Who was Saint Paul?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 10:19 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
Quote:Quite simple. Most of today's scholars were scholars 20 years ago. The consensus is virtually identical.


And what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Umm ... the articles I posted that you've chosen to ignore? You don't seem to have a problem agreeing with Bucky's wacky links that lead to some one-off, but question the links I provided that lead to the actual scholarly communities?

Why is that?




Quote:
Quote:Did you look at the 2nd link I provided? The one that names many of the scholars?


Not yet. My posts were written in reference to the first wikipedia article you used to accuse Bucky Ball of misrepresenting the consensus among scholars today. As it turns out, the two sources used to back it up are either unreliable or completely outdated.

Rubbish. The Wiki article has the following links and references:

Quote:Bibliographic Resources
  • Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 39-49.
  • Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77. idem, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.
  • Bauckham, Richard J. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 469-94.
  • Carson, D.A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” Dictionary of New Testament Background. Eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. 857-64.
  • Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
  • Deissmann, G. Adolf. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
  • Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament. Ed. Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
  • Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
  • Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998): 629-46.
  • Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011.
  • Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281-97. idem, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Scripture and Truth. Eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. 101-14.
  • Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.
  • Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. idem, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Bulletin Research 8 (1998): 151-66. idem, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
  • Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917): 288-301.
  • Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early Christianity. Vol. 8. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
  • Wall, Robert W. “Introduction to Epistolary Literature.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 10. Ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. 369-91.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:17 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
The entire discussion is a Red Herring. I am well aware my views, as an a-theist, do not lie within a "scholarly consensus".
The argument is NOT about what is, or is not within "scholarly consensus". I could care less.
THAT is a totally different discussion, AND there never has been a poll, (other than Habermas' purported one, which he said he did, but never provided proof of, or data from). Even the Jesus Seminar's published votes still represented only the internally hand-picked views of THOSE 150 (mostly) scholars. This argument is NOT about, or rely upon, scholarly concensus. The Argument from Authority is but ONE of many way s to argue. I am not constrained by his rules, and HIS one method of argument. Free constantly throws this up. It's not the issue. If that's what he want's tell him to go see the Vatican. He will find lots of "consensus" there. (Well actually there isn't but they try).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:19 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Rubbish.
Great argument Your Majesty. I shall propose you for a TTA "best argument of the year" award. Bowing Bowing Bowing Bowing

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 10:24 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Umm ... the articles I posted that you've chosen to ignore?
Articles? As far as I can see, you have posted two so far. I have looked at the first one and told you why the evidence to support it's claims is flawed. As for the second one, I have stated that I have yet to read it. Which makes me wonder, how did you come to the conclusion that I ignored both of them?

(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  You don't seem to have a problem agreeing with Bucky's wacky links that lead to some one-off, but question the links I provided that lead to the actual scholarly communities?

Why is that?
Firstly, do you care to cite the post in which I explicitly agreed with "Bucky's wacky links"? Secondly, your links do not lead to the actual scholarly communities, as pointed out earlier.

(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Rubbish. The Wiki article has the following links and references:

Quote:Bibliographic Resources
  • Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 39-49.
  • Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77. idem, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.
  • Bauckham, Richard J. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 469-94.
  • Carson, D.A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” Dictionary of New Testament Background. Eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. 857-64.
  • Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
  • Deissmann, G. Adolf. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
  • Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament. Ed. Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
  • Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
  • Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998): 629-46.
  • Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011.
  • Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281-97. idem, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Scripture and Truth. Eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. 101-14.
  • Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.
  • Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. idem, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Bulletin Research 8 (1998): 151-66. idem, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
  • Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917): 288-301.
  • Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early Christianity. Vol. 8. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
  • Wall, Robert W. “Introduction to Epistolary Literature.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 10. Ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. 369-91.
What about these sources? They are not used as references for the claims made about a consensus among scholars, meaning that they are completely irrelevant. The article uses only two sources for that purpose, the ones I've named earlier.

You even said so yourself, remember?

(04-11-2012 09:35 AM)Free Wrote:  Quite simple. Go to Wiki article and click the reference numbers at the end of each statement, which lead you to the actual resources.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The entire discussion is a Red Herring. I am well aware my views, as an a-theist, do not lie within a "scholarly consensus".
The argument is NOT about what is, or is not within "scholarly consensus". I could care less.
THAT is a totally different discussion, AND there never has been a poll, (other than Habermas' purported one, which he said he did, but never provided proof of, or data from). Even the Jesus Seminar's published votes still represented only the internally hand-picked views of THOSE 150 (mostly) scholars. This argument is NOT about, or rely upon, scholarly concensus. The Argument from Authority is but ONE of many way s to argue. I am not constrained by his rules, and HIS one method of argument. Free constantly throws this up. It's not the issue. If that's what he want's tell him to go see the Vatican. He will find lots of "consensus" there. (Well actually there isn't but they try).
You obviously utterly fail to understand what an "Argument from Authority" actually is. What it is not is when a collective of intelligence of experts is assembled to arrive at a consensus.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 10:28 AM by Free.)
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Umm ... the articles I posted that you've chosen to ignore?
Articles? As far as I can see, you have posted two so far. I have looked at the first one and told you why the evidence to support it's claims is flawed. As for the second one, I have stated that I have yet to read it. Which makes me wonder, how did you come to the conclusion that I ignored both of them?

(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  You don't seem to have a problem agreeing with Bucky's wacky links that lead to some one-off, but question the links I provided that lead to the actual scholarly communities?

Why is that?
Firstly, do you care to cite the post in which I explicitly agreed with "Bucky's wacky links"? Secondly, your links do not lead to the actual scholarly communities, as pointed out earlier.

(04-11-2012 10:13 AM)Free Wrote:  Rubbish.
Astonishing rebuttal.
More rubbish. The Wiki article has dozens of links and references at the bottom of the page, which you have chosen to ignore.

I don't see you questioning Bucky's assertion that ALL scholars contend that a number of Paul's letters are forgeries. Why not ask him to supply his resources for that assertion? But no ... you are gullible and ignorant, and will swallow whatever he feeds you.

As far as Bucky's links, on another thread you directed me here.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:23 AM)Free Wrote:  More rubbish. The Wiki article has dozens of links and references at the bottom of the page, which you have chosen to ignore.
Nonsense. I stated why the other references are irrelevant in my previous post.

(04-11-2012 10:23 AM)Free Wrote:  As far as Bucky's links, on another thread you directed me here.
Actually, I did not. Go back and reread my post. I merely pointed out that your claim about Bucky Ball not having external references is flawed, considering that he provided you with two links.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:27 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:21 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 10:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The entire discussion is a Red Herring. I am well aware my views, as an a-theist, do not lie within a "scholarly consensus".
The argument is NOT about what is, or is not within "scholarly consensus". I could care less.
THAT is a totally different discussion, AND there never has been a poll, (other than Habermas' purported one, which he said he did, but never provided proof of, or data from). Even the Jesus Seminar's published votes still represented only the internally hand-picked views of THOSE 150 (mostly) scholars. This argument is NOT about, or rely upon, scholarly concensus. The Argument from Authority is but ONE of many way s to argue. I am not constrained by his rules, and HIS one method of argument. Free constantly throws this up. It's not the issue. If that's what he want's tell him to go see the Vatican. He will find lots of "consensus" there. (Well actually there isn't but they try).
You obviously utterly fail to understand what an "Argument from Authority" actually is. What it is not is when a collective of intelligence of experts is assembled to arrive at a consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I am NOT making an Argument from Authority. You are insisting that is the ONLY way to argue.
YOU fail to understand what you are insisting on.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:35 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
(04-11-2012 10:23 AM)Free Wrote:  I don't see you questioning Bucky's assertion that ALL scholars contend that a number of Paul's letters are forgeries. Why not ask him to supply his resources for that assertion? But no ... you are gullible and ignorant, and will swallow whatever he feeds you.
Reduced you to personal attacks, huh? You shouldn't be acting so arrogant when you know nothing about my previous interactions with Bucky Ball.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 10:40 AM
RE: Who was Saint Paul?
Quote:
More rubbish. The Wiki article has dozens of links and references at the bottom of the page, which you have chosen to ignore.


Nonsense. I stated why the other references are irrelevant in my previous post.[/quote]

Nonsense? Here's the Wiki article AGAIN, genius, so how about checking out the references & links to the scholars at the bottom? Here's let me actually POST them for you:

Quote:Bibliographic Resources

Aland, Kurt. “The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 39-49.
Bahr, Gordon J. “Paul and Letter Writing in the First Century.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 465-77. idem, “The Subscriptions in the Pauline Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 2 (1968): 27-41.
Bauckham, Richard J. “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 469-94.
Carson, D.A. “Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy.” Dictionary of New Testament Background. Eds. Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000. 857-64.
Cousar, Charles B. The Letters of Paul. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Deissmann, G. Adolf. Bible Studies. Trans. Alexander Grieve. 1901. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.
Doty, William G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. New Testament. Ed. Dan O. Via, Jr. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Gamble, Harry Y. “Amanuensis.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim. “‘Girls Trained in Beautiful Writing’: Female Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998): 629-46.
Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul's Letters. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2011.
Longenecker, Richard N. “Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles.” New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Eds. Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974. 281-97. idem, “On the Form, Function, and Authority of the New Testament Letters.” Scripture and Truth. Eds. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. 101-14.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995.
Richards, E. Randolph. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr, 1991. idem, “The Codex and the Early Collection of Paul’s Letters.” Bulletin for Bulletin Research 8 (1998): 151-66. idem, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition, and Collection. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.
Robson, E. Iliff. “Composition and Dictation in New Testament Books.” Journal of Theological Studies 18 (1917): 288-301.
Stowers, Stanley K. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early Christianity. Vol. 8. Ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.
Wall, Robert W. “Introduction to Epistolary Literature.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 10. Ed. Leander E. Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. 369-91.




Quote:As far as Bucky's links, on another thread you directed me here.


Actually, I did not. Go back and reread my post. I merely pointed out that your claim about Bucky Ball not having external references is flawed, considering that he provided you with two links.

Actually, you did. You suggested I click his links.

How can anyone become an atheist when we were all born with no religious beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were ...
BORN THIS WAY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: