the Hebrew civilization was extraordinary, and he probably commanded his scribes to commence translating the Hebrew texts into Greek, a process that ultimately was accomplished a century later, with publication of LXX in the city that bears his name....It is futher, my opinion, that the confusion over "mashiakh" anointed, christ, and "moshiah", saviour, derives from Alexander. Who would dare to correct him? The result of this error, is that today, Jews, including forum members, believe, on faith, that the English word, "messiah", derived from the Greek messias, is based upon the Hebrew mashiakh, anointed, when, conceptually, it is obviously related instead, to moshiah, saviour.

Why do you display diffidence towards Hermann Detering? Aren't you the one who suggested, yesterday or the day before, in an exchange with MaryHelena, that to adequately understand NT scholarship, one should attain fluency and literacy with at least German, if not several other European languages (plus Coptic, Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac, and of course Greek)?

So, yes, I would reference Detering. In my opinion, his work is remarkable. I am keen to learn what it is about his writing, that you object to. Feel free to write, auf Deutsch oder Anglisch, comme vous voulez, whatever it is about his scholarship, that you find objectionable. Bertrand Russell's works, are among my favorite books.

So do the Greeks, Hindi, Persians, and Egyptians. The Romans will need to get in line, and take a ticket, there are many civilizations ahead of them in the queue.

What did aa5874 write, that you suggest is "out of line"? Are we all supposed to walk linearly, in lockstep, not moving outside a narrowly defined academic landscape? Does he offer references which fall outside some invisible boundary?

What did he ignore? Perhaps he is guilty of ignoring nonsense from academic theologians who profess faith in the divinity of Jesus....?

I am unsure, at this point, which conclusions he has espoused that you categorize as "his personal conclusions". Almost everything he writes, I agree with. I have not felt that I am agreeing with his personal opinions. He bases his argument on quotes from the texts available. His interpretation of those quotes, strikes me, at least, as reasonable, and measured, most of the time. He takes issue, on occasion, with almost every member of the forum, including me, so, it is not as though the forum members consider him "their friend", and feel an obligation to follow his teaching!!!! He is a wise, well educated, learned forum participant, who has a serious demeanor, and who will help anyone who seeks his assistance. I don't know how anyone could find fault with his effort. His arguments are offered in the context of arriving at clarity, not pushing his own agenda, in my opinion.

name dropping, in my view.

Even if I am the only person on the planet who doubts the existence of HJ, I will not change my stance: The gospels are fiction. From what I can determine, the Pauline texts are suspicious, and appear to have been forged, in part, or in whole.

I am not waiting to read anything by anyone. Carrier's view on xyz is irrelevant to me. I am only interested in the evidence. Everything else, is just palaver. To date, I have never encountered a single piece of evidence that Jesus was a genuine, flesh and blood figure in history. If you have some, let us know about it....

I did enjoy reading about the problems of ascertaining the historicity of Socrates. Well done, LegionOnomaMoi.

aa5874

Well, Nothing is resolved by the claim that "Someone, or somebody, or some people, wrote letters using the name of 'Paul'.

It is most obvious the Pauline writings were written at some time by some one.

It is MOST logical that it cannot be PRESUMED that the author was really Paul and was known in the 1st century simply because some one wrote under a name of Paul.

Someone, somebody, or some people WROTE the Pastorals using the name Paul but some claim they are NON-Pauline.

Doug Shaver

I see. He could have picked any name, and he just happened, for reasons you cannot fathom, to choose the name "Paul."

So, you're just assuming it was a pseudonym. Why assume that?

maryhelena

Now your asking a different question..............

My reply was to the question of why someone would use the name of 'Paul' in writing letters. I replied: the answer is most probably anonymity.

As to your second question - why am I assuming 'Paul' is a pseudonym - well, actually, I don't assume that at all. 'Paul', to my thinking is a composite figure, ie a figure reflecting more than one person. Therefore, talk re the name 'Paul' being a pseudonym for one specific person is not possible. 'Paul' is the name for a composite NT figure.

To sum up. People use pseudonyms all the time. There are certain letters that use the name of 'Paul'. It does not, automatically, follow, that the writer of those letters was someone named 'Paul'. If that is your contention - then you need to produce the historical evidence.

There is no historical evidence of the NT figure of 'Paul'. Therefore, other approaches to this NT material can be considered. I propose that 'Paul' is a composite figure. Your free to think differently - and until some historical evidence presents itself - each to his own...

outhouse

since we are talking about a jewish teacher/healer the anointed one applys strickly to judaism in this case.

again a helleized roman version suits me fine.


no confusion that they created biblical jesus from historical jesus