robert j wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:35 am
... the five [Pauline] letters (generally considered to be authentic) addressed to his congregations reveal human dramas, Paul’s hubris and thirst for authority, distinct personalities and cultural paradigms for each congregation, and clashes of cultures between Paul’s Jewish provenance and his gentile converts that are all so well integrated, intertwined, and consistent that for it all to have been concocted by a clever author or redactor to add believe-ability to the letters is itself beyond reasonable belief.
And one can’t ignore that portions of Galatians and 1 Corinthians fit together like interlocking puzzle pieces (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2396). Together they reveal a significant portion of Paul’s back-story.
Sure. The letters may reflect real situations. And 'the five' may have mostly been written by one person.
But when? I think they could have been written in the early-mid 2nd century, yet the author (or a redactor) could have borrowed some aspects from texts about the mid 1st century Judea, such as the texts of Josephus, and others.
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:50 pm
Clear-cut evidence says that Paul was active in the middle of the 1st century CE (in his epistles & Acts).
What evidence, Bernard? The fact some aspects reflect events or people recorded in other texts? Such as the texts of Josephus? and others?
That could just mean the Pauline texts, and Acts, were written after the availability of the Josephus (and other such) texts and borrowed from them.
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:15 pmSure. The letters may reflect real situations. And 'the five' may have mostly been written by one person.
But when? I think they could have been written in the early-mid 2nd century, yet the author (or a redactor) could have borrowed some aspects from texts about the mid 1st century Judea, such as the texts of Josephus, and others.
Can you make a case that Paul's 'five addressed to his congregations' were dependent on Josephus?
Or dependent on any writing we might clearly recognize as Christian?
robert j wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:51 pm
About Paul's letters ---
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:15 pmSure. The letters may reflect real situations. And 'the five' may have mostly been written by one person.
But when? I think they could have been written in the early-mid 2nd century, yet the author (or a redactor) could have borrowed some aspects from texts about the mid 1st century Judea, such as the texts of Josephus, and others.
Can you make a case that Paul's 'five addressed to his congregations' were dependent on Josephus?
I didn't say they were 'dependent on Josephus'.
When I said "I think 'they' could have been written in the early-mid 2nd century ..." I was referring to more than 'the five'.
robert j wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:51 pm
Or dependent on any writing we might clearly recognize as Christian?
The five (and other Pauline texts) are fairly unique. I wonder if they're based on something like the Corpus Hermeticum, or a similar texts. I think there are aspects of Jewish scripture in them.
There are no such thing as authentic Epistles of Paul. The earliest known Epistles were hand-written by person or persons no earlier than the mid 2nd-3rd century. It is simply absurd and mis-leading to suggest 2nd-3rd century writings are authentic 1st century Epistles.
It is most bizarre that it is not understood that the character called Paul did not write P 46 when it is claimed Paul died since before 70 CE.
Considering our historical evidence is only second century, why do you insist it be placed in the first century ?
Just because the story is set in the first, and Christians believed it to be from the first century ?
Anything else ?
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:32 am
Regarding the gospels, the internal evidence put the synoptic gospels & Acts well into the first century CE:
Internal evidence ?
You mean - the story is set in the first C.
So ?
The Flashman books are set in the mid 1800s.
That's not my new pet theory or anything, it's just a measure of how undecisive is the evidence.
Asking bigger and better questions.
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:57 am
It is a measure that anybody can write anything to support his/her agenda, even if the evidence is slim in favor & large against.
My agenda ?
Does everyone who disagrees with you have an agenda ?
Is everyone who disagrees with you a mythicist ?
hakeem wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 1:59 pm
There are no such thing as authentic Epistles of Paul. The earliest known Epistles were hand-written by person or persons no earlier than the mid 2nd-3rd century. It is simply absurd and mis-leading to suggest 2nd-3rd century writings are authentic 1st century Epistles.
It is most bizarre that it is not understood that the character called Paul did not write P 46 when it is claimed Paul died since before 70 CE.
P 46 could be a reproduction or an evolution of an earlier epistle. Reproducing and copying by hand-writing was all they had in those days.
On the other hand, it could be an original piece, but that seems less likely.
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:18 pm
Paul called Peter always "Cephas", in 1 Corinthians and Galatians. The two occurrences of "Peter" are in Gal 2:7-8. But, except for "on the contrary", these two verses are most likely an interpolation: see https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/Barnikol.html.
Cordially, Bernard
See also 'Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation' Paul and his Legacy by William O Walker pp. 37-63, originally in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
