This is a continuation of ideas from here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9194&p=134623#p134623
I guess most of us on this board agree that the biblical scholars' evaluation of Biblical materials -- Old Testament, New Testament, the Church Fathers' -- has been coloured by religious beliefs and traditions. So that demands the question: what would a non-biblical historian make of the letters of Paul?
The modern consensus is that (1) there was a Paul, (2) there are seven genuine letters of Paul with the others put in his name, either as forgeries or as tradition, (3) the letters were written in the 50s-60s CE, (4) there are a certain number of interpolations and fiddling around in the contents of his letters.
My question is: Would non-biblical scholars come away with different conclusions on the above four points? If so, how/why/what?
One thing that struck me is that Dr Carrier and Doherty use the conclusions of modern consensus quite a lot in their theories, so it occurred to me that modern biblical scholars must have done a lot right. But would non-biblical scholars have concluded something different?
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not asking you about YOUR theory about Paul. (Yes, perhaps Paul lived in First Century BCE, Second Century CE, didn't exist at all). This is about professional non-biblical historians and their methods. Unless you are a non-biblical historian yourself, I'm asking for your knowledge of their opinions on the subject.
Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
Thanks, MrMacSon. Is there something in that video that is pertinent to the question? They seem to assume that Paul is consistent with the mainstream with regards to my four points in the OP.
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
Fixed that for youGakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 18, 2022 8:34 pm This is a continuation of ideas from here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9194&p=134623#p134623
I guess most of us on this board agree that the biblical scholars' evaluation of Biblical materials -- Old Testament, New Testament, the Church Fathers' -- has been coloured by religious beliefs and traditions. So that demands the question: what would a non-biblical historian make of the letters of Paul?
The modern consensus biblical scholars' {claim} is that (1) there was a Paul, (2) there are seven genuine letters of Paul with the others put in his name, either as forgeries or as tradition, (3) the letters were written in the 50s-60s CE, (4) there are a certain number of interpolations and fiddling around in the contents of his letters.
My question is: Would non-biblical scholars come away with different conclusions on the above four points? If so, how/why/what?
One thing that struck me is that Dr Carrier and Doherty use the conclusions of modern consensus biblical scholars quite a lot in their theories, so it occurred to me that modern biblical scholars must have done a lot right. But would non-biblical scholars have concluded something different?
IMPORTANT NOTE: I'm not asking you about YOUR theory about Paul. (Yes, perhaps Paul lived in First Century BCE, Second Century CE, didn't exist at all). This is about professional non-biblical historians and their methods. Unless you are a non-biblical historian yourself, I'm asking for your knowledge of their opinions on the subject.
Can you see how you try to steer even the start of an argument into your desired outcome? By using "modern concensus" as a label denoting objective finding, and then conflating that with the label "biblical scholars"?
Unconsciously, likely, I think you're everything but "a bad guy"
How many historians do you think there are out here? Neil and Ken would appear to be your only response group.
I like the "opinions" by the way!
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
No, I'm not using "modern consensus" to mean "objective finding", I'm using "modern consensus" to mean the modern consensus of biblical scholars. And that's the point. My view is that non-biblical objective historians would come to the same conclusions as the modern consensus of biblical scholars about Paul, and that's the purpose of my question below.
So, to update that in line of your correction:
The modern consensus of biblical scholars is that (1) there was a Paul, (2) there are seven genuine letters of Paul with the others put in his name, either as forgeries or as tradition, (3) the letters were written in the 50s-60s CE, (4) there are a certain number of interpolations and fiddling around in the contents of his letters.
My question is: Would non-biblical scholars come away with different conclusions to the modern consensus of biblical scholars on the above four points? If so, how/why/what?
Not many non-biblical historians. Lots of opinions!
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:09 amNo, I'm not using "modern consensus" to mean "objective finding", I'm using "modern consensus" to mean the modern consensus of biblical scholars. And that's the point. My view is that non-biblical objective historians would come to the same conclusions as the modern consensus of biblical scholars about Paul, and that's the purpose of my question below.
So, to update that in line of your correction:
The modern consensus of biblical scholars is that (1) there was a Paul, (2) there are seven genuine letters of Paul with the others put in his name, either as forgeries or as tradition, (3) the letters were written in the 50s-60s CE, (4) there are a certain number of interpolations and fiddling around in the contents of his letters.
My question is: Would non-biblical scholars come away with different conclusions to the modern consensus of biblical scholars on the above four points? If so, how/why/what?
Not many non-biblical historians. Lots of opinions!
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
xxx
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Mar 19, 2022 1:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
I would hazard that non-biblical scholars don't care enough about Paul to even look into the subject.
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2339
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Non-biblical historians and the letters of Paul
Are you after the historicity of Paul, his letters, or both?GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 19, 2022 2:03 pmDo you think that that's because there simply isn't enough solid data there to make any kind of evaluation about Paul's letters?