FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-03-2009, 09:54 PM   #201
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post
As for methodology, the authenticity is established by complex textual analysis, which examines the consistency of language used by the letters (i.e. frequency of words, stylistic preferences, and even scaling patterns).
I applaud the analysis, but all that this tells us, is that they were penned by the same author. It does not tell us that author was Paul...or even a mid first century writer.

Quote:
The content of the letters is also examined in what is known of the church organization in Paul's time CE40's-60's vis-a-vis the later church. E.g. the 'monarchic episocopate' alluded in the so-called pastorals (the Timothys and Titus) is generally deemed much later than Paul's time, or at any rate not fitting with Paul's other letters and the Acts.
If the letters were written later, would they be ignorant of the organization of the church? I guess I don't see how this helps establish either the author or an early date. Once you allow for the possibility of a later fake, it's difficult to come up with a test to determine whether it really is earlier or later.

One test to determine if it really is later rather than earlier, would be to look for anachronisms. If they exist, then the weight of evidence favors a later dating. If there are none, ...well, this argues for an earlier date, since a later writer who writes a large enough volume is expected to inadvertently introduce some.

Another way to determine if it really is an earlier dating, is too find where other sources have referred to the writings by name. (correlation in text doesn't work well, since a later fraud pretending to be from an earlier period would be expected to be constructed from known historical sources).

Using the projections Stark came up with (see The Rise of Christianity, Table 1.1), in the mid first century Christians represented about 0.002% of the population....arguably, much too small to have garnered official attention. This throws into serious doubt some of the persecution ideas found in several of the 'authentic epistles (Romans, 1 Cor., 2. Cor, Gal, Thes.). This comes across to me as anachronistic. Detering has argued this is an anachronism for a totally different reason - namely - that it is not mentioned prior to Nero. So we have two independent approaches arriving at the same conclusion - strong stuff.

Detering has also argued that the idea of Israel's repudiation in Romans (generally considered authentic), is anachronistic putting a no earlier than date of 135 on that text.

There are several other argued anachronisms within the 'genuine' Pauline epistles.

Ok, so we have some strong evidnece that at least portions of the 'genuine' epistles come from a later time period. We also know that ~half the epistles are later fakes. What then is the argument for an earlier dating? Establishing an early date is critical to establishing that a mid-1st century Paul is the real author.

Quote:
Other analytical tools may be added: e.g. habits of thought, cognitive struction, attitudes. I hope to provide a convincing psychological portrait of Paul and show that because of his condition, he truly felt he was "overwhelmed" by the Christ in his body.
The problem I see with this approach, is that any author could have written that, so long as that author was familiar with the concepts...possibly through personal experience. It need not have have been a mid 1st century Paul.

Quote:
Paul is small, weak, incompetent (depressed);
Can someone here who knows ancient Greek please tell me what the name 'Paul' means? I seem to have forgotten.

Quote:
Hope, I am helping with your query.
Sincerely, yes, this is helpful. Thanks!
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-03-2009, 10:30 PM   #202
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo View Post

Perhaps, the issues would have been simple if Paul had his letters notarized for authenticity, but even then I can see you arguing the certificates are fake because Paul did not exist because the certificates are fake.
So, what is your position? Are you claiming that "Paul" authenticates himself?

It is obvious that the letters with the name Paul virtually has no significance with respect to dating since so-called early christian writers were making references to passages that were supposedly made by Paul when now it has been found not to be the case.

Ignatus, said to have died between 98-117 CE, made references to passages that appear in Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy and others, not seeming to know that these letters were not from Paul.

It is inconceivable that within a church structure that the writings of Paul could have been already, and so easily, manipulated within the church itself in such a short time. And further all subsequent church writers continue with the manipulated letters even though writers like Clement was in the church before Paul and Peter died.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
Confirmed ? Whatever are you talking about ? What does "confirmed" mean in the academic community ?
Well, are you claiming "confirmed" means nothing in the academic community?

Perhaps you think that whatever scholars accept must be accepted without confirmation or evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874
The earliest writings of the Pauline letters are, I think, P46 and this is dated no earlier than the third century using paleographic dating method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solo
You mean the earliest physical manuscripts of his letters ? But that does not change much on anything, does it now ? You still have to deal with Marcion's Apostolikon which was known in Rome before his excommunication in 144 CE.
The "Apostolikon?

If the all church writers got the writings of Paul wrong, I would be totally amazed if they got Marcion's right.

The church writers got their chronology all screwed up you know. Don't tell me about the Apostolikon, tell me about 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thesalonians, Matthew, Mark, Luke John, 2 Peter, James and Jude.

The church writers are not credible. They were wrong about the writings of the NT, I expect them to be wrong about Marcion.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 06:43 AM   #203
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
tell me about 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians and 2 Thesalonians, Matthew, Mark, Luke John, 2 Peter, James and Jude.
How can anybody tell you anything when you already know all the answers?
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:06 AM   #204
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
You have consistently claimed I am wrong and arrogant. Now stop wasting time and prove that you are right with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

The real Paul absolutely was aware of the gospel stories.


I see you have changed your argument to become more defensible... very good.
Of course Paul was familiar with the gospel stories... but not with the written Gospels themselves. I am glad we agree on this.

I also appreciate you pointing out how consistent I have been... too bad I will not return the observation.

I will not and can not prove ANYTHING to you. Proof is not something someone else can force upon you.
kcdad is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:09 AM   #205
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
Of course Paul was familiar with the gospel stories...
This is a pretty large assumption.

I would actually disagree with this statement entirely, based on the evidence we have.
dog-on is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:31 AM   #206
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
Of course Paul was familiar with the gospel stories...
This is a pretty large assumption.

I would actually disagree with this statement entirely, based on the evidence we have.
Is this "secret evidence"? Do you think Paul's messages about Jesus and The Christ have NOTHING to do what the disciples were spreading throughout the Jewish communities? Do you think references to The Last Supper (1 Corinthians) are merely coincidences?
kcdad is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:34 AM   #207
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post

This is a pretty large assumption.

I would actually disagree with this statement entirely, based on the evidence we have.
Is this "secret evidence"? Do you think Paul's messages about Jesus and The Christ have NOTHING to do what the disciples were spreading throughout the Jewish communities? Do you think references to The Last Supper (1 Corinthians) are merely coincidences?

Not secret at all. As a matter of fact, the evidence is plain as day.

Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have for any type of Christianity, or Disciples for that matter, do you have showing any activities in 1st century Jewish communities?
dog-on is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:44 AM   #208
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post

Is this "secret evidence"? Do you think Paul's messages about Jesus and The Christ have NOTHING to do what the disciples were spreading throughout the Jewish communities? Do you think references to The Last Supper (1 Corinthians) are merely coincidences?

Not secret at all. As a matter of fact, the evidence is plain as day.

Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have for any type of Christianity, or Disciples for that matter, do you have showing any activities in 1st century Jewish communities?
Other than Church documents? Hmmmmm.... how about churches spread out over the Middle East and Eastern Africa from Ethiopia to India dating their origins back to the Apostles? They do exist. Now perhaps they are lying and were just trying to cash in on the big money 1st century Christianity was...

There are "other" christian churches, you know... the Coptics, Gnostics, Ebionites,The Yawhists...

How did these non-roman, non-hellenistic churches get started if it was all a Roman Catholic Conspiracy?
kcdad is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:46 AM   #209
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog-on View Post


Not secret at all. As a matter of fact, the evidence is plain as day.

Let me ask you this. What evidence do you have for any type of Christianity, or Disciples for that matter, do you have showing any activities in 1st century Jewish communities?
Other than Church documents? Hmmmmm.... how about churches spread out over the Middle East and Eastern Africa from Ethiopia to India dating their origins back to the Apostles? They do exist. Now perhaps they are lying and were just trying to cash in on the big money 1st century Christianity was...
Source? I will simply say that this claim is very doubtful, but I await your evidence for it.

Quote:
There are "other" christian churches, you know... the Coptics, Gnostics, Ebionites,The Yawhists...

How did these non-roman, non-hellenistic churches get started if it was all a Roman Catholic Conspiracy?
I do not recall mentioning a conspiracy, I simply asked you to provide evidence of first century Christianity or Disciple activity in Jewish communities.
dog-on is offline  
Old 05-04-2009, 08:48 AM   #210
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Paul is small, weak, incompetent (depressed);
Can someone here who knows ancient Greek please tell me what the name 'Paul' means? I seem to have forgotten.
Paul, IIRC, is Latin for "small" or "humble". In Greek I don't think it has any meaning (Παυλος) other than being a Hellenization of the Latin equivalent (Paulus). He makes a play on his name in 2 Cor 10
Quote:
1By the meekness and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am "timid" when face to face with you, but "bold" when away!
show_no_mercy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:24 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.