Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 03-31-2004, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, you see the Pauline scholarship just happens to be an especially dishonest branch of NT scholarship. It's like the cream of the crooks, so to speak.

Quote:

And I'd say that all letters attributed to him are clearly not his.

Say Yuri - I'm not even sure he existed. But maybe you'd care to buttress this with some interesting discussion? It speaks to the OP.

Quote:

If Paul didn't write any of these letters, then they should all be dated after 100 CE.

I guess that's just a round number.

Hmph! I would like to be able to put my finger on the first "bulletproof" evidence of christians existing at all.

Vorkosigan · 03-31-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

rlogan:

But that's about it.
I think this Doughty is not a thorough scholar.

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard, he meant Pliny the Younger. It's an understandable error. The article is excellent and full of interesting insights.

Vorkosigan

Bernard Muller · 03-31-2004, 05:41 PM

My quote earlier on this thread:

Quote:

From the referred site of Darrell J. Doughty:
"Other ancient historians also refer to Nero's persecution of Christians (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Pliny the Elder)"

Vorkosigan:

Quote:

Bernard, he meant Pliny the Younger. It's an understandable error. The article is excellent and full of interesting insights.

Neither Pliny the Younger, nor Dio Cassius, nor Pliny the Elder referred to Nero's persecution of Christians. My opinion of Doughty's scholarship has not changed.

Best regards, Bernard

Vorkosigan · 03-31-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

My quote earlier on this thread:
Vorkosigan:
Neither Pliny the Younger, nor Dio Cassius, nor Pliny the Elder referred to Nero's persecution of Christians. My opinion of Doughty's scholarship has not changed.
Best regards, Bernard

You are right. I thought he was talking about persecution of Christians in general. My bad.

capnkirk · 04-01-2004, 05:09 AM

For what it's worth, Burton Mack holds that:

Quote:

...scholars have regularly tried to date this writing (Revelation) during one of the traditional "persecutions of the church". Nero's "persecution" in 64 CE doesn't work because: (1) it was not a persecution but an ad hoc, localized, scapegoating strategy that everyone understood to be the action of a madman, and (2) in any case was highly exaggerated by Tacitus, who reported it in order to discredit Nero. from ([B]Who wrote the New Testament?[/B])

He also hints that in the second century, as the proto-orthodox, centrist faction of Xtianity was inventing the apostolic traditions, this well-known episode of Nero(nian) madness became just too perfect an event to resist attaching the martyring of Peter to. What with all the apostles' lives and deaths turning into mini-copies of GMark's account of the life of the christ (preaching, miracle working, persecution, and martyrdom), what could make a more perfect ending for the greatest disciple than to be martyred by crucifixion in Rome? This placing of Peter's death in Rome gave credence to the Roman church's claim to being first among equals by virtue of a line of apostolic succession straight back to Peter himself!

Still later, Paul's mythical martyrdom was added to reinforce the Roman church's claim. Both these legends were known when 'Luke' wrote Acts specifically to provide (the much needed) direct connection between Jesus' "disciples" and the apostles so as to establish authenticity to the claim that the authority of the church overseers (later called bishops) could be traced back to persons who knew Jesus personally.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.