FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-19-2003, 10:52 PM   #21
Iasion
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Arrow Paul cites - Clement, 2 Peter, Ignatius, Basilides, Polycarp

Greetings Toto et al,

Quote:
Toto: Since we have no copies of Paul's letters or even any mention of them before the mid-2nd century, there is no way anything can be proven
I don't think this is correct.

Clement mentions the "wise writings" of Paul - usually dated to c.95, but pre-70 by others e.g. Ellegård.

2 Peter cites Paul and "all his letters" - perhaps early 2nd C.

Ignatius mentions Paul briefly - perhaps early 2nd C.

Basilides apparently cited Paul (seeing Rom. 7:9 as evidence of Paul's re-incarnation) - perhaps early or mid 2nd C.

Polycarp mentions Paul - perhaps early or mid 2nd C.


Iasion
 
Old 05-19-2003, 10:56 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Talking

Quote:
Clement mentions the "wise writings" of Paul - usually dated to c.95, but pre-70 by others e.g. Ellegård.

2 Peter cites Paul and "all his letters" - perhaps early 2nd C.

Ignatius mentions Paul briefly - perhaps early 2nd C.

Basilides apparently cited Paul (seeing Rom. 7:9 as evidence of Paul's re-incarnation) - perhaps early or mid 2nd C.

Polycarp mentions Paul - perhaps early or mid 2nd C.
Oh, but these are all just "interpolations." In fact, you will soon discover that anything which doesn't support Toto's views is an "interpolation." And although he may not have any evidence to support this idea, he believes in it with a passion surpassing that of the most ardent Christian; yea verily, even unto the point of defending it with his very life, amen.

Truly, faith is a wonderful thing.
Evangelion is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 11:35 PM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion
...for which I refer you to Mr Kirby's work. The work which you have consistently refused to address.
Please give a citation. I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
You also need to understand that claims of interpolation cannot be thrown out willy nilly, whenever it suits your purpose to do so. . . .

That is the very least you need to do before you can present a plausible claim for textual interpolation. Don't you understand that? Don't you understand the importance of objective evidence in the context of an argument?. . .
Getting a little hysterical, aren't we?

First of all you set up a rule that interpolations and forgeries have to bear the burden of proof, then you claim that I have to play by your rules. I reject this.

I don't want to get into Paul's letters in depth right now. I may pick up on that later.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 11:41 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default Re: Paul cites - Clement, 2 Peter, Ignatius, Basilides, Polycarp

Quote:
Originally posted by Iasion
Greetings Toto et al,

I don't think this is correct.

Clement mentions the "wise writings" of Paul - usually dated to c.95, but pre-70 by others e.g. Ellegård.

2 Peter cites Paul and "all his letters" - perhaps early 2nd C.

Ignatius mentions Paul briefly - perhaps early 2nd C.

Basilides apparently cited Paul (seeing Rom. 7:9 as evidence of Paul's re-incarnation) - perhaps early or mid 2nd C.

Polycarp mentions Paul - perhaps early or mid 2nd C.


Iasion
Contrary to Evangelion's hysterical ravings, I am quite willing to admit error or correct myself. I was under the impression that there was no edition of Paul's letters until Marcion produced them around 140 CE, which I consider mid 2nd century. I will look at your references.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 12:41 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Talking

Quote:
First of all you set up a rule that interpolations and forgeries have to bear the burden of proof, then you claim that I have to play by your rules. I reject this.
ROTFL! Any claim bears a burden of proof. You made the claim. It is an essential part of your argument. You must therefore prove the claim. This has nothing to do with arbitrary "rules." It is, in fact, standard debating protocol.

So, once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of primary sources.
Evangelion is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 12:45 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Talking

Quote:
Please give a citation. I don't know what you are talking about.
I'll give you a citation alright. I'll give you a citation from my response to you in the PN thread, on May the 15:
  • In response, I refer you to the work of Mr Kirby (here) who presents a sound argument for an early dating of the primary Christian source documents.

    In doing so, he employs the same methodology which I myself prefer; to whit, that of "converging lines of evidence." Many people make the mistake of concentrating on the mss. evidence, as if this constitutes the be-all and end-all of the Christian argument.

    But this does not take into account the attestation of other documents, such as the writings of the early church fathers (Ignatius particularly) and the Didache.
My post remains unanswered; Mr Kirby's material continues to be avoided.
Evangelion is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 12:48 AM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

The original claim was made by GDon:

Quote:
If there were a historical Jesus, He died between 26 CE and 36 CE. We know from St Paul that there were Christian communities outside Jerusalem quite early (Damascus), and that in fact there were communities in Rome herself by around 60 CE.
My statement was a response to his assertion that "we know from St Paul..." By your statement, therefore, GDon has the burden of proving that we can know anything from St. Paul, that there even was a St. Paul. Good luck.

Once again you demonstrate your complete inability to follow a line of thought.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 12:54 AM   #28
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Evangelion
I'll give you a citation alright. I'll give you a citation from my response to you in the PN thread, on May the 15:
  • In response, I refer you to the work of Mr Kirby (here) who presents a sound argument for an early dating of the primary Christian source documents.

    In doing so, he employs the same methodology which I myself prefer; to whit, that of "converging lines of evidence." Many people make the mistake of concentrating on the mss. evidence, as if this constitutes the be-all and end-all of the Christian argument.

    But this does not take into account the attestation of other documents, such as the writings of the early church fathers (Ignatius particularly) and the Didache.
My post remains unanswered; Mr Kirby's material continues to be avoided.
This started with a question about the dating of Paul's letters. That page from Peter's web site talks about the dating of the Gospels, but I don't see anything about Paul's letters.

You bluster a lot for someone who can't keep things straight.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 06:19 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Walsall, UK
Posts: 1,490
Talking

Ooops, my only mistake was in providing the wrong link!

I meant this one. (Also from the Website of Mr Kirby.)

His dating for the Pauline corpus is early indeed, as you can see from the following examples:
  • 50-60 1 Thessalonians

    50-60 Philippians

    50-60 Galatians

    50-60 1 Corinthians

    50-60 2 Corinthians

    50-60 Romans

    50-60 Philemon

    50-80 Colossians
And of course, we have the Didache, which is largely dependent upon the Gospel of Matthew but also quotes extensively from the Pauline corpus.
Evangelion is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 07:28 AM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
Default Re: The Passion Narrative and Philo

Quote:
So now for some details:

The Mockery

....

The victim is stripped naked or starts out that way, and is costumed with a crown of reed /thorns, robe, and sceptre; saluted in a mock ceremony, hailed with the title of King
-
Luke adds the detail of the visiting Herodian King, visiting the city outside his jurisdiction with a bodyguard of soldiers, who was at odds with the Roman ruler. Leidner asks where the detail of Herod being an enemy of Pilate came from, if not from Philo?

Thus there is density of references, some of which make little sense without the original story of Philo before us. Why did the soldiers both beat and make mock homage to Jesus?
But arguments like this start to get absurd...I mean, gee, is it so unreasonable to assume that Luke got the idea of Herod being an enemy of Pilate from the possible fact that they were enemies??!

The problem is that there is a loose correlation between two facts. However, as any statistician will tell you, correlation does not demonstrate causality, even when the facts are separated in time. In other words, there could be a third fact that is the origin of the other two--or that relates the two in some other way. Nor do I see why the original fact need be literary--indeed, what if the scourging of Jesus actually happened, and went the way it did because the story of Flaccus had become popularized? Or, what if this was just a common way of mocking enemies of the state? Imagine if you read two accounts of initiation ceremonies at US collegiate fraternity houses. Let's say both involve paddling (I myself have no idea, I'm just making this up.) Why would you assume that the account prior in time must be the source of the other account of paddling? Isn't it equally reasonable to assume that paddling is a common enough fact in such ceremonies that two accounts would contain references to it? I mean, for all I know, I could speculate that the story of Flaccus had become oral knowledge, the soldiers treated Jesus in that way because they knew about Flaccus, and the author of Mark then went back to the literary source because he realized the connection, and wanted a literary model to base his account on. Maybe he was making a deliberate literary reference, not because it was manufactured, but just for the sake of beling literary. Maybe he was trying to prove a point about Flaccus as well. Who knows?

What I'm saying is, this account (of the scourging) is the closest parallel between the two cases, and yet even that demonstrates very little. So we will have to look elsewhere to determine whether the Scourging of Jesus was historical.
the_cave is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Top

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