neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:42 am
I generally assume that there was an early first century Paul for the sake of argument. To what extent the canonical letters bearing his name, even the so-called 7 authentic ones, very likely do not look like what he originally wrote, however. We have good reason to believe they have been added to in the theological disputes of the second century. I don't know if we have any reason to think that any of the "deutero-Paul" letters were composed earlier than the very late first century (more likely second century?). But I have not checked my notes and may be forgetting something crucial.
You are contradicting yourself. Once you have admitted that you have assumed there was an early first century Paul then you are really assuming there are authentic letters. You don't know and have no evidence whatsoever of an early first century Paul and have no evidence whatsoever that any letter under the name of Paul are authentic.
It is extremely strange that the very people who question the historicity of Jesus due to lack of historical evidence would assume Paul existed when the Pauline character is completely unknown in the same ancient writings which do not mention Jesus and his disciples.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:42 am
Dennis MacDonald has an older book discussing the various struggles that appear to have been fought over claims to have Paul's authority for this or that teaching. Paul's original letters were added to in order to use the authority of Paul to justify new teachings; Acts of the Apostles was written in part to demonstrate that Paul was really on the side of "orthodoxy"; Ditto new epistles written in his name (possibly the author of Acts in some cases) to support a certain church authority by using Paul's name; then Acts of Paul and Thecla....
If it is assumed Paul was early and Acts was late then the latter would be rather useless. If it is assumed Paul actually preached around the Roman Empire and wrote letters to Churches since at least 39-54 CE then a story written perhaps no earlier than 50 years later would not cause any struggle.
People in the supposed early Churches would have already known what Paul preached decades before Acts was written.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:42 am
It looks as though "orthodoxy" was attempting to co-opt Paul (who had long been the "apostle of the heretics") in order to win some sort of ideological warfare against those "heretics".
For such a claim to be true both Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters would have to be contemporary.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:42 am
As for the "forged" letters of Paul not including gospel material, the most likely reason is that the gospels were not known by the forgers or not widely enough regarded to be "authentic" and of any use. The Gospel of Mark, if written around 70, appears not to have been part of the "orthodox" establishment until well into the second century (it had a reputation for being associated with Basilides) -- and Mark itself as we know it (its canonical form) was almost certainly not what was originally written by "Mark". There appear to have been additions, redactions, etc. to a gospel that at one point was quite Pauline.
If so, and given the allegorical character of the gospel, if the Gospel of Mark were known to any forger of Paul it is likely that they recognized it as a parable and not to be read as literal history anyway.
You seem to believe your assumptions about Paul are true. You have no evidence whatsoever that gMark was "at one point quite Pauline".
It is quite the opposite. gMark is not at all like the Pauline letters and the author shows no indication that he ever heard the teachings of Paul, ever been to a Pauline Church or ever read the Pauline letters.
The letters under the name of Paul are later embellishments which can easily be seen when we examine any story about Jesus that is found in both gMark and the Epistles.
Mark 16:6-8---6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
And
they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
In gMark the resurrection has nothing to do with salvation.
The Pauline gospel [the good news] of salvation by the resurrection must have come after gMark.
Romans 10:9----
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
1 Corinthians 15:17 ----
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Galatians 1:1---
-Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.
Colossians 1:18--
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Neither I, nor Carrier, nor Price, argues that because there are untrue tales told about X that therefore X did not exist. That's a grotesque mispresentation of the argument. Have you actually read the arguments? It appears not. 
