aa5874

So Religous Scholarship has been overrun by Apologetics for the Church. The vast majority of Scholars are Christians so we would expect that they would NOT have any real interest in proving or present the evidence that the Entire Canon is historically and chronologically bogus.

Now, if we examine the NT Canon and temporarily ignore any writings under the name of Paul we are faced with the fact that all of the authors of the other books are UNKNOWN.

1. 100% of all Non-Pauline Canonised NT writings are of unknown authorship.

2. 100% of all Non-Pauline Canonised NT writings were dated incorrectly by the Church.

3. 100% of all non-Pauline Canonised NT writings were incorrectly attributed to authors who have NO evidence of actual existence.

It does NOT require rocket science to realise that the writings under the name of Paul cannot be accepted as authentic WITHOUT external corroboration from antiquity since 100% of the other books of the Canon are NOT themselves authentic.

Most astonishing is that the very writings under the name of Paul have NOT been corroborated by any Canonised writing.

And even more remarkable is that the Pauline writings show no date of authorship at all.

So why have Scholarship BLINDLY accepted some Pauline writings as authentic WITHOUT a shred of evidence or corroboration from external credible sources???

The answer is rather simple. Scholarship has been OVERRUN by Apologetics of the Church.

We cannot allow Apologetics to determine the history of the Pauline letters WITHOUT presenting their evidence.

Duvduv

ONLY if based on the "tradition" of the church writers. And unfortunately the mainstream secular view with its reasonable guesses are really not any different than a religious commitment engraved in stone.
However, a reasonable guess can easily be made in a different way, as discussed by C.P. Sense 100 years ago based on the fact that there is NOTHING of the writings of Marcion, even from someone who ostensibly lived at the same time in the same city, Justin Martyr.

For that matter there is nothing to show that any group only revered one single little epistle or considered the pastorals "inauthentic" to the exclusion of the others. Nothing. Of course even if it was argued they had it would make absolutely no sense especially in the context of the questions I posed.

I keep asking the question about WHERE Marcion supposedly got his entire set from, and WHO were the Orthodox who altered them before he got them, and who authorized them to do so, and how did they collect them, and how does anyone know they were actually received or actually mailed out or replied to. The answers to all these is SILENCE. For very good reasons.

Duvduv

Yes, thank you for that. It's in the thread "Authentic versus Inauthentic Epistles."
I can still see a montage there in Romans, i.e. more than one hand, maybe two or three.

aa5874

It can be EASILY shown that the Canonised Pauline writings are AFTER the Canonised Acts of the Apostles through BASIC logical deductions--No Rocket science is needed.

First, temporarily ignore ALL the Non-Pauline writings, that is, ignore the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, all the General Epistles, and Revelation.

Now attempt to re-construct the chronology for the Pauline writer.

When did the Pauline writer first begin to preach about Jesus Christ??? What year??? What century???

There is NOTHING.

Who was the Jesus Christ that Paul preached about??? What did he do??? What did he say??? When did Jesus live???? When did Jesus resurrect???

There is NOTHING.

It is NOT Rocket science to see that without the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles the Pauline letters have little historical value.

The Pauline writer Preached about Jesus Christ AFTER Jesus was RAISED from the dead but such an event NEVER happened.

The Pauline writer CANNOT be dated without Acts of the Apostles.

The Resurrection is NOT an historical event. The Resurrection NEVER happened.

Galatians 1:1 KJV Even Jesus did live and was crucified it is virtually 100% certain that the Resurrection did NOT ever happen as claimed by the Pauline writer.

The Gospels and Acts of the Apostles MUST FIRST be read, Must FIRST be known before the Pauline letters can be placed in a chronological order.

The Pauline letters were COMPOSED AFTER Acts of the Apostles.

outhouse

I dont think you have read alot of scholarships

and Price is not a well respected among his peer's.

Toto

Then what would you suggest I read?

Price may be viewed as an eccentric or a heretic, but his level of scholarship is undeniable.

tanya

1. This is false. Even Bart Ehrman discusses his work;

2. But, let us accept your premise, that Price's scholarship is not well received by other scholars in the field of biblical studies.....

Here's a question for you, since you seem to enjoy appealing to authority to determine the quality of scholarship:

How many CENTURIES, were required, before the research of Aristarchus became accepted as credible, by a plurality of "scholars"? Remember, in those days, he was opposing those GIANTS of the ancient intellectual universe: Aristotle, Plato, and Archimedes.

The notion that Price's research should be discarded, simply because a group of bible thumpers dislikes it, is unimpressive impeachment, in my opinion. If you wish to discredit Price's accomplishments, then, you must explain what it is about his research that you find objectionable, rather than simply appeal to the legendary authority of an anonymous majority.

outhouse

I like them all but I wouldnt lean to hard on Eisenman or Maccoby.


Price has a high level, but a flawed direction that would would not keep saul/paul in a proper historical light.

outhouse

boloney, I dont appeal, I flat find holes in his work myself. he's easy to bust.


I didnt say that either. dont jump the gun baby.



he has his three pilars, and thats where his work fails, falls on its own face. Other then that I love most of his work.

Toto

You have not touched anything that Price has written. What do you think you are talking about?