Stephen said
Are you suggesting that the entire Pauline corpus was forged?
That’s the assumption to be verified and checked. Because it’s equally probable. Pauline Corpus represents primary content without CV of Jesus. First Pauline Corpus is a creation of 2 authors
Ok assertion noted. Now I wait with bated breath for you to make your case.
???. First Pauline Corpus 10 letters two writers it is a consensus
Jarek said
Porphyry said
Jarek said
Porphyry said
Jarek said
Chaotic improvisation versus big knowledge and patience of Robert. New Covenant in a blood is rather sophisticated concept developed by one. The question is by who? By Mark or by Paul?
I think a textual dependence between mark and Paul is plausible.
But, for completeness, it isn’t necessarily the only possibility. The verbal formula may very well have been ossified in the liturgy of some community that they were both exposed to.
But setting that aside, mark might well have had access to Paul long before 100. I mean, Paul was writing in the 50s and, we generally think, dead by 70, his letters were sent to people before he died, and those people read them, preserved them, and likely circulated them. We don’t know precisely how widely they circulated in the first decades after he wrote them (nor do we know whether mark would have been in one of the communities that read them), but we know they were being read by someone. It’s not like Paul wrote his letters, put them in a lock box, and then no one saw them until 100 when the box was opened and they were all published as a collection for the first time.
That’s possible.. what is also possible that everything was created by ghost writers and published about 100 c e. Probability of first and second solution is the same because there is no trace of primary circulation of the letters
Are you suggesting that the entire Pauline corpus was forged?
That’s the assumption to be verified and checked. Because it’s equally probable. Pauline Corpus represents primary content without CV of Jesus. First Pauline Corpus is a creation of 2 authors
Yeah, two authors (or more?), but two authors who can be distinguished not only based on vocabulary but based on their concerns. What is acknowledged as authentically Pauline anticipates an immanent eschaton, within his own life. Again, in his authentic writings, he is worried about Judaizers not Gnostics.
Why would a forger around 100 have made Paul be wrong about the timing of the second coming? The only reason I can imagine is to discredit him, but if that was his purpose he failed spectacularly because he included way too much carefully constructed theology. And why would a forger writing around 100 have made a Paul who basically ignores the most pressing theological debates of the day?
Or does this just go back to your thesis that the ghostwriters were not theologians and weren’t motivated by theological concerns?
Stephen said
Are you suggesting that the entire Pauline corpus was forged?
That’s the assumption to be verified and checked. Because it’s equally probable. Pauline Corpus represents primary content without CV of Jesus. First Pauline Corpus is a creation of 2 authors
Ok assertion noted. Now I wait with bated breath for you to make your case.
Marcionite Priority section of Wikipedia entry for Jason BeDuhn, author of The First New Testament, Marcion’s Scriptural Canon
Beginning with his book The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon, BeDuhn has stated that the Gospel of Marcion (called simply ‘The Gospel’ by adherents of Marcionism) was not produced nor adapted by Marcion of Sinope, but instead adopted by him from a pre-existing gospel text from which he says the Gospel of Luke is also derived.[4]
BeDuhn suggests that Luke may be a post-Marcion redaction, but maintains a form of the two-source hypothesis, with Marcion’s Gospel interchanged with Luke as the product of a combination of Mark and Q. This differs slightly from Matthias Klinghardt’s view that Marcion’s gospel was based on the Gospel of Mark, with the Gospel of Matthew based on Mark and Marcion, and the Gospel of Luke expanding on Marcion with reference to Matthew and Mark.[5]
These views contrast with the belief of the Church Fathers and biblical scholars such as Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman that Marcion redacted the Gospel of Luke in accordance with his personal theology.[6][7] Theologian Adolf von Harnack also accepted the view of the Church Fathers that Marcion wished to “purify” the Evangelion to an original state given by Christ and defy the fabricated Gospel of Luke, all without appealing to revelation.[8]
The early churches did not know the life of Jesus except for some basic information. The Son of God, born of woman, crucified, resurrected. This was a problem that was dealt with in different ways. Why the problem? The lack of narratively attractive stories is a handicap on the mass market. Why were comic Greek myths created? For a mass recipient.
There were some reports about what Jesus allegedly said, some alleged quotes, some stories. And how to conduct missionary activity if so little is known about the Hero and there are some unbelievable stories on the market?
One church found a workaround to this problem by creating a more real character, devoid of the halo of divinity. A man named Paul, to whom the resurrected Christ appeared. Such a literary construct, thanks to which all the teachings developed in the church could be transferred. Paul was an apostle of Christ, and from personal revelation and from his own LXX exegesis he derived all his own teaching. With the divine but unknown Jesus and his fantastic apostle Paul, this church has developed its standard of content as written down in the apostle’s purported letters. The first 7 letters were written by one ghost writer and the others by others. Important historical figures appear in them to raise the importance of the apostle, from the Herodians, and later through Seneca, to the emperor himself.
The authors of the first 10 letters were convinced of the effectiveness of their idea that they released Corpus right away because it was an imaginary legacy of someone who was no longer with us. Probably around 100 CE.
They did not expect that the competition would be so impudent that it would beat them with an imaginary biography of Jesus himself.
The competition was brazen, but not enough to sign their name. But the gospels hit the mark perfectly – that’s what the market expected. First, three years ending with the crucifixion, then a flashback to birth and childhood. There was no concept for those 18 years in between.
Paul’s 7+3 epistles allude to this contrived, glorious past of the Great Apostle because that was the need of faithful and new missionaries. They provided a standardization of teaching for a church carrying out missionary activity, where the missionary is not a philosopher or theologian, but only a representative of the organization.
However, the appearance of anonymous gospels did not threaten the organization of this church, which rightly stated that if something works, it should be adopted and added to the letters.
Bart claims that there were many more letters in individual circulation. There was no. The writer of the letters knew nothing about congregational management and had no personal experience in this field. If the author were his hero, he would know after a few months that in order for something to be permanent, structures must be built, and powers and responsibilities must be delegated. He wouldn’t have spent his life on missionary journeys making the same mistakes over and over again, leading to the congregations not surviving until the letters were published in the Pauline Corpus collection. Congregations survived first on the Pauline Corpus, then on the gospels, and then on anything that came on paper. As Larry Hurtado’s list shows, there was quite a lot of it.
Jarek said
The early churches did not know the life of Jesus except for some basic information. The Son of God, born of woman, crucified, resurrected.
This sounds right to me, by which I simply mean “likely.”
There were some reports about what Jesus allegedly said, some alleged quotes, some stories. And how to conduct missionary activity if so little is known about the Hero
Yes. I suspect this was a problem. Neophytes would have questions and it’s embarrassing not to have answers.
One church found a workaround to this problem by creating a more real character, devoid of the halo of divinity. A man named Paul, to whom the resurrected Christ appeared.
This is a bare assertion at this point. Not an argument.
Such a literary construct, thanks to which all the teachings developed in the church could be transferred. Paul was an apostle of Christ, and from personal revelation and from his own LXX exegesis he derived all his own teaching. With the divine but unknown Jesus and his fantastic apostle Paul, this church has developed its standard of content as written down in the apostle’s purported letters. The first 7 letters were written by one ghost writer and the others by others. Important historical figures appear in them to raise the importance of the apostle, from the Herodians, and later through Seneca, to the emperor himself.
The authors of the first 10 letters were convinced of the effectiveness of their idea that they released Corpus right away because it was an imaginary legacy of someone who was no longer with us. Probably around 100 CE.
They did not expect that the competition would be so impudent that it would beat them with an imaginary biography of Jesus himself.
All through this your are telling a story, not making an argument.
The competition was brazen, but not enough to sign their name. But the gospels hit the mark perfectly – that’s what the market expected. First, three years ending with the crucifixion, then a flashback to birth and childhood. There was no concept for those 18 years in between.
Paul’s 7+3 epistles allude to this contrived, glorious past of the Great Apostle because that was the need of faithful and new missionaries. They provided a standardization of teaching for a church carrying out missionary activity, where the missionary is not a philosopher or theologian, but only a representative of the organization.
However, the appearance of anonymous gospels did not threaten the organization of this church, which rightly stated that if something works, it should be adopted and added to the letters.
Still no evidence or argument.
Bart claims that there were many more letters in individual circulation. There was no.
How do you know?
The writer of the letters knew nothing about congregational management and had no personal experience in this field. If the author were his hero, he would know after a few months that in order for something to be permanent, structures must be built, and powers and responsibilities must be delegated. He wouldn’t have spent his life on missionary journeys making the same mistakes over and over again, leading to the congregations not surviving until the letters were published in the Pauline Corpus collection. Congregations survived first on the Pauline Corpus, then on the gospels, and then on anything that came on paper. As Larry Hurtado’s list shows, there was quite a lot of it.
This might be an argument. Tell me if I’ve understood your point: the Paul portrayed in the letter was too inept as a manager to have been a real figure.
One church found a workaround to this problem by creating a more real character, devoid of the halo of divinity. A man named Paul, to whom the resurrected Christ appeared.
This is a bare assertion at this point. Not an argument.
You know Jesus was human. You don’t know his biography. But maybe someone else knows his biography. You don’t know if such a biography will not surface in some time. That’s why you won’t write an imaginary resume, because there is a risk that you will make a fool of yourself. But if you create an apostle who had a revelation of the resurrected Jesus, you control your hero. There is no risk involved.
If you are a good writer, you have competition with which you can endlessly clash in discussions. It is enough that you bring to life a Great Hero from the past, then you add tradition and authority to your offer. You can propagate it without suspicion of your own interest.
Jarek said
This might be an argument. Tell me if I’ve understood your point: the Paul portrayed in the letter was too inept as a manager to have been a real figure.
Yes. And he was too good in writing
Seems pretty thin. I’ve met a lot of incompetent managers.
And I give you that the quality of his rhetoric is surprising. Though I don’t see that point being strong enough to overcome the objections to your proposal.
Robert said
Jarek said
… The writer of the letters knew nothing about congregational management and had no personal experience in this field. If the author were his hero, he would know after a few months that in order for something to be permanent, structures must be built, and powers and responsibilities must be delegated. …
But Paul, the author, did not expect anything to be permanent. One of his earliest congregations was upset when someone died before the arrival of the Kingdom of God.
Touche.
Jarek said
The early churches did not know the life of Jesus except for some basic information. The Son of God, born of woman, crucified, resurrected. This was a problem that was dealt with in different ways. Why the problem? The lack of narratively attractive stories is a handicap on the mass market. Why were comic Greek myths created? For a mass recipient.There were some reports about what Jesus allegedly said, some alleged quotes, some stories. And how to conduct missionary activity if so little is known about the Hero and there are some unbelievable stories on the market?
One church found a workaround to this problem by creating a more real character, devoid of the halo of divinity. A man named Paul, to whom the resurrected Christ appeared. Such a literary construct, thanks to which all the teachings developed in the church could be transferred. Paul was an apostle of Christ, and from personal revelation and from his own LXX exegesis he derived all his own teaching. With the divine but unknown Jesus and his fantastic apostle Paul, this church has developed its standard of content as written down in the apostle’s purported letters. The first 7 letters were written by one ghost writer and the others by others. Important historical figures appear in them to raise the importance of the apostle, from the Herodians, and later through Seneca, to the emperor himself.
The authors of the first 10 letters were convinced of the effectiveness of their idea that they released Corpus right away because it was an imaginary legacy of someone who was no longer with us. Probably around 100 CE.
They did not expect that the competition would be so impudent that it would beat them with an imaginary biography of Jesus himself.
The competition was brazen, but not enough to sign their name. But the gospels hit the mark perfectly – that’s what the market expected. First, three years ending with the crucifixion, then a flashback to birth and childhood. There was no concept for those 18 years in between.
Paul’s 7+3 epistles allude to this contrived, glorious past of the Great Apostle because that was the need of faithful and new missionaries. They provided a standardization of teaching for a church carrying out missionary activity, where the missionary is not a philosopher or theologian, but only a representative of the organization.
However, the appearance of anonymous gospels did not threaten the organization of this church, which rightly stated that if something works, it should be adopted and added to the letters.
Bart claims that there were many more letters in individual circulation. There was no. The writer of the letters knew nothing about congregational management and had no personal experience in this field. If the author were his hero, he would know after a few months that in order for something to be permanent, structures must be built, and powers and responsibilities must be delegated. He wouldn’t have spent his life on missionary journeys making the same mistakes over and over again, leading to the congregations not surviving until the letters were published in the Pauline Corpus collection. Congregations survived first on the Pauline Corpus, then on the gospels, and then on anything that came on paper. As Larry Hurtado’s list shows, there was quite a lot of it.
I would characterize this, perhaps a little bit uncharitably, but only a little bit, as a “just-so” story, an untestable narrative provided as an explanation. The fatal flaw is that it relies on a knowledge of motivations you can’t possibly know by people about whom you admit you know absolutely nothing.
Look, in a situation like this you must begin with the texts and work your way outwards. What we have in the New Testament are thirteen letters which claim to be written by someone named Paul. Seven of them share themes, vocabulary, theology and evince a milieu that matches what we would expect from early Christianity in the latter days of the first generation of believers, i.e., mid-first century. Three of the remaining six seem clearly written by the same person for the reasons given earlier but they evince a milieu historically different, much later, than the other seven. The last three are more ambiguous and have been disputed.
You should avoid “brain-in-a-vat” arguments. How do you know you are real and not a brain in a vat hallucinating a life? How do you know the universe didn’t come into being five minutes ago including false memories of a previous history? Sure, some savant in the second century could have invented the entire New Testament but what compelling reason do you have to think that is true? Anything is possible. But how likely is it to be true? Do you have any idea of what would be required for it to be true?
Of all the explanations invented to explain the existence of these texts by far the simplest and most straightforward is that the aforementioned seven are authentic. The next three are clearly forgeries. The last three are probably forgeries. That is the current consensus among critical scholars who all share a predilection towards simple explanations except when there is clear evidence otherwise. I believe my life is real, that the universe is billions of years old, and that Paul wrote seven authentic letters and inspired later forgeries because it is the simplest explanation for what little we know.
Robert said
Jarek said
… The writer of the letters knew nothing about congregational management and had no personal experience in this field. If the author were his hero, he would know after a few months that in order for something to be permanent, structures must be built, and powers and responsibilities must be delegated. …
But Paul, the author, did not expect anything to be permanent. One of his earliest congregations was upset when someone died before the arrival of the Kingdom of God.
But the Author wrote that Paul didn’t expect anything to be permanent. The letters are absolutely brilliant in terms of their alleged reality, they are not hagiography for the little ones, they are not an imaginary philosophical dialogue. They look so authentic that I am full of admiration for the Author. So much so that if the Corpus had been published with 7 unedited letters, without the 3 others added I would not have questioned their authenticity.
The publisher had full control over Paul and his correspondence. He edited, interpolated, combined what he wanted with what he wanted and added the writings of another. This is how you act when you are sure that no one is able to undermine what you do. Letters that have been in circulation for 40 years are not suitable for such activities.
Porphyry said
Jarek said
This might be an argument. Tell me if I’ve understood your point: the Paul portrayed in the letter was too inept as a manager to have been a real figure.
Yes. And he was too good in writing
Seems pretty thin. I’ve met a lot of incompetent managers.
And I give you that the quality of his rhetoric is surprising. Though I don’t see that point being strong enough to overcome the objections to your proposal.
Remember it was a startup. Incompetent managers are deadly to a company until it reaches a safe operating level. No congregations that came in contact with Paul survived, and no other tradition survived until the release of a Corpus that was 1/3 faked and the remaining supposedly authentic glued together from various pieces
Stephen said
Jarek said
The early churches did not know the life of Jesus except for some basic information. The Son of God, born of woman, crucified, resurrected. This was a problem that was dealt with in different ways. Why the problem? The lack of narratively attractive stories is a handicap on the mass market. Why were comic Greek myths created? For a mass recipient.
There were some reports about what Jesus allegedly said, some alleged quotes, some stories. And how to conduct missionary activity if so little is known about the Hero and there are some unbelievable stories on the market?
One church found a workaround to this problem by creating a more real character, devoid of the halo of divinity. A man named Paul, to whom the resurrected Christ appeared. Such a literary construct, thanks to which all the teachings developed in the church could be transferred. Paul was an apostle of Christ, and from personal revelation and from his own LXX exegesis he derived all his own teaching. With the divine but unknown Jesus and his fantastic apostle Paul, this church has developed its standard of content as written down in the apostle’s purported letters. The first 7 letters were written by one ghost writer and the others by others. Important historical figures appear in them to raise the importance of the apostle, from the Herodians, and later through Seneca, to the emperor himself.
The authors of the first 10 letters were convinced of the effectiveness of their idea that they released Corpus right away because it was an imaginary legacy of someone who was no longer with us. Probably around 100 CE.
They did not expect that the competition would be so impudent that it would beat them with an imaginary biography of Jesus himself.
The competition was brazen, but not enough to sign their name. But the gospels hit the mark perfectly – that’s what the market expected. First, three years ending with the crucifixion, then a flashback to birth and childhood. There was no concept for those 18 years in between.
Paul’s 7+3 epistles allude to this contrived, glorious past of the Great Apostle because that was the need of faithful and new missionaries. They provided a standardization of teaching for a church carrying out missionary activity, where the missionary is not a philosopher or theologian, but only a representative of the organization.
However, the appearance of anonymous gospels did not threaten the organization of this church, which rightly stated that if something works, it should be adopted and added to the letters.
Bart claims that there were many more letters in individual circulation. There was no. The writer of the letters knew nothing about congregational management and had no personal experience in this field. If the author were his hero, he would know after a few months that in order for something to be permanent, structures must be built, and powers and responsibilities must be delegated. He wouldn’t have spent his life on missionary journeys making the same mistakes over and over again, leading to the congregations not surviving until the letters were published in the Pauline Corpus collection. Congregations survived first on the Pauline Corpus, then on the gospels, and then on anything that came on paper. As Larry Hurtado’s list shows, there was quite a lot of it.
I would characterize this, perhaps a little bit uncharitably, but only a little bit, as a “just-so” story, an untestable narrative provided as an explanation. The fatal flaw is that it relies on a knowledge of motivations you can’t possibly know by people about whom you admit you know absolutely nothing.
Look, in a situation like this you must begin with the texts and work your way outwards. What we have in the New Testament are thirteen letters which claim to be written by someone named Paul. Seven of them share themes, vocabulary, theology and evince a milieu that matches what we would expect from early Christianity in the latter days of the first generation of believers, i.e., mid-first century. Three of the remaining six seem clearly written by the same person for the reasons given earlier but they evince a milieu historically different, much later, than the other seven. The last three are more ambiguous and have been disputed.
You should avoid “brain-in-a-vat” arguments. How do you know you are real and not a brain in a vat hallucinating a life? How do you know the universe didn’t come into being five minutes ago including false memories of a previous history? Sure, some savant in the second century could have invented the entire New Testament but what compelling reason do you have to think that is true? Anything is possible. But how likely is it to be true? Do you have any idea of what would be required for it to be true?
Of all the explanations invented to explain the existence of these texts by far the simplest and most straightforward is that the aforementioned seven are authentic. The next three are clearly forgeries. The last three are probably forgeries. That is the current consensus among critical scholars who all share a predilection towards simple explanations except when there is clear evidence otherwise. I believe my life is real, that the universe is billions of years old, and that Paul wrote seven authentic letters and inspired later forgeries because it is the simplest explanation for what little we know.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Independent new religious initiative grows as content grows. It is essential. If it’s authentic and historical, great. What if there isn’t enough? Content invented to ensure the survival of the initiative is created. All early Christian literature is based on ghost writers. Therefore, I do not believe in only real Paul and his 7 authentic letters, looking at the strange story of their entry into the market.
I don’t believe in heroes appearing at the beginning of a movement with a ready-made bag of different concepts. I believe in writers who take ideas and put them in boxes of their own making.
The discussion with all of you and your comments and patience is absolutely amazing.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)