Who existed ? When ? Where ?

[Jax]

I used to assume that Paul had written seven authentic letters: 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans and Philemon. But further research on this subject has convinced me that Philemon is rather part of the pseudepigraphy of Ephesians and Colossians.

I don't have my sources at hand but will be happy to supply them to you if you, or anyone here, would like them.

I would be interested in an argument against the authenticity of Philemon. Does it have something to do with the letter being a possible letter of recommendation for a certain bishop named Onesimus?

The mention of Onesimus is one factor.

I am away from my source material right now but will give you a fuller accounting as soon as I can.

Jax

[Jax]

Gday Jax

Gday Kapyong, Greetings from the other forum.

Welcome to the forum !
Better discussion here


Kapyong

Oh totally!

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

The veracity of Gallio and Aretas does not prove Paul. Gallio and Aretas may be being used to anchor narratives about Paul in that period.

Another agenda-driven unevidenced possibility.

Jerusalem was not destroyed in 70 CE. Only the Temple was. Many people lived in and around Jerusalem until the 2nd Roman-Jewish War.

Not so, according to Josephus, a primary eyewitness:
Josephus' Wars, VII, I, 1: "Caesar [Titus, in 70C.E.] gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple ...
[before the command for total demolition, the Romans had already (fully) burned the temple and (at least partially) the city. Furthermore, if the defenders would have surrendered early on, the city would have been spared, as it was Roman policy during this campaign (as gathered from Josephus' Wars)]
` but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind."
Josephus' Wars, VIII, VIII, 7: "Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, ... that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner."

but it is said Pharisees stayed and became dominant

The Pharisees staid in Jerusalem after its destruction? From where did you get that?

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to Kapyong,

Being shown I was wrong by the smart guys is a gift of better knowledge, one of the rewards of coming here.

Oh, the ones offering ill-evidenced possibilities are the smart guys. Where does that leave me: the idiot?

Cordially, Bernard

[Kapyong]

Gday,

to Kapyong,

Being shown I was wrong by the smart guys is a gift of better knowledge, one of the rewards of coming here.

Oh, the ones offering ill-evidenced possibilities are the smart guys. Where does that leave me: the idiot?
Cordially, Bernard

No Bernard, I'm sorry if that offended you.

I have had a flash of realisation - I had a hidden assumption distorting my reading of / about Paul -
That there certainly was a specific originating person Paul.

OK, not all thirteen letters are valid, not all the Apostolikon ten are genuine, not all parts of the 'authentic seven' are genuine (or was it five ? or four ?)

Somewhere, under the forgeries and corruptions and the chopping / pasting and contradictions and confusions there had to be a real Paul talking. A Paul I could attempt to visualise, to understand. A Paul I could empathise with, whom I perhaps share similarities with.

I assumed a real Paul.
That was a faulty assumption.


Kapyong

[MrMacSon]

1) Acts says Paul was in Corinth when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (Acts 18:12) from the summer of 51 & for a period of less than one year.

.
The Acts Seminar met twice a year beginning in 2001 and concluded its work at the spring Westar meeting in 2011. Dennis Smith, the seminar chair, compiled a list of the top.. accomplishment of the Acts Seminar:

1. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
2. The author of Acts used the letters of Paul as sources.
3. Except for the letters of Paul, no other historically reliable source can be identified for Acts.
4. Acts can no longer be considered an independent source for the life and mission of Paul.
5. Contrary to Acts 1-7, Jerusalem was not the birthplace of Christianity.
6. Acts constructs its story on the model of epic and related literature.
7. The author of Acts created names for characters as storytelling devices.
8. Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.
9. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.
   
   https://www.westarinstitute.org/project ... -apostles/

.

[Kapyong]

Gday Jax,

As this thread is titled "Who existed ? When ? Where ?" I ask, aside from the narrative (completely dismissed by modern scholars) in Acts what makes you think that Paul, or as he calls himself, Paulos, was writing in the mid 1st century?

At this point, I am entirely UNcertain about 'Paul' / 'Saul' / 'Paulos' - his existence, and the writings attributed to him.

A trajectory common to all my studies in Christianity - the closer I look, the less certain things become.

So I'm 'starting over' on 'Paul' - time to study, learn, consider and evaluate. It's a buzz really - setting loose a faulty assumption leaves me free to try to find my way to better knowledge and understanding.

Without a genuine Paul, Christianity's record apparently starts with Marcion the Mysterious, and Tatian and Justin Martyr. An eye-opening possibility, even if unlikely.

Kapyong

[Kapyong]

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.

Hello hakeem
You're 'dejudge' and 'dejuror', right ?

Welcome to the forum I see you're already chatting away with Bernard.

Kapyong

[hakeem]

The author of Acts knew nothing of Epistles to Churches by any person called Paul.

Based on writings attributed to Pliny the elder, the DSS, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Justin, Aristides, Celsus, Municius Felix and Arnobius ,it is seen that Acts of the Apostles and Epistles to Churches by Paul were unknown.

Acts of the Apostles, Paul and the Epistles were invented no earlier than the late 2nd century or even later.

[Bernard Muller]

From a Westar Acts Seminar release in 2013:

"This is not to say that Acts is totally unhistorical, but to observe that it is less helpful in the historical reconstruction of Christian beginnings than previously assumed."

My critique of the Westar Acts Seminar:
http://historical-jesus.info/75.html
http://historical-jesus.info/76.html

Cordially, Bernard