Robert said
Jarek said
Both paradigms without argument are sides of the coin. They are hypothetical to the same extent. Heads or tails. …
Then you cannot claim any advantage for your paradigm based upon Occam’s razor.
Well, he can claim it, but not many will likely take the claim seriously. There is a strongly subjective aspect to all of this that overwhelms any claims of special applications of methods.
“And, as Stephen pointed out, the value of a forgery presumes the existence of a genuine article.”
The value of a forgery presumes the market succes of previous article. Genuine or not? who cares? The authenticity value of the article is low when looking at the original conglomerate of various writings called 2nd Cor. A Corpus by 4 ghost writers is added to Paul’s résumé. Previously, there were more of them. For 1000 years the letter to Laodiceans was a part of the Bible.
Robert said
Jarek said
“And, as Stephen pointed out, the value of a forgery presumes the existence of a genuine article.”
The value of a forgery presumes the market succes of previous article. Genuine or not? who cares? The authenticity value of the article is low when looking at the original conglomerate of various writings called 2nd Cor. A Corpus by 4 ghost writers is added to Paul’s résumé. Previously, there were more of them. For 1000 years the letter to Laodiceans was a part of the Bible.
But if there were no previous letters of Paul prior to those you believe were forged around 100 CE, what then???
There was some original primitive church made up of independent clubs of the Anointed One, itinerant preachers offering larger or smaller packages of their own teaching, which allowed them to host more or less in one place and establish more or less lasting relationships with the faithful. It was all unstable and someone had found a solution to the problem. Someone had the idea to break out of this routine and decided to shift from an itinerant preacher to a sedentary author to sell his knowledge and teaching indirectly through a book written in the common language of common people. He wrote the first letter. The letter made a good impression on the recipients. There were partners and sponsors and the project continued. Quite a banal story of content product development.
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
“And, as Stephen pointed out, the value of a forgery presumes the existence of a genuine article.”
The value of a forgery presumes the market succes of previous article. Genuine or not? who cares? The authenticity value of the article is low when looking at the original conglomerate of various writings called 2nd Cor. A Corpus by 4 ghost writers is added to Paul’s résumé. Previously, there were more of them. For 1000 years the letter to Laodiceans was a part of the Bible.
But if there were no previous letters of Paul prior to those you believe were forged around 100 CE, what then???
There was some original primitive church made up of independent clubs of the Anointed One, itinerant preachers offering larger or smaller packages of their own teaching, which allowed them to host more or less in one place and establish more or less lasting relationships with the faithful. It was all unstable and someone had found a solution to the problem. Someone had the idea to break out of this routine and decided to shift from an itinerant preacher to a sedentary author to sell his knowledge and teaching indirectly through a book written in the common language of common people. He wrote the first letter. The letter made a good impression on the recipients. There were partners and sponsors and the project continued. Quite a banal story of content product development.
BTW. Markus Vinzent announced his new book to be published by CUP or OUP on the two Pauline Corpus versions. Tertullian claimed that Marcion was the first to find the letter to the Galatians. Additionally, some shortened versions of Major Epistles. And at this point it is worth asking a question. Since there are allusions to Gal in 1 Clem, when was 1 Clem written?
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
“And, as Stephen pointed out, the value of a forgery presumes the existence of a genuine article.”
The value of a forgery presumes the market succes of previous article. Genuine or not? who cares? The authenticity value of the article is low when looking at the original conglomerate of various writings called 2nd Cor. A Corpus by 4 ghost writers is added to Paul’s résumé. Previously, there were more of them. For 1000 years the letter to Laodiceans was a part of the Bible.
But if there were no previous letters of Paul prior to those you believe were forged around 100 CE, what then???
There was some original primitive church made up of independent clubs of the Anointed One, itinerant preachers offering larger or smaller packages of their own teaching, which allowed them to host more or less in one place and establish more or less lasting relationships with the faithful. It was all unstable and someone had found a solution to the problem. Someone had the idea to break out of this routine and decided to shift from an itinerant preacher to a sedentary author to sell his knowledge and teaching indirectly through a book written in the common language of common people. He wrote the first letter. The letter made a good impression on the recipients. There were partners and sponsors and the project continued. Quite a banal story of content product development.
Which letter are you imagining was the first forgery? Any evidence or argument to support this or just pure fantasy?
BTW. Markus Vinzent announced his new book to be published by CUP or OUP on the two Pauline Corpus versions. Tertullian claimed that Marcion was the first to find the letter to the Galatians. Additionally, some shortened versions of Major Epistles. And at this point it is worth asking a question. Since there are allusions to Gal in 1 Clem, when was 1 Clem written?
You don’t think it’s possible that Clement might have written a letter to the Corinthian churches without Tertullian in North Africa being aware of it?
??1 Clem is dated 97CE. Tertullian stated that Gal was found by Marcion and was previously unknown in Rome. Despite the 40-year difference between the publication of 1 Clem (97CE) and the publication of the Gal (135CE), we have allusions and references to Gal in 1 Clem.
When it comes to chronology, I bet on 1Thes written first by a ghost writer. The publisher then made a routine carrot and stick move and got the next ghost writer to write 2Thes. On the one hand, he appreciated the creation and content of 1 Thes. On the other hand, he showed the author of 1 Thes that he is not the only one. This has a positive effect on the relationship of the writer-publisher and disciplines the author in terms of timeliness and quality of work. Never gets old.
JAS said
A safe bet, presumably, because no one can really prove you wrong, just as you cannot really prove yourself right.
As I can see, Robert shares Gerd’s opinion on the priority of 1 Thes. That is why I gave up the consensus and decided that I would also agree with Gerd and Robert. If I am wrong, then all three are wrong
Robert said
Jarek said
??1 Clem is dated 97CE. Tertullian stated that Gal was found by Marcion and was previously unknown in Rome. Despite the 40-year difference between the publication of 1 Clem (97CE) and the publication of the Gal (135CE), we have allusions and references to Gal in 1 Clem.
Give me the quotations and references for Tertullian’s statements about Galatians being found by Marcion and previously being unknown in Rome. I’d also like to see the allusions and references to Galatians in 1 Clement. Then I will be able to have a more intelligent discussion with you about this. Alas, I am not a Tertullian scholar. Is there any reason to suspect that Tertullian should have been intimately familiar with 1 Clement or all of the writings known in the churches of Rome?
When it comes to chronology, I bet on 1Thes written first by a ghost writer. The publisher then made a routine carrot and stick move and got the next ghost writer to write 2Thes. On the one hand, he appreciated the creation and content of 1 Thes. On the other hand, he showed the author of 1 Thes that he is not the only one. This has a positive effect on the relationship of the writer-publisher and disciplines the author in terms of timeliness and quality of work. Never gets old.
So now you agree with the points of development in the authentic letters of Paul?
Against Marcion Book 4 Chapter 3
“In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary,(4) the mystery(5) of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had(6) its own authentic materials,(7) by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. Well, but(8) Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles(9)) for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,”(10) as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character(11) of those Gospels which are published as genuine(12) and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. “
Hagner, Use of The Old and New testament, p.222
1Clem 5:2 to Gal 2:9, 1Clem 56:1 to Gal 6:1, 1Clem 31:2 to Gal 3
Whether Tertullian knew 1 Clem is irrelevant. It is about the dating of 1 Clem and the date of Gal’s appearance on the market.
Robert said
But you are discussing the date of publication of 1 Clement based on Tertullian’s knowledge of what Christian texts were known in Rome. Thus, the question of whether or not Tertullian was well and accurately informed about all of the texts that were known in Rome is important.
Tertullian devoted much time to Marcion. He wrote that Marcion was the one who found the Galatians. Marcion was born in 85 CE. He came to Rome after 135 CE. On the other hand, the consensus is that 1Clem dates back to 97 CE. So where did the allusions to Gal in 1 Clem come from?
Robert said
Stephen said
If we locked Jarek and Steefen up in a room together for a year what mad conceptual art piece would result?
I was thinking of something by Marc Chagall, something perhaps with an upside down chicken thrown in for good measure. There was a time on this forum when some people thought Steefen and Jarek were the same person, the latter being a sock-puppet of the former. But now maybe ** you do not have permission to see this link ** would be better.
It would likely be a Jackson Pollock . . . but, of course, a forgery of one.
Robert said
So now you agree with the points of development in the authentic letters of Paul?
I agree with the starting point proposed by you and Gerd. 1 Thes fits well with the pilot content written by the ghost writer. It’s not too long. It was tested positively and that is why the publisher continued the series, just in case, involving other ghost writers to protect their interests. There were critical moments in the project where radical text editing was needed, as in the case of 2Cor. Two more letters were also added from the probably previously checked 2Thes author. There were shorter and extended versions. A few tricks to stand out in the market for a long time in relation to external copies from previous releases. The same is true today in the Harper One publications written by an army of ghost writers paid by the volume of the text.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert