What You Do To Peter You Must Do To Paul: the forgery question

[stephan happy huller]

But Hegesippus is full of problems. I am not supporting Bernard's contentions but of all the early sources this is the one which has the most problems attached to it. Firstly his name. Yes there was an archaic Greek name 'Hegesippus' but it is hard to imagine an Ebionite or Jewish Christian adopting this name. So then you are left with Hegesippus as a corruption of the Greek 'Josephus' and the increased possibility that his name was simply 'Joseph.' If something as basic as his name could be corrupted the evidence is no better. I don't believe that the family of Jesus were the heads of the Jerusalem Church. You'd think that if even something close to resembling this was true there would have been a lot more made about this. I think Hegesippus was a creation of Irenaeus. He seems to fit into the milieu of 'correspondents' with the heads of the churches.

[Peter Kirby]

But Hegesippus is full of problems. I am not supporting Bernard's contentions but of all the early sources this is the one which has the most problems attached to it. Firstly his name. Yes there was an archaic Greek name 'Hegesippus' but it is hard to imagine an Ebionite or Jewish Christian adopting this name. So then you are left with Hegesippus as a corruption of the Greek 'Josephus' and the increased possibility that his name was simply 'Joseph.' If something as basic as his name could be corrupted the evidence is no better.

It is well-known that people would take different names in different languages: "Adams makes it clear that it has to be the same person) might bear two completely different names in the two languages" (link) A biblical example of the phenomonen is Joseph Justus Barsabass (Acts 1:23), with Justus as his Latin name.

The simplest explanation is that the author's Aramaic name were Joseph and that he took the name, in Greek, of Hegesippus. Why? Because it sounded better than the alternatives.

I don't believe that the family of Jesus were the heads of the Jerusalem Church. You'd think that if even something close to resembling this was true there would have been a lot more made about this.

I don't, no.

Anyway, the whole discussion was spawned form Bernard's false contention that it is implausible that a collection for the sake of Christians at Jerusalem would have occurred after 70 AD, and that's a complete dead end, so if we want to establish the dating of the Pauline epistles, we will need something better.

[Bernard Muller]

Josephus did not say what you want him to say. Jerusalem was inhabited after 70 AD.

Besides a Roman legion in a camp, some old men and a few women: You call that inhabited?

This is badly non sequitur, not to mention inconsistent on your part. First you say that the church in Jerusalem would have been destroyed at the first Jewish revolt, so it couldn't have persisted after. Then you say that the church in Jerusalem is said by Eusebius to have fled to Pella during the first Jewish revolt, so it couldn't have persisted after. In any case, neither of your objections are of any merit as to whether there were Christians in Jerusalem after 70 AD.

Sure, they would have been destroyed if they stayed in Jerusalem. And that probably what happened, except if you believe (which I do not) they were warned by Jesus through prophecy as in Mark 13:14. This is what Eusebius was saying.
The move to Pella, known through dubious Eusebius (writing 2 centuries after the fact!) is very convenient (for the preservation of the church of Jerusalem) and subject of Jesus making the prophecy in Mk 13:14, which I think is very unlikely.

To give you the bit that you're missing to see, fleeing to Pella for safety doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to return to their original land after the fighting was over, and that is in fact what Eusebius tacitly assumes (by placing the Christians of the circumcision in Jerusalem after the first Jewish revolt) that they did in the narrative that you didn't read well enough.

Even if Eusebius is correct (which is very doubtful), why would they return to a fully destroyed city? And live next door to a Roman legion?

And there you are wrong, as you should have already read in the passage quoted. Eusebius, again quoting Hegesippus, writes that there was a church at Jerusalem during the reign of Trajan, which was persecuted "in consequence of a popular uprising," which chronologically should be understood as the Kitos War during the years 115-117 AD (Book III, Chapter 32):

It says "church of Jerusalem", not "church at Jerusalem". "Church of Jerusalem" would refer, in Eusebius' mind, to church of Jerusalem in exile at Pella.
I note also that the first paragraph (which has "church of Jerusalem") is not drawn from Hegesippus' writing.

For the rest, I would not trust Eusebius and his list of bishops in Jerusalem, that is a totally ruined city, as written by Epiphanius

the whole city devastated, save for a few houses

(around 130).
If you want to populate these few houses with the church of Jerusalem, bishop & all, so be it.

Now, since when I started a thread on "The Dating, Authorship, and Meaning of the Pauline Epistles"?
I did not. You did that without my authorization. This is not honest.
I participated on the thread called "Historicity of Jesus - the Talking Points" after it began to have comments.

And where did you get the idea I thought you were

"a faithful Doherty-following mythicist"

?
I understand you were confused about the

"you"

in

"you and other mythicists"

in my own quote addressed to Carrier, but where did you assume the "you" was also about a faithful Doherty follower?
Of course, you are not that, but in view of your argumentation and tactics, I know now you are a mythicist.

Cordially, Bernard

[TedM]

If I understand the argument, it is that it would be unlikely that someone pretending to forge works from Paul would talk about taking up a collection for the believers in Jerusalem. Is that the argument? If so, I don't understand it. If Jerusalem was desolate at 70AD, wouldn't a forgerer have known that and used the collection as a sign of authenticity?

I don't believe the forgery hypothesis, but I don't quite follow the argument..any other thing that 'sounds authentic' can be similarly argued against -- such as the mention of staying with Cephas for 15 days without clarifying who Cephas was or what happened during the 15 days --there are numerous kinds of such references in the epistles. This 'ring of truth' is not provable, but should appeal to people who possess common sense IMO. Those who don't can always fall back on the conspiracies they so enjoy..

For grins here are a few of the verses re Paul's involvement with Jerusalem/Judea:


Romans 15:19
in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
Romans 15:18-20 (in Context) Romans 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Romans 15:25
but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints.
Romans 15:24-26 (in Context) Romans 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Romans 15:26
For Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.
Romans 15:25-27 (in Context) Romans 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Romans 15:31
that I may be rescued from those who are disobedient in Judea, and that my service for Jerusalem may prove acceptable to the saints;
Romans 15:30-32 (in Context) Romans 15 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
1 Corinthians 13:2-4 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 13 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Instructions and Greetings ] Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.

1 Corinthians 16:3
When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem;
1 Corinthians 16:2-4 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 16 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
2 Corinthians 1:16
that is, to pass your way into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea.
2 Corinthians 1:15-17 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Galatians 1:17
nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
Galatians 1:16-18 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Galatians 1:18
Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
Galatians 1:17-19 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Galatians 1:22
I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which were in Christ;
Galatians 1:21-23 (in Context) Galatians 1 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Galatians 2:1
[ The Council at Jerusalem ] Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also.
Galatians 2:1-3 (in Context) Galatians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Galatians 2:10
They only asked us to remember the poor—the very thing I also was eager to do.
Galatians 2:9-11 (in Context) Galatians 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
1 Thessalonians 2:14
For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews,

[Peter Kirby]

Josephus did not say what you want him to say. Jerusalem was inhabited after 70 AD.

Besides a Roman legion in a camp, some old men and a few women: You call that inhabited?

Not only did Josephus not say what you want him to say, Josephus cannot say what you want him to say, due to the time period in which he wrote the Jewish Wars and Antiquities. He cannot cover the full time period of 70-135 AD... he wrote too soon. Moreover, yes, I call it inhabited because it was inhabited.

...why would they return to a fully destroyed city?

Seriously? Do you know nothing about the history of razed and destroyed cities? Use the historical principle of analogy, please.

Now, since when I started a thread on "The Dating, Authorship, and Meaning of the Pauline Epistles"?
I did not. You did that without my authorization. This is not honest.

BOO friggin hoo. It's a thread split. Your authorization, believe it or not, has nothing to do with it.

Of course, you are not that, but in view of your argumentation and tactics, I know now you are a mythicist.

What? Never mind. Whatever.

[Bernard Muller]

yes, I call it inhabited because it was inhabited.

Inhabited by whom? the church of Jerusalem, in a few houses? that's the question.

Seriously? Do you know nothing about the history of razed and destroyed cities? Use the historical principle of analogy, please.

There are no general rules. Cities can be fully destroyed and stay devastated for a long time, sometimes forever.

BOO friggin hoo. It's a thread split. Your authorization, believe it or not, has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, my initial posting was about evidence of an earthly human Jesus in the Pauline epistles and Hebrews. That has nothing to do with your new title (NOT mine): The Dating, Authorship, and Meaning of the Pauline Epistles. It is misrepresentation.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

The word for idol's temple in 8:10 is quite different from the word for temple in 9:13 it is not a parallel. I agree that hIERON could be used for a pagan temple. But I would be surprised to see ThUSIASTHRION altar used of a pagan altar.

Thanks for this. I hadn't looked into it much at all, or I might have discovered this on my own (please do understand me, I had not been holding out any ideas in this thread as my considered conclusions; my conclusions are not decided). It sounds persuasive.

Jerusalem is also the base for Cephas and other apostles quite apart from the brethren of the Lord such as James. I'm not sure what scenario you are suggesting as a possibility. Is it one in which there is a Jerusalem church before and after 70 CE ruled by leaders claiming to be relatives of Jesus with Paul only coming along after 70 CE ?

In this thread, I had been playing devil's advocate because of arguments with which I did not agree.

(1) If the Paul of the letters is telling things accurately, the alternative chronology would be that Paul encountered the Jerusalem church in the 50s as a persecutor and that he wrote some letters, such as 1 Thess., after the destruction of Jerusalem. It's possible that his letters straddled the Jewish war, so that 1 Corinthians could have been written before and 1 Thessalonians had been written after. Until shown otherwise, of course.

(2) The other possibility is that the Paul of the letters is a pseudonym, that the letters were written after 70 AD and attributed to Paul.*

(3) The third possibility is of course the typical explanation, that the letters are genuine and written entirely before 70 AD.

I'd like to know what information we have to decide among these possibilities.

* This is looking better than (1), in my own opinion.

Best regards,
Peter Kirby

[maryhelena]

In this thread, I had been playing devil's advocate because of arguments with which I did not agree.

(1) If the Paul of the letters is telling things accurately, the alternative chronology would be that Paul encountered the Jerusalem church in the 50s as a persecutor and that he wrote some letters, such as 1 Thess., after the destruction of Jerusalem. It's possible that his letters straddled the Jewish war, so that 1 Corinthians could have been written before and 1 Thessalonians had been written after. Until shown otherwise, of course.

(2) The other possibility is that the Paul of the letters is a pseudonym, that the letters were written after 70 AD and attributed to Paul.*

(3) The third possibility is of course the typical explanation, that the letters are genuine and written entirely before 70 AD.

I'd like to know what information we have to decide among these possibilities.

* This is looking better than (1), in my own opinion.

Best regards,
Peter Kirby

How about a 4th possibility?

'Paul' is a composite of two early christian figures. A pre-70 c.e. 'Paul' and a post 70 c.e. 'Paul'. Actually, perhaps this two 'Paul' suggestion ties in with your 2nd possibility. The pseudonym, 'Paul', being used for not one one figure but two figures, a composite NT 'Paul'.

This would mean that the NT 'history' of early christianity is actually a condensed history. A longer development period that has been condensed, reduced. Ruling out a pre-70 c.e. gestation period seems, to my thinking, to go against the whole thrust of the NT story. The story was set pre-70 c.e. One would have to have a very good argument to write off a period of Jewish history that the NT writers, evidently, found some value in.

Thus, a two 'Paul' solution, an early 'Paul', and a late 'Paul', would go a long way to accommodate/reconcile the various pre and post 70 c.e. arguments.

[Peter Kirby]

Mark Goodacre has a blog post about relative chronology of the Pauline epistles, focusing particularly on the mentions of the collection in Galatians, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, and Romans.

Assuming the letters to be genuine, the collection to be historical, and the letter of 1 Corinthians to be written while the Jerusalem temple still stood active, there isn't that much difference between (1) and (3) above as options. They're just variations on the theme of a pre-70 historical Paul who wrote his letters, mostly before 70 AD.

So the question really does reduce down to something simpler:

(a) Were these letters authentic correspondence by Paul?

(b) Were these letters attributed to a Paul but not written by him?

Thanks go to Andrew for effectively clarifying our alternatives with some real evidence (1 Cor 9:13, also 1 Cor 10:18).

[dewitness]

...Thus, a two 'Paul' solution, an early 'Paul', and a late 'Paul', would go a long way to accommodate/reconcile the various pre and post 70 c.e. arguments.

There is SAUL and multiple PAULS in the Canon. There are multiple authors of the Pauline Corpus. At least four authors are late. Which Paul is the real Paul?

I find it quite amusing that Only the Pauline Corpus is used to determine its own authenticity or lateness.

The same known manipulated sources under question are the primary and only evidence examined---This is unheard of and contrary to reason.

What did the other authors of the Canon say about the Pauline Corpus??