mountainman

:hobbyhorse:



What corroborative EVIDENCE do you and your highly esteemed PhD's of Divinity and Theology have from the 1st century that these anonymous, undated and unprovenanced texts are from the 1st century? None. Nothing. Not even one papyrus fragment.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

outhouse

Can you refute this ??

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...salonians.html

The epistle to the Thessalonians is certainly one of the most ancient Christian documents in existence. It is typically dated c. 50/51 CE. It is universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.


universally assented to be an authentic letter of Paul.



You turn that over, im all ears.

outhouse

At this point, will we have to run to Price or Detering out of thousands of scholars to overturn this?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/galatians.html



Galatians is one of the four letters of Paul known as the Hauptbriefe, which are universally accepted as authentic. It is typically dated c. 54 CE.



universally accepted as authentic.

What does this mean? is it a mystery?

Toto

Then what is the evidence that Paul's letters were in circulation in the first century?

This is a very different question from whether Paul existed, or wrote the letters.

Toto

Are you quoting an internet blogger as if his work were sacred writ?

We know that this letter is not universally assented to be authentic because we know of the Dutch radicals who reject the authenticity of all of Paul's letters.

And please note the second paragraph after the one you quoted discusses evidence that one problematic paragraph was inserted at a later time by someone else.

But the question is whether this letter was in circulation. You have no evidence of that.

I'm sorry, you are just out of your depth here.

Toto

It means that a group of scholars who start from certain assumptions about Paul agree that this letter is authentic. They decided this because they read through the letters and noted that some were obviously not written by the same person, and they labeled these "pseudo-Pauline" or deutero-Pauline. The ones that seemed to be written by the same writer were labeled "authentic" meaning "not obviously forged."

If you think that you can learn about Biblical studies by reading second or third hand descriptions of what scholars think, you are just wasting your time and mine.

And again, this is not evidence of when the letters were circulated.

outhouse

As far as Paul is concerned, the difference between you and me is I follow most scholars.

You seem to follow one, Price. You have his shtick down pretty well.


The difference between you and me, is I view you as wasting everyone's time, not just mine with your obscure unsubstantiated views.


By the way, I find your rebuttal to what I posted very poor, it was more like a explanation or bad excuse. Your claim "who start from certain assumptions about Paul" is firmly unsubstantiated.

Toto

Unsubstantiated?? Please demonstrate this.

Do you know how Paul's letters are dated? Scholars in a previous generation started with the assumption that the Book of Acts contains a historically accurate chronology, and matched places in the letters with the chronology in Acts. But this was before the consensus swung to regarding Acts as lacking in historical value. So the dating of the letters is based on a demonstrably false assumption. But no one has resolved the difficulty - yet.

The Westar Institute, home of the Jesus Seminar, is about to come out with some new material at their fall conference. It will be interesting to see.

MrMacSon

Galatians has been disputed more recently that the skepticism of the Dutch Radicals -

for example

• critical scholars like AQ Morton saw Galatians as the benchmark for refuting Pauline authorship of most other epistles; AQ Morton, J McLeman. Paul, the Man and the Myth (1966).
• F. R. McGuire
• Robert Price The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul Signature Books ISBN 1-56085-216-X (2012)

MrMacSon

Yes; pls answer Toto's questions.

and, why is 1 Thessalonians "undisputed" but not 2 Thessalonians??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ed.22_epistles