Before Mark's Gospel
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2017, 09:43 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(22-04-2017 12:09 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  How old the so-called pauline letters are is irrelevant. We do not have the originals.
The relative date they were penned can be inferred in a number of ways and it does have some relevance. I think the relevance for Paul's writings is that they significantly predate the writing of the gospels and the differences in his theology and depiction of Jesus and that of the gospels is rather striking and shows a marked evolution in the intervening years. It is also telling that something written well within the generation that supposedly experienced Jesus' ministry doesn't appeal to contemporary witnesses for validation, but to a claimed supernatural revelation.
(22-04-2017 12:09 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  There is thus no fucking way that the proto-orthodox xtians ( to borrow Ehrman's term for them ) would or could use any of this alleged paul shit without a total re-write to make it compatible with the bullshit story they were putting out in the late 2d and 3d centuries.
You underestimate the process. The Pauline corpus is NOT compatible with the gospel narratives, but two millennia of church dogma / tradition and the clever placement of the much later gospels at the START of the NT canon so that one reads Paul with a bunch of unwarranted assumptions, solves the problem without a "rewrite".

I don't deny that there couldn't have BEEN at least some rewriting, but don't see it as at all necessary to make it "work", nor does the fact that it works make for me a compelling case that it was, in fact, "rewritten".
(22-04-2017 12:09 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Let's remember that the earliest xtian writer for whom we have any significant body of writing, Justin Martyr, writing in the 160's AD - his First Apologia is written to Emperor Antonius Pius who ruled around that time - never mentions any "paul." Justin, however, does know about Marcion which suggests that the re-write was not finished by the time Justin was writing.
Maybe that particular document doesn't mention Paul, however from just one random reference I looked up, in his works as a whole, Paul was far from "unmentioned":
Quote:Reflecting his opposition to Marcion, Justin's attitude toward the Pauline epistles generally corresponds to that of the later Church. In Justin's works, distinct references are found to Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians, and possible ones to Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy. It seems likely that he also knew Hebrews and 1 John.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2017, 10:12 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
I do not trust xtians who "infer" too much. They tend to lie a lot to make their story seem real.

Likewise, church "tradition" is unreliable since they were far more concerned in their power and status and those traditions seem designed to enhance those positions.

I'm glad you do not disagree with the obvious editing of the so-called pauline letters. I was beginning to lose hope for you. Even worse than editing is the combining of multiple letters into one ( 2 Corinthians might be cobbled together from 5-6 different letters according to Ehrman). I'm just curious as to how low you are setting the bar for this stuff?

I don't suppose you would be willing to identify the source of that comment? If it is Habermas, Craig, or some other apologist jackass I will be very disappointed.

Here is a passage from Carrier.

Quote:Nikolaus Walter more or less concurs, concluding that 'we can detect no hint that Paul knew of the narrative tradition about Jesus', which anyone ought to agree is 'surprising' . Even Helmut Koester admits, ' it is generally agreed that Paul's letters do not permit it any conclusions about the life of Jesus' . Kurt Noll goes further, concluding that the evidence in Paul's letters demonstrates that no fully formed Jesus traditions, of either sayings or narratives, existed in Paul's
day, and that all such traditions therefore post-date his generation.

Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pg 521

To carry Noll's musing to its logical conclusion, he is suggesting that the Paul story
was concocted later.

The bigger problem is that there is so much tampering with these alleged holy books that one cannot reliably use any of them to sustain the historicity of jesus. And if the big kahuna is a fake then why they hell are we supposed to accept "paul?"

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(22-04-2017 10:12 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  I'm glad you do not disagree with the obvious editing of the so-called pauline letters. I was beginning to lose hope for you. Even worse than editing is the combining of multiple letters into one ( 2 Corinthians might be cobbled together from 5-6 different letters according to Ehrman). I'm just curious as to how low you are setting the bar for this stuff?
Are you addressing my post above, or someone else's?
(22-04-2017 10:12 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  I don't suppose you would be willing to identify the source of that comment? If it is Habermas, Craig, or some other apologist jackass I will be very disappointed.
My quote was just from the main Wikipedia article on Justyn, and references this footnote:
Quote:Bonwetsch (1914) New Schaff–Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 284; Also see, Martyrdom of Justin Martyr at Wikisource
I don't get the impression that Justyn was any fan of Paul's, but your contention was that he didn't mention him or his writings. He was clearly aware of them, as anyone in the 2nd century would be, since significant number of Christians possessed his writings by that time.
(22-04-2017 10:12 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  Here is a passage from Carrier.
Quote:Nikolaus Walter more or less concurs, concluding that 'we can detect no hint that Paul knew of the narrative tradition about Jesus', which anyone ought to agree is 'surprising' . Even Helmut Koester admits, ' it is generally agreed that Paul's letters do not permit it any conclusions about the life of Jesus' . Kurt Noll goes further, concluding that the evidence in Paul's letters demonstrates that no fully formed Jesus traditions, of either sayings or narratives, existed in Paul's
day, and that all such traditions therefore post-date his generation.

Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, pg 521

To carry Noll's musing to its logical conclusion, he is suggesting that the Paul story
was concocted later.
I am in full agreement with all this. Paul's narrative (such as it was -- it really is for all practical purposes non-existent) of Jesus and his teachings concerning him have nothing whatsoever to do with the eventual canonical gospel narratives and is in fact strikingly different and "spiritualized" in nature.
(22-04-2017 10:12 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  The bigger problem is that there is so much tampering with these alleged holy books that one cannot reliably use any of them to sustain the historicity of jesus. And if the big kahuna is a fake then why they hell are we supposed to accept "paul?"
I also agree that none of these substantiate the historicity of Jesus, certainly not the miracle-working god-man version and not even the existence of an actual individual who had the invented mythos superimposed upon him.

Your original assertion was that the dating of the Pauline corpus was "irrelevant" and that Justyn does not acknowledge its existence -- those are the points I was arguing against.

It appears we have arrived at the same conclusions, it is just that I do not need to demonstrate that Paul and his writings are much later, or forged or altered somehow, to arrive at that conclusion. It is enough that Paul has no substantive concordance or agreement with the narratives of the ultimately canonical gospels and if you use the commonly accepted dating of the Pauline epistles and the gospels relative to each other it makes the point even more dramatic.

Personally I do not wish to give the impression to doubters that we have to go THAT far to demonstrate the obvious differences between Paul's Jesus and the gospel's Jesus and the secular accounts of Jesus (which are, actually, non-existent, just like any sort of historical Jesus himself likely is). There are so many problems with the NT writings even as asserted in terms of dating and provenance, that it's just not necessary. So many internal conflicts and inconsistencies, questionable passages and pious frauds, and on and on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2017, 10:55 AM
RE: Before Mark's Gospel
(22-04-2017 10:12 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  I do not trust xtians who "infer" too much. They tend to lie a lot to make their story seem real.

For lack of a better term, amen. In the CoC world, they even have a term: necessary inference. It's a way for them to proclaim that even though the text doesn't specifically say something (i.e. it doesn't rule out instrumental music), reading the texts combined with other texts makes it necessary that you come to the conclusion that instrumental music is wrong. For ever I was taught the CoC was "right" because they were "book, chapter, verse" and if it it's not in the bible, you can't say it, and then come to find out they create this bullshit loophole.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: