Duvduv

I have not found that. I specifically have in mind the idea of letters originating as monotheistic sermons or tracts that became interspersed with passages referring to the Christ even the historical Christ, which would negate the foundation of the Pauline Christ myth.
The byzantian regime redactors didn't have to reinvent the wheel. All they had to do was adopt ideas they approved up and remake them to accomodate references to the Christ.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

I do not presume that the Pauline writings are early, credible or historically accurate.

I am simply analyzing the development of the narrative. I neither presume it is early or late, credible or incredible, historically accurate or inaccurate.

If I was analyzing King Kong films and suggested that in the 1978 version, Kong's association with big oil companies softened a theme of bestiality, I would not be presuming the film was early or late, credible or incredible, historically accurate or inaccurate. I would simply be pointing out a phenomena in the text.

If I noted that in "Iron Man 2," the character of Tony Stark, more closely resembled the character of the actor Robert Downey; and in "Iron Man" more closely resembled Howard Hughes, I would not be presuming the film was early or late, credible or incredible, accurate or inaccurate.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

anethema

to jay greetings, your analogy to king kong movies looks imo relevant on the surface, but the fact is having the evidence in my head about when they were produced gives me an almost certain way to look at the way they are presented, same with iron man. aa is looking at things from what he knows. he may be close-minded about assumptions and hypotheses, but that doesnt make his core argument any less coherent imho.

aa5874

Please, your posts are recorded. Examine Excerpts of your OWM OP.

Post #1.

From your very first post your argument was based on the PRESUMPTION that the Pauline writings were Early, Before the Gospels, and then Later Interpolated.

You NEVER did present any evidence of antiquity for an Early Uninterpolated Galatians.

Ehrman is also arguing that Paul the Galatians writer PHYSICALLY met the Apostle James the Lord's brother in Jerusalem and PHYSICALLY wrote or is the author of the Galatians letter.

Neither you NOR Ehrman have ever presented any corroborative Evidence from antiquity to show that the Pauline writings were early and before the Jesus story was known, circulated, preached and Believed.


Examine your own post # 14.

Where is the EVIDENCE from antiquity that there was an EARLIER Unedited Galatians??

You have NO evidence so you PRESUMED it into existence.

Please, you have NO letter to the Galatians without the trip to Jerusalem.

What EARLIER UNEDITED Galatians are you talking about??

Who in antiquity claimed Galatians was EDITED??

Your presumptions about earlier unedited Galatians were introduced merely to make an argument.

As I have told you before, Not even the author of Acts claimed Paul wrote any letter to Galatians up to the time of FESTUS c 59-62 CE.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

First, I would like to note that Robert Eisler apparently came up with the theory of "the Lord for John" interpolation in Galatians 1:19 a while ago. From Vridar Blog by Neil Godfrey:
Erhman is a good magician. He conjures the historical Jesus into existence with his hidden left hand (early dating assumptions) while distracting us with his right hand - New Testament manuscript evidence and the Oral Tradition. The New Testament manuscript evidence shows too little, while the oral tradition shows us too much. The NT manuscript tradition only shows what the orthodox was able to preserve and transmit after the Third century. It does not show us the sources of those manuscripts which come from the First and Second Centuries. In other words, he gives us information too little and too late to see the development of the mythological characters and plots. On the other hand, one can prove anything by invoking the oral tradition and thus one can prove nothing by invoking it.

The correct method is not to hide two centuries of multiple manuscript traditions with your left hand, while distracting people with your right hand with NT manuscript evidence and oral tradition. We need to logically reconstruct the slow three century evolution of Jesus from mythology to history.

I can understand your concerns that by looking at Ehrman's right hand, I am getting caught up in his distractions. It is better to just focus on the hidden left hand which obviously makes the switch from the Mythological Jesus to the Historical Jesus. Nevertheless, seeing the specific distractions can help us to understand how the switch is being made. While looking at the distractions, I do not for a moment see them as anything but the distractions they are to accomplish the magic trick.

Textual variations may indicate evidence of editing. If there was editing there must be an earlier writing and a later writing. Seeing this difference is different than claiming an early specific time period such as prior to 70 CE. I date the gospels to generally to circa 150-200 CE. Saying that I do not see gospel influence in this epistle would leave any date open for it before 150-200 CE.

Here are some of the textural variations as given at Biblequery.org:This is just a handful of the texual variations.

Stephen Carlson, in his newly published dissertation on Galatians, finds many more variations. Some of them fairly important. From The Text of Galatians and its History by Stephen Carlson:

This suggests to me that somebody changed the text from Paul accusing both Peter and James of rejecting gentiles in the faith to Paul only accusing James of doing it and Peter is portrayed as being bullied by James into accepting it.

Nevertheless, despite the large number of these variations in the manuscripts we now possess, it is important to remember that we cannot bring any of this stuff to prove what was in the texts written before the 3rd Century. Wikipedia says this about the dating of P.46, the earliest manuscript evidence for Galatians:

Any changes that occurred in the manuscript tradition before 150-250 would not be recorded in our manuscript tradition. yet we know that before this period would be the time when the deepest theological editing would have occurred. If we are not permitted to speculate on what these changes were, we can not understand the evolution of the Jesus Myth.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Please, please, please I don't want to hear about "Authority" I NEED EVIDENCE from antiquity.

If I allow Eisler then the Christians are going to tell me about Ratzinger and the Mormons are going to tell me about Joseph Smith.

When I review any matter I EXAMINE the Evidence not Expert Opinion.

Your statement is amusing. You know Ehrman is a magician yet you allow him to distract you.

Well, Ehrman is NOT a magician.

Typically Magicians Publicly Announce that they do Magic tricks.

Ehrman Misleads. He has not admitted that his Jesus was a product of Fiction--Not Magic.

I am delighted that you mention Textual variations and that you date the Gospels to circa 150-200 CE.

This is most fascinating.

Now, After analysis of Greek New Testaments it was found that the Gospels have the HIGHEST quantity of Textual variants per page.

gMark show that more than 50% Textual variations.

The pattern is CLEAR. The earliest Gospel Text gMark show the Most Textual variations.

Now, the Pauline writings SHOW the very least Textual variations.

The Textual Variations in the Pauline writings are less than ALL other Books in the Canon even far less than Acts of the Apostles and Revelation.

It is time to EXPOSE that all the Pauline letters are FAKE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

In the 2nd century, Justin Marty did NOT acknowledge the Pauline letters but he mentioned a Jesus story in the Memoirs and Revelation by John.

The Textual variations in the Gospels and Revelation are the Highest.

Only 52% of Revelation is Free of Variants.

On average Only 54% of the Gospels is FREE of Variants.

What is the average Variant Free percent of the Pauline letters???

It is about 72%. The very least Textual variations of ALL the NT except for the Pastorals which is about 76%.

The evidence clearly suggest that the Pauline writings are some of the LATEST writings in the Canon which is PRECISELY in agreement with the writings of Justin Martyr.

A Jesus story and Revelation were composed BEFORE all the Pauline letters and Pastorals.

This is the picture from the Textual variations DATA.

The Gospels, then Revelation, then Acts of the Apostles and the Non-Pauline Epistles, then the Pauline letters to the Churches and last the Pastorals.

Please do NOT ALLOW Ehrman to distract you. Deal with the Evidence.

The abundance of evidence show or suggest the all writings in the Canon under the name of Paul were LAST and composed AFTER the Jesus story was ALREADY known, preached, published and Believed in the 2nd century.

In effect, Galatians is Neither authentic or credible.

Tom Verenna

This is actually one of the subjects I tackle in my chapter in 'Is This Not the Carpenter' (or via: amazon.co.uk), if anyone is interested.

Toto

Any chance of getting that book in an affordable edition?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Tom,

As soon as I finish Ehrman's and Carrier's books, (hopefully this weekend), I'll read yours.
Any chance for an E-book edition soon?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

TedM

.

I doubt it is that simple.

There are other variables to consider than the passage of time, such as who, how, where, and even why the texts were copied. 'When' is only one variable. Your 'evidence' is only one thing to be considered among many many different things.