Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Celsus · 03-01-2003, 09:40 PM

Vinnie's right that it won't work since it is a rather technical explanation. The deutero-Pauline/spurious/pseudonymous/etc. works are IIRC:

Ephesians
Colossians (debatable)
2 Thessalonians
1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (collectively known as the Pastoral letters)

Philippians is a composite of letters but apparently authentically Pauline.

See Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings website for example.

Joel

Vinnie · 03-01-2003, 09:52 PM

Quote:

IIRC

YRC

Vinnie

lpetrich · 03-01-2003, 10:22 PM

Heracles a.k.a. Hercules was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, Alcmene. Hera was thus his mother-in-law. And a very jealous one -- she sent some snakes to kill the baby Heracles. Who strangled them.

This "baby hero under attack" motif is common -- Moses, Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Oedipus, Zeus himself, Krishna, etc. Though Heracles is the only one who wins by his own efforts.

And Matthew's story of Jesus Christ's birth also fits that pattern. Though it does not include anything like the baby JC grabbing some soldier's sword and stabbing him with it.

Vorkosigan · 03-02-2003, 02:07 AM

LOL That will not work with a conservative. When a Bible letter explicitly claims to be coming from Paul they are not going to believe you when you argue Paul didn't actually author it LOL :-D

No, you are never going to win. But you could possibly plant a seed.....that will blossom into doubt.

Vinnie, a deutero epistle is a forged epistle. As Kirby has pointed out from time to time, find me evidence the ancient authorities thought it was OK to forge things in others' names. A forgery is a forgery, regardless of what nice word you can think to call it.

Vorkosigan

Gregg · 03-02-2003, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren
Vork,

Tell me more about the fake letters of Paul. Which books in the NT are you referring to, and how are they known to be fake? This could help me a lot.

-xeren

There's a good article about the Pauline epistles by B. A. Robinson here. Here's an excerpt:

Quote:

Did Paul write all of the epistles attributed to him?
Most conservative theologians accept the Pauline authorship of all 13 epistles. The main reason is that each epistle states states that the author is Paul. Since conservative Christians generally believe in the inerrancy (freedom from error) of the entire Bible, the matter of authorship is settled! Paul wrote all 13. Thus, conservative Christians date all of Paul's epistles before his death circa 65 CE

Many theologians believe that there is some material embedded in some of Paul's epistles that is actually much more recent material from other Christian sources - e.g. hymns, creedal formulas, confessions of faith. They seem to date from as late as the middle of the second century CE, some 85 years after Paul's death.

A.Q. Morton completed an analysis of these Epistles. 1 He assumed that Galatians was written by Paul, and did a computer study of the style of the remaining letters using that epistle as a reference. His computer found that only Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philemon matched the precise writing style of the author of Galatians. He assumed that the remaining 8 were written in the name of Paul by persons unknown.

Most liberal scholars of New Testament theology believe that:

Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians and Philemon were written by Paul.
Colossians may have been written by Paul.
2 Thessalonians and Ephesians probably was not.
1 and 2 Timothy and Titus were definitely pseudonymous (written by a unknown person, passing the writings off as Paul's.) They were written 35 to 85 years after Paul's death. Although such a writer would be considered a forger today, the practice was quite common in the 1st century CE, and was considered acceptable behavior.

Fr. Raymond E. Brown, is a member of the Vatican's Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission, and was described by Time magazine as "probably the premier Catholic scripture scholar in the U.S." 6 He has expressed his beliefs concerning the authorship of these epistles:

In his opinion, of the thirteen epistles which say that they were written by Paul, critical scholars have reached a near consensus that seven are Paul's: 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon and Romans.
Agreement that he did not write: 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus is about 90%
Ephesians is about 80%
Colossians is about 60%
2 Thessalonians is a slight majority.

He notes that the emphasis in Colossians and Ephesians is on ecclesiology -- concern with the church itself as the body of Christ. This differs from epistles that are certain to have been written by Paul; the latter writings dealt largely with christology; they focused on Jesus.

Gregg

Gregg · 03-02-2003, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
LOL That will not work with a conservative. When a Bible letter explicitly claims to be coming from Paul they are not going to believe you when you argue Paul didn't actually author it LOL :-D

No, you are never going to win. But you could possibly plant a seed.....that will blossom into doubt.

Vinnie, a deutero epistle is a forged epistle. As Kirby has pointed out from time to time, find me evidence the ancient authorities thought it was OK to forge things in others' names. A forgery is a forgery, regardless of what nice word you can think to call it.

Vorkosigan

Sometimes I've wondered about that. Did people "back then" consider putting someone else's name on you work an acceptable practice, or was it just that it was easier to get away with it? Maybe it was some of both.

I think you do have to consider that for many in those days, individuality and "ownership" of intellectual property was probably NOT as big an issue as it is today. Individual rights are a relatively recent concept. And individuality would have had even less force within a religious community where it was believed that Truth didn't "belong" to anyone.

Gregg

Asha'man · 03-02-2003, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xeren
Is there anything I can say to his claim that the bible is evidence of the resurrection, something that can be summed up in several sentences that at the very least shows that the Bible is not good evidence for a resurrection.

Hand him a copy of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings and ask him if that is proof of elves?

If you have to, mention that we not only have millions of copies in print, we still have the originals. Textual analysis proves that the copies have barely changed since the orginals were written, so they must be accurate.

Vinnie · 03-02-2003, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
LOL That will not work with a conservative. When a Bible letter explicitly claims to be coming from Paul they are not going to believe you when you argue Paul didn't actually author it LOL :-D

No, you are never going to win. But you could possibly plant a seed.....that will blossom into doubt.

Vinnie, a deutero epistle is a forged epistle. As Kirby has pointed out from time to time, find me evidence the ancient authorities thought it was OK to forge things in others' names. A forgery is a forgery, regardless of what nice word you can think to call it.

Vorkosigan

In his NT Brown has said that in "NT research some who first proposed that letters attributed to Paul were reqlly pseudonymous hinted that the purpose might be fraudulent, but that connotation has largely dissapeared from the discussion."

That "seed planting" seems like abusing evidence.

And the evidence you ask for is right under your nose.

Or do the deutero-Paulinie epistles not count because they are part of the Bible?

Vinnie

Toto · 03-02-2003, 11:35 AM

On the acceptability of forgery in this period, Bart Ehrman in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament says at pp 22-23:

Quote:

The frequent occurence of forgery in this period does not suggest a basic tolerance of the practice. In actuality, it was widely and strongly condemned, sometimes even within documents that are themselves patently forged. [87] This later ploy serves, of course, to throw the scent off one's own deceit. One of its striking occurrences is in the orthodox Apostolic Constitutions, a book of ecclesiastical instructions, ostensibly written in the name of Jesus' apostles, which warns readers to avoid books falsely written in the name of Jesus' apostles. (VI, 16). One cannot help thinking of 2 Thessalonians, which cautions against letters falsely penned in Paul's name (2:1-2); many New Testament scholars believe that 2 Thessalonians is itself non-Pauline.

Geoff Hudson · 03-02-2003, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
On the acceptability of forgery in this period, Bart Ehrman in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament says at pp 22-23:

Quote:

many New Testament scholars believe that 2 Thessalonians is itself non-Pauline.

Would anyone like to give some reasons for the above?

Geoff

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

03-01-2003, 09:40 PM	#11
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	Vinnie's right that it won't work since it is a rather technical explanation. The deutero-Pauline/spurious/pseudonymous/etc. works are IIRC: Ephesians Colossians (debatable) 2 Thessalonians 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (collectively known as the Pastoral letters) Philippians is a composite of letters but apparently authentically Pauline. See Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings website for example. Joel

03-01-2003, 10:22 PM	#13
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Heracles a.k.a. Hercules was the son of Zeus and a mortal woman, Alcmene. Hera was thus his mother-in-law. And a very jealous one -- she sent some snakes to kill the baby Heracles. Who strangled them. This "baby hero under attack" motif is common -- Moses, Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Oedipus, Zeus himself, Krishna, etc. Though Heracles is the only one who wins by his own efforts. And Matthew's story of Jesus Christ's birth also fits that pattern. Though it does not include anything like the baby JC grabbing some soldier's sword and stabbing him with it.

03-02-2003, 02:07 AM	#14
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	LOL That will not work with a conservative. When a Bible letter explicitly claims to be coming from Paul they are not going to believe you when you argue Paul didn't actually author it LOL :-D No, you are never going to win. But you could possibly plant a seed.....that will blossom into doubt. Vinnie, a deutero epistle is a forged epistle. As Kirby has pointed out from time to time, find me evidence the ancient authorities thought it was OK to forge things in others' names. A forgery is a forgery, regardless of what nice word you can think to call it. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.