Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 05-03-2003, 02:49 AM

This is a repost for the sake of Vinnie and anyone else who lost track of the thread (it's now on the second page). I look forward to any comments.

Let me give you an example of why I say that study of the existence of Jesus among scholars is in its infancy. Galatians 1:19 refers to "James the brother of the Lord." This is widely regarded as the crown jewel in a small tiara of references to an earthly Jesus in Paul. In his debate with Price, Greg Boyd appealed to this passage as a refutation in itself of the Christ myth view of Paul. Gary Habermas likewise made it an important part of his refutation of Wells. But, if it is a diamond, it is still rough and unpolished. I will leave alone the question of the meaning of the phrase, which has been debated at length by Wells and Doherty (and not without justification, as it has been debated as far back as Origen). Frank R. McGuire writes:

http://www.hermann-detering.de/did_p..._galatians.htm

Quote:

Tertullian, in his Prescription against Heretics, even alludes to Paul's having gone to Jerusalem to meet Peter but it soon becomes apparent that the author is simply reading his own interest in Peter into the account of the meeting with Peter, James and John. Treating Acts ix, 26f as the account of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, he seems to apply both Gal. ii, 1-10 and an account similar to i, 18f to the second visit. Moreover, in this instance Tertullian is writing primarily for orthodox consumption; in his early 3rd century anti-Marcionite treatise, where he must meet hostile readers on their own ground, he refers to Paul as going up (not 'up again') to Jerusalem after fourteen years 'so great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you [Marcion] wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism!' Obviously Marcion's text of Galatians did not include the account of a previous visit 'after three years' and Tertullian, if indeed he had ever seen such a reading, was not inclined to take it seriously.

So it is apparent (from Tertullian's Against Marcion 5.3) that some copies of Gal 2:1 did not have the "again." According to the UBS Greek New Testament, the word "again" (PALIN) is omitted by "it-e cop-bo Marcion Irenaeus-lat Tertullian Ambrosiaster Chrysostom Augustine." Moreover, the Marcionites had a text of Galatians that did not have the Gal 1:18-24 passage, as is apparent from Tertullian. There is motive both for its insertion and its removal; it would be inserted by those who want to make the Jerusalem circle and Paul look like they were in close agreement, as it is used by the orthodox, and it would be removed by their opponents. What makes me more suspicious is verse 20, "As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying." Why would this incidental and nondescript fortnight in Jerusalem be a cause for doubt to Paul's audience? This rather sounds like a later scribe committing pious fraud.

Despite the text critical issues and the difficulty of ascertaining the original meaning of the text, this verse is consistently used as a knock-down argument for the historical existence of Jesus. I have not found any historical Jesus scholar that goes into any detail to refute the interpretation of the likes of Wells, let alone discuss the problem of authenticity. That is what I mean when I say that the subject is in its infancy.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clutch · 05-03-2003, 07:08 AM

Peter, thank you for a very interesting post!

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-03-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
This is a repost for the sake of Vinnie and anyone else who lost track of the thread (it's now on the second page). I look forward to any comments.

Let me give you an example of why I say that study of the existence of Jesus among scholars is in its infancy.

[snip]

Despite the text critical issues and the difficulty of ascertaining the original meaning of the text, this verse is consistently used as a knock-down argument for the historical existence of Jesus. I have not found any historical Jesus scholar that goes into any detail to refute the interpretation of the likes of Wells, let alone discuss the problem of authenticity. That is what I mean when I say that the subject is in its infancy.

Hi, Peter,

Yes, we can certainly say that the Pauline authenticity is yet another giant Black Hole in NT studies. In my estimate, 99% of NT scholars today don't even know of any alternative points of view on this subject. It seems like marching in lockstep is what they do best...

Your analysis of this subject outdoes anything that any mainstream NT Professor would be capable of. Yes, we can say that the subject of the HJ is still in its infancy today. But even more than that, it seems like the real history of the NT is also in its infancy today.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Toto · 05-03-2003, 01:05 PM

I have been intrigued by this issue but I don't see where it can lead except to complete agnosticism about not only the Historical Jesus, but perhaps also the Historical Paul, the Historical Peter, the Historical James, the Christian movement of the first century, etc.

The Dutch Radicals and others make a good case for Paul's letters having been written in the second century. The dating of Paul to circa 50 CE comes from Acts, which was also written in the second century. Is there any way at this time to figure out if there is some historical value underneath these second century works? It seems entirely plausible that there was an early church leader named Paul, but his letters were the only real indication of his existence, and without those, he might as well be a myth.

Clutch · 05-03-2003, 03:06 PM

The NIV preface to Galatians dates it between 48 and 57. Is there a defensible rationale for this?

I mean, the NIV also prefaces Deuteronomy by saying, "The love relationship of the Lord to his people... pervade[s] the whole book." So I'm prepared for their claims to bear little relation to reality!

Peter Kirby · 05-03-2003, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
The NIV preface to Galatians dates it between 48 and 57. Is there a defensible rationale for this?

The rationale of R. Alan Cole in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries is typical:

Quote:

Broadly speaking, our answer to this question will depend upon our answer to the first. If we follow the 'North Galatian' scholars, we must put the Epistle after Paul's first possible visit to the northern region. That, on one interpretation of the text, would be Acts xvi. 6, describing Paul's travels through Asia Minor on his way to Europe on the second missionary journey. But not all would agree that 'Galatia proper' is meant here, and few would feel, with Moffatt, that the text clearly states that Paul evangelized the region, whether or no he passed through it. Also, many older scholars have felt that the wording of Galatians iv. 13 (see the commentary) implies two visits of Paul to this region before writing the letter. If this is so, or if Acts xvi. 6 be not accepted as evidence, then Acts xviii. 23 would be the first possible occasion. This would be at some date after the second or before the third missionary journey. Therefore, even if we take the Northern theory, there is a considerable range of date involved, although at least the Epistle could not be written before the second missionary journey. How much later it is after any of these dates is yet another question. Because of the wording of Galatians i. 6 (see the commentary), many think that the letter must have followed the visit almost immediately. But this is not necessarily so. It is quite possible that a period of several years elapsed, though it is unlikely to have been so long. If we put the Epistle as written at some time during Paul's Ephesian ministy, we should have a leeway of two years and more (Acts xix. 10).

And so on for five more paragraphs. Basically, the exact dates given to Pauline letters assume not only their authenticity but also the substantial historicity of Acts, which may not be defensible.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 05-03-2003, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
The Dutch Radicals and others make a good case for Paul's letters having been written in the second century.

Hi Toto, I've seen you mention the Dutch Radicals on Pauline authenticity several times. I am aware of articles on Detering's site and the Journal of Higher Criticism, but perhaps you would like to start a new thread pointing out the highlights of the case for a second century date of the Pauline epistles?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 05-03-2003, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Hi, Peter,

Yes, we can certainly say that the Pauline authenticity is yet another giant Black Hole in NT studies. In my estimate, 99% of NT scholars today don't even know of any alternative points of view on this subject. It seems like marching in lockstep is what they do best...

Your analysis of this subject outdoes anything that any mainstream NT Professor would be capable of. Yes, we can say that the subject of the HJ is still in its infancy today. But even more than that, it seems like the real history of the NT is also in its infancy today.

Hi Yuri,

I've seen you make the point several times that the unquestioning acceptance of the Sacred Seven Pauline Epistles is not based on evidence and that we must allow for extensive redaction of the supposedly authentic letters of Paul. I am curious--have you ever attempted to catalogue those locations where you think that there may have been an interpolation into Paul? Even a list of just a dozen likely cases would be fantastic.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 05-03-2003, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Hi Toto, I've seen you mention the Dutch Radicals on Pauline authenticity several times. I am aware of articles on Detering's site and the Journal of Higher Criticism, but perhaps you would like to start a new thread pointing out the highlights of the case for a second century date of the Pauline epistles?

best,
Peter Kirby

Hi Peter, I've thought about doing that. But I feel like there is so much I haven't read on the subject, some of it in German or Dutch, that I worry about getting in over my head.

Vinnie · 05-04-2003, 08:31 AM

Thanks for reposting this. I'll get to it a little later

Vinnie

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

05-03-2003, 07:08 AM	#2
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	Peter, thank you for a very interesting post!

05-03-2003, 01:05 PM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I have been intrigued by this issue but I don't see where it can lead except to complete agnosticism about not only the Historical Jesus, but perhaps also the Historical Paul, the Historical Peter, the Historical James, the Christian movement of the first century, etc. The Dutch Radicals and others make a good case for Paul's letters having been written in the second century. The dating of Paul to circa 50 CE comes from Acts, which was also written in the second century. Is there any way at this time to figure out if there is some historical value underneath these second century works? It seems entirely plausible that there was an early church leader named Paul, but his letters were the only real indication of his existence, and without those, he might as well be a myth.

05-03-2003, 03:06 PM	#5
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	The NIV preface to Galatians dates it between 48 and 57. Is there a defensible rationale for this? I mean, the NIV also prefaces Deuteronomy by saying, "The love relationship of the Lord to his people... pervade[s] the whole book." So I'm prepared for their claims to bear little relation to reality!

05-04-2003, 08:31 AM	#10
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Thanks for reposting this. I'll get to it a little later Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.