The epistles have been written. 100%. They can be authentic or fake. 50/50. If they are not authentic, and you managed to use some 100% reliable information to narrow down the group of potential letter authors to 1 million aliens and time travelers (and exclude the rest), then the probability is 50/10^6 % = 1/20000 % for each group member. I don’t know the size of the group of potential writers that you managed to determine with 100% certainty. 1 million is, of course, an example to show how it works mathematically. Therefore, the probability for each member of this group is 50/x %, where x is the number of members of the group.
Unfortunately, I don’t have such information, but I found something better – an analysis of the process of creating the first Pauline Corpus. I even asked Bart about it – he replied enigmatically that there is no consensus on this topic among biblical scholars, so no one has done such an analysis so far. By the way, Bart helped me rule out one of two options – the one you suggested some time ago.
You see, if Zuntz had thought about it himself in 1946, he would have come to the same conclusions as I do today.
You say that I don’t respect the work of biblical scholars and their professionalism. Really? After all, I am a classic bloodsucker, without a donor I would not exist. Out of innate laziness, I only formulate conclusions. And I’m getting better at it.
Biblical scholars try to answer questions that are outside biblical studies using criteria that do not fit or are not critical to the problems under study. And then I step in…
Robert. That was Detering’s mistake. Instead of focusing on the arguments that the letters are unauthentic, he had to indicate his candidate. Plain greed. Understandable but unjustified. The chance that Marcion wrote them is the same as the chance that Kirk wrote them. It’s even harder to prove. So I moved on to something else and ruled out their authenticity in a simple and therefore ecstatically beautiful way.
I have no direct evidence of their inauthenticity. I have indirect evidence related to the existence of the original Pauline Corpus. A collection consisting of false letters and those that use Paul’s authentic texts but have been edited, supplemented and glued together due to the different theological perspectives of their editors. None of the presented scenarios allows for the creation of an existing collection if we assume the original circulation of Paul’s authentic letters.
The difference is that you use arguments related to the text and support the reconstruction of Ludemann, and I don’t care about both Ludemann and Detering and I rely on the excellent proof of the humble Jarek Stolarz.
How was Pauline Corpus created?
Scenario no 1.
Let’s assume that the epistles were found individually in different places as part of a heritage rescue mission. This in itself seems unrealistic due to the vast expanse of the Empire, but this is not the main problem. It turns out that the Christian community started by Paul is dominated by redacted copies, amalgams and fakes. As if the main goal of all these copyists was to endlessly correct the Apostle from various theological perspectives. Our brave seeker finds nothing authentic almost everywhere. Complete absurdity.
Scenario no 2
Let’s take another scenario. Our searcher found some set of Paul’s original letters. Then he has to make all the editing changes and gluing various texts together and creating new ones. Otherwise, they will not be included in one collection. Therefore, all these changes in all the original letters written from different theological perspectives are the work of one center. Equally pointless.
As I said – short and brilliant
What do specific people have in these scenarios? After all, the evidence is not based on claiming who wrote the false letters, who wrote the real letters or who edited them.
I claim that it is not possible to move from the circulation of real letters to a collection known to us in any way. I rule out all possible scenarios. If there is no such process, it means that there were no real letters, there was no original circulation, and everything is an invented tradition.
All versions of a letter have independent circulation because it is organized according to individual mailing lists. This is not public circulation, but point-to-point relations. My recipient list does not match your list.
So everyone who received any letters directly from Paul decided to redact them. The editing of epistles dominates over the propagation of the originals, as if Paul’s authority was unimportant and all recipients felt an irresistible desire to prove themselves literary. The copies of these editors outnumber the copies of the originals to such an extent that nothing of the latter remains. So each of them has a reach much greater than Paul’s even though they don’t go on epic missionary journeys.
And despite such intense editorial and promotional work, it is barely possible to collect material for 1 short collection with 3 fakes. And then this whole active literary community disappears. This is the reality of the first scenario.
The second scenario – Paul and his collaborators incrementally deliver more and more literary output to their recipients. At first he sent 1 letter, then he sent subsequent ones with the previous ones. In this way, sets of already written letters end up in some places. The finder must make all editorial changes and attach three false epistles. Otherwise, there is no chance for the Collection in the shape we have it.
Your “unified theological perspective developing over time with a consistent writing style” may be a simple “query of theological ideas to have something to write about.” Everything written by the same author, which does not make it Paul.
Written together with friends over a glass of wine and a warm fireplace. In such an atmosphere, it is easier to spin a narrative about a heroic Apostle traveler who every few years abandons what he has achieved and starts all over again.
I will try to write it all out in a more organized way.
TBC…
??? I don’t know why I should respond to the arguments of Carrier, Ludemann, Price, Ehrman, Detering, since I recognize that biblical studies cannot solve the authenticity of Paul or his letters. And I am looking for this solution in the issue of editing and transmitting the content contained in letters.
For the record.
Carrier, Price and Detering look for the roots of Christianity in the long-term process of syncretistic interpenetration of the concepts of dying and rising deities of various traditions, in the Jewish gnosis and the Buddhist gnosis.
And I see a grassroots movement of enthusiasts for the information provided after 65 years by Josephus that God sent Jesus, who died and rose again. Something like the familiar enthusiasm caused by the information about the next appearance of Mary.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)