Ben C Smith

Within a week, hopefully.

Ben.

Toto

That seems to me to be a completely illogical statement. Not everyone who does one particular thing that my enemy does is automatically my enemy. Where do you get that?

I was assuming you could understand that I was not accusing you of being a Christian apologist, just wondering why you made one particular argument that apologists make, and which I can see no justification for.

No it's not absurd. It is not asking you to prove a negative. And please get rid of this false analogy to the verse "maintaining its innocence."

If you are going to treat Paul's letters as authentic, you are automatically asserting that they have not been falsified. You should bear the burden of proof to some degree that they are authentic. You can do this by looking at documentary evidence (although Walker shows why this is not very productive with Paul), by examining the general style of the writing, the vocabulary, language, etc. It's not that uncalled for.

I am only talking about the burden of proof, and your dogmatic statement that any claim of interpolation has to meet that burden of proof.

I am not accusing the document of being fake. I start out from an agnostic position. I note that documentary manipulations, from innocent interpolations of marginal comments through outright forgery, have been a part of Christianity from its earliest days, as shown by contemporary comments and internal evidence, and I object to your assumption that the writings attributed to Paul should be automatically accepted.

I was also aiming my comments at jjramsey, who seems to think that interpolations in Paul are not readily apparent, when Walker has written a book about them.

Chris Weimer

Just to be absolutely clear, I'm not claiming that Paul is interpolation-free. However, to claim that one who calls a passage an interpolation has no burden whatsoever in showing that it is one is ludicrous.

No Robots

For a guy sensitive to insults, you don't seem to mind throwing them around.

The fact is that your contentions regarding Jews and Gentiles are in line with traditional ecclesiology. I guess it's all part of the abridgement of antiquity and modernity.

Chris Weimer

Except that you fail to mention my qualifier - that Paul should be automatically excepted until shown otherwise. I have always made this very clear.

As I repeat for the third time this thread: "We can only go by what we have. Unless you have some different information, I'll go by what I have."

Toto

Any given passage might be an interpolation. Or the entire contract might be a forgery.

Haven't you ever signed a contract where you had to initial every page, and you also retained a complete copy of the contract? So when someone claims there is a clause on page 16 where you agreed to hand over your first born child, you can refer to your own copy to refute that?

Chris Weimer

How is claiming that you're employing a fallacious argument an insult? It is true - you're asking for an argument from authority. This is not valid, nor has it ever been valid, nor will it ever be valid.

You have me mistaken again. I said that Matthew was a Christian document, written by a Christian, for Christians, damning the Jews from their promised kingdom. Unless you think I'm a Christian, it's not in any way related to the church and how it regards Jews and Gentiles.

Toto

I don't think that your qualifier helps that much. (I assume you mean that Paul should be accepted rather than excepted??)

What you are saying is that your critics have the burden of discovering and proving the evidence of any 2nd century forger, and until they do, you will accept the forger's work - however probable it is that there is forgery in general.

Amaleq13

I don't think you do because you still appear to be confusing descriptions of the guy for whom you are looking with an identification of that guy in history. I also don't think you're reading my posts because I've already explained what the difference will be between identified figures in history and Jesus (ie the nature of the available evidence).

First, I can and do dispute that the historical Jesus can be reliably described as the brother of James. Second, there is no reliable evidence that the historical Jesus had followers since we are only told that in theologically-motivated myths and Paul fails to confirm it. Third, ditto on the "good teacher". Fourth, these are still only descriptions of a guy who you have yet to identify in history though reliable evidence that he was the brother of an identifiable figure from history would certainly take you a long way toward your goal. Fifth, I am not asking for an identification but denying that one has been offered and suggesting that the available evidence makes that impossible.

It is not what I want but what is required by the definition of "identification" but I've already offered a specific example:
"That sounds just like the guy you've been describing, Ben!!", he would say.

"He's got followers and a reputation for being a prophet and he got crucified and his followers abandoned him. By golly, he fits the description!!", he would acknowledge.

"I guess we can say that at least that much of those myth-soaked stories is historical!", he would chuckle.

Chris Weimer

Er, of course. Mea culpa.

Not quite. I maintain that in passages that I have no reason to doubt authenticity, I will continue to do so until shown otherwise.