** you do not have permission to see this link **
– ”Paul, slave of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God…” ”Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God…” ”Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through a man, but through Jesus Christ and God…” ”Paul, a prisoner for the sake of Christ Jesus…” – Does someone write here about himself or about someone else? Do we have to do here with a statement about one’s self or with a statement about the (revered) apostle (of a legendary past)? – Consider this: The greetings employed by Greeks and Romans were very unpretentious. Even the great Cicero could simply write: ”Cicero greets Atticus” (Cicero Attico salutum dicit)[79].
– Gal 1:1: ”Paul… to the churches in Galatia.”
1 Cor 1:1: ”Paul, to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.The poor letter carrier!
– Gal 1:11: ”I want you to know, brethren, that the gospel preached by me was not of men.” Had Paul left the Galatians ignorant of this central point of his teaching until now?
– Gal 2:6: ”And from those who were reputed to be something—what they once were(san) makes no difference to me.” Why were? ”Are” the apostles then no longer present when the author of Galatians writes his letter? Have they already died? Does the author of Galatians by this time look back on the apostolic age as closed?
– In Galatians 6:11 Paul calls attention to the large letters of his handwriting: ”See with what large letters I am writings with my [own] hand.” Why? Obviously because he wants to provide his readers with an indication of the authenticity of the letter. Question: Why must the apostle already protect his letters from falsification? Were forged letters already in circulation in his lifetime? Hardly. – If already in his own lifetime Paul represented such an authority that is was worthwhile to produce false letters in his name, why then do we hear nothing about the great apostle and his letters for another 100 years? – The writer’s reference to his handwriting in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 —”I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write”—is regarded by most exegetes as a sign of the letters inauthenticity. Why is the corresponding reference in Galatians not so regarded?
– 1 Cor 3:1f: ”But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual persons, but as fleshly persons, as babes in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even now you are not ready for it, for you are still fleshly.” 1 Cor 2:6: ”Yet among the perfect oneswe impart wisdom.” Is the writer of 1 Corinthians himself really clear about to whomhe is speaking?
– Rom 1:1f: ”Paul… set apart for the gospel of God… namely, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh…”
2 Cor 5:16: ”Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.”
Can the writer of Rom 1:1-2, who places so much value on the family tree of Jesus and his descent from David, be the same person who write 2 Cor 5:16?
– Is it conceivable that on the very eve of his sojourn in Rome he wrote one of the longest letters in ancient literature to the church there? Why does he write a letter at all that goes beyond a brief announcement of his coming? Would he not be able in a short time to provide a much better and more lively testimony through his personal presence with the Roman community?
– After Paul receives his revelation, he goes into the desert(to Arabia, Gal 1:17)—and not to the Jerusalem church! Does that make psychological sense? Transfer that for a moment to a follower of Socrates in southern Italy, who has come upon one or another of Plato’s dialogues and now feels called to become a disciple of Socrates: ”He took pleasure in the fateful death of the philosopher, for he was a sophist with body and soul. But he became aware of something different. To think like Socrates, to feel, to teach, to live like Socrates, to fully identify with him, that—so he had understood, grasped by intuition—is the one thing necessary. Would he now hurry to Athens? Plato was still alive. Alkibiades was still alive. From them and from so many others he will attempt to learn what Socrates thought, felt, taught—what spirit spoke from his environs. No. He goes to Egypt, remains there for three years, and then writes and speaks about Socrates during his entire life and comes to be regarded by a credulous world as the most credible witness to the Greek philosopher, as the most reliable interpreter of his life and work.”[80]
– Why does the Jew Paul speak of Greeks and Barbarians(Rom 1:14) if according to Greek understanding of the concept the latter term can only refer to himself? Why must the Jew Paul first become a Jew (1 Cor 9:11)? Why does the JewPaul forbid men to cover their heads during the worship service (1 Cor 11:4)?[81]
– Why does Paul undergo a battle with beasts in Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32) even though as supposedly a Roman citizen he could not be sentenced ad bestias at all? Even if he was not a citizen of Rome, how could he have survived such a thing? – Why does the author who presumably wrote 1 Thessalonians between 50 and 60 look back upon the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE? 1 Thess 2:16: ”God’s judgment has come upon them [the Jews] at last!” (cf. also Israel’s “rejection”, 11:15ff. and the ”severity of God” in 11:22).
– For the persecutions of Christians, of which mention is made again and again in the Pauline Epistles (Rom 8:35; 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 12:10; Gal 6:12; 1 Thess 2:14 etc.) there is no evidence before Nero. The putative persecution of Christians in 64 after the fire of Rome is, moreover, historically disputed.[82]Speaking of persecutions is—apart from those under Domitian (c. 81–96 CE; Justin, 1Apol 31, Eusebius, EH3.17ff.), Trajan (c. 98-117 CE) and the ones the Jewish Christians were exposed to under Bar Kochba 132-135 (Justin, Apol. 1,31; Eusebius, EH4. 8,4)—only possible in connection with the so-called Aposynagogos, i.e., the exclusion of Christians from synagogue life. And indeed, the Aposynagogositself is unattested before Justin in the middle of the second century (Justin, Dial. 16:4; 47:5; 93:4; 95:4; 96:2; 108:2f; 133:6 , cf. 17:1).[83]
Paul’s letters are dated on their content only. They are literary outstanding, they give the impression of being historically authentic. But this is the rule with counterfeits. They are caught in detail after inconsistencies. The more careful the forger, the more difficult it is.
Why is it done in this case? First, you are setting a role model for the missionaries you train.
And secondly, tradition is a huge added value to the content you offer. Even for beer – we know what we’ve been doing since 1634. No, You don’t.
Robert,
Thank You very much for your extensive comments that must have cost you a lot of time. It is a real help for me. The arguments come from the book by H. Detering Falsified Paul. I have a problem with transferring quotes from Kindle to google.docs files, text formatting do not match. The Kindle adds a source each time you Copy text from a book. And I didn’t notice that I removed them all instead of leaving one.
I am constantly working on my replies to your comments .. I have already written several versions of the replies but so far I am not satisfied with any of them
First (but not the last)- an anegdote. True anegdote
A military invasion of Jerusalem was anticipated with the erection of a statue of Caligula in the temple in 41 CE, which is when Gerd Lüdemann dates 1 Thessalonians.
This is a perfect example of the biblical scholars’ wrong historical conclusions. Maybe yes maybe no? The connection is purely wishful. Nothing more. Gerd is not the only one – erroneous connections without a trace of evidence is a popular practice. Former prosecutor Steven Valliant is their master.
For several years now, the book Creating Christ has been on the market, which biblical scholars cannot cope with. How do I know that? Because I was not doing well either and I came up with the idea of the job. The ancient historian is to read the book and make a detailed review to be signed. I offered a crazy rate. In the end, a few historians looked at the book and they all agreed – wrong conclusions, speculative binding of sources, well-written conspiracy theory. Everyone and right away. But it didn’t do me any good. Write these 25 pages, I will pay. In the end, I found a young doctor, ancient historian, specialist in resurrections in the Greco-Roman world. He accepted the order. He wrote a review that I sent to the authors, Silence. RM Price published it six months later in the Journal of Higher Criticism. For a year there has been nothing from the authors. No response. Not a word to the reviewer, not a word to me.
Recently, BD Ehrman, Markus Vinzent and some other biblical scholars discussed with the authors. I showed it to my historians. OMG. One comment from one. “Yeah. It is just a show.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Jarek said
This is a perfect example of the biblical scholars’ wrong historical conclusions.
But why or how exactly is Lüdemann wrong?
Robert said
Jarek said
This is a perfect example of the biblical scholars’ wrong historical conclusions.
But why or how exactly is Lüdemann wrong?
It is not clear from the text with which event it should be connected. Ludemann linked him to Caligula, Detering to the Temple, and the historian dismissed both as unauthorized conclusions. As is the combination of a dolphin on the anchor on the reverse of the Titus coin with Christian intaglios from the 2nd and 3rd century. It looks similar but means different.
Robert said
The point is that Detering and others are not correct to assume that this passage could only be referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. There are other realistic possibilities. And there are good indications in the Pauline corpus that 1 Thessalonians represents a rather primitive stage in the historical context and in Paul’s own theological development compared with later letters which also bear the marks of his authorship. None of this wrong. It is, however, a good historical reconstruction of the likely historical context of a text.
You connect things that are independent of each other. If you can see Paul’s literary and theological development, it proves the correct order of the letters of one author. Although it is also known that this is not a decisive argument with regard to the theory of the 4 Great Letters. It is not possible to determine what events Paul writes about in 1 Thess 2:16. I put this anecdote because I learned about CCh from the positive opinions of the biblical scholars R. Eisemann, R.M. Price. Bart, when asked about the book and coins, said that he is studying and has no opinion. Polish biblical scholars said it was a job for historians. And historians rejected the book’s theses because it combined various evidence and facts in this way.
Robert said
Jarek said
It is not possible to determine what events Paul writes about in ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Of course, no historical reconstruction can be demonstrated. That’s a necessary limitation of all historical reasoning. But while Detering and others before him assumed this verse could only be talking about the the events of the Judean War and so developed a variety of conflicting hypothetical interpolation or pseudepigraphic theories, for which there is no textual evidence whatsoever, Knox, Lüdemann, and others have shown that the text itself can be respected and placed in its own historical context that does not require unnecessary or doubtful hypotheses. Do you want to live in the world of hypothetical special pleading?
Around 100, the Pauline Corpus appears on the market as the only testimony of the apostle’s activity. It contains 10 letters which, according to biblical research, come from various authors. 7 of them were written by one author. Commercial publication.
On the basis of the content of the 7 letters, biblical scholars reconstruct the history of their creation and initial propagation, as well as the biography of their author.
The story of Pauline Corpus itself is impossible to recreate. It appears suddenly and there are no traces leading to it. Despite the only 40-year hiatus that has passed since the activities of Paul, who was an extremely active traveler, preacher and writer for over 20 years. There is no tradition other than this one commercial collection of writings created 40 years later.
As for me, it is extremely suspicious because the book hits perfectly with the existing, competitive offers of itinerant preachers.
Itinerant preachers with divine revelation were an uncertain source of content for the early communities. Here comes another teacher who is preaching his own teachings that differ from those of previous visitors to the community. And, of course, each of them wants to finance it, not those earlier. Because he is right and his revelation is better. But that’s not the worst of it. The worst part is that its offer is small in terms of volume. Each of them.
At some point, someone appears who is the opposite of their predecessors. A modest man. It tells about a great apostle from years ago, whom his grandfather met, and who left letters that were the source of his faith and knowledge. He takes out a book and begins to read from it. He talks about what he has read, interprets the text. Nobody asks him about things he has not experienced himself. He has a lot of cogent material, which means that the community finally has something to work on. We have a legend, we have book, we have authors, redactors. That’s enough.
Robert said
Jarek said
The story of Pauline Corpus itself is impossible to recreate. It appears suddenly and there are no traces leading to it. Despite the only 40-year hiatus that has passed since the activities of Paul, who was an extremely active traveler, preacher and writer for over 20 years. There is no tradition other than this one commercial collection of writings created 40 years later.
As for me, it is extremely suspicious because the book hits perfectly with the existing, competitive offers of itinerant preachers.
No, it’s not impossible to recreate a less suspicious historical scenario. What is the evidence for your ‘extreme suspicion’? There is so freakin’ much that we simply do not know about the beginnings of the ‘Christian’ sects from 30‐40, 65-70, and 85-120 CE, and barely anything that we can glean from a few early texts that pepper this otherwise barren landscape. Why is this poorly recorded period of very small, loosely related sects so “extremely suspicious”? Do we really have any reason to expect that we should have texts of Paul’s letters copied and recopied dating to the year 65 or 75 or 90 CE? Do we have lots of texts from so many Christian authors who should have been mentioning Paul but do not? Is this the way ancient history ordinarily works? Or should we merely learn to live with our paltry lack of knowledge and overabundance interesting questions?
Why is this poorly recorded period of very small, loosely related sects so “extremely suspicious” – topicality of the book is suspicious.
The initial period and these little sects are perfectly understandable. If you were a Polish Catholic you would be a direct witness of such grassroots initiatives. New sects form quickly and finish just as quickly. Lack of content development, exhaustion of enthusiasm or lack of organizational skills. They work in hiding because nobody wants to be condemned by the parish priest. Marian worship has always caused problems and will continue to be.
Paul worked as a preacher and saw similar problems. Everything was temporary. And since he was a theologian, not a missionary, and with different goals, he came up with a solution like Corpus. Why deal with all these people and do the same job over and over again. And constantly be in this repeatable chain of cause and effect.
Better to create a tool. Improving the tool yourself so that these local leaders will be unbeatable. And so, from a dissatisfied preacher, he became an inventor who could develop his tool and his theology.
Robert said
Every indication we have is that the earliest believers were counting on their movement being temporary. Only the deutero Pauline letters start to show an effort to make a more permanent structure. Why didn’t all of the letters attempt to do this? I guess I just don’t see what you think is “extremely suspicious.” This “Paul” you’re referring to here seems to have fooled people for a long time, with only a very few scholars being able to figure it out, and even they cannot really agree on the exact nature oftheconspiracy. That seems more unlikely to me. All of the other critical scholars believe these letters were genuinely occasional, even rather chaotic, not the work of a genius mastermind able to fool everyone. He could only fool some of the people some of the time.
“Only the deutero Pauline letters start to show an effort to make a more permanent structure”. Yes that was the next step. To create structure, to define product coaching you need a stable product. Paul’s offer was a massive cogent content product, only to replace other less developed unstable products.His offer was good for prechers – a lot of material for interpretation. He was a content producer, nothing more. One day he launched Corpus – that’s all. Corpus was accepted by the market. Nobody cared who wrote it or whether it contained historical truth. It was what they needed.
I am finding this entire premise that Christianity was just a clever marketing ploy quite an imposition. At the time, there was no reason to presume a market, nor, I think, any idea of where it was all headed. And none of the original “salesmen” seem to have really benefited from the scheme, which makes it all even more implausible as a concept. This seems to me just forcing a view from a modern perspective that was unthinkable 2,000 years ago.
JAS said
I am finding this entire premise that Christianity was just a clever marketing ploy quite an imposition. At the time, there was no reason to presume a market, nor, I think, any idea of where it was all headed. And none of the original “salesmen” seem to have really benefited from the scheme, which makes it all even more implausible as a concept. This seems to me just forcing a view from a modern perspective that was unthinkable 2,000 years ago.
This is just my inept language as an electronics engineer with a marketing practice. If I had studied the humanities, I would describe it in the language of philosophy. The principles that I describe are the essence of human creativity, striving for success, the desire to leave a mark. My Paul is bigger than yours.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)