A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by neilgodfrey »

steve43 wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:
steve43 wrote:Not in and of itself. Just another piece of evidence that supports an early dating of Acts.
The only dating it logically supports is that Acts was written some time after Gallio. There is no logical connection between the Gallio date and a claim that Acts was written before or after 64.
Gimme a break.

If a the Delphic inscription said Gallio was in charge of Greece in A.D. 94, for instance, you guys would be all over it.
You have obviously don't have any clue about what some of "us guys" actually argue. What have you actually read by "us guys"?

So you have no argument to refute my point. Just a personal swipe substitutes for reasoned justification of an argument, does it?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by neilgodfrey »

neilgodfrey wrote: You have obviously don't have any clue about what some of "us guys" actually argue. What have you actually read by "us guys"?
Ditto for the way some of us guys on a few occasions make use of the Talmud to estimate some probable data for the first century. Have you actually read the arguments to justify its use in certain circumstances?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by MrMacSon »

TedM wrote:Just how long would it have taken to 'establish' the churches Paul was writing to, and how do you come to that conclusion? I'd like someone to explain to me why it would have taken more than say-- 3 years.
MrMacSon wrote:What would the basis for such alleged/proposed early Pauline-'Christian' doctrine?

The canonical gospels would not have been available ...
TedM wrote: It happened sometime, so why not early as opposed to 'late'?

My curiosity is why someone would think that it could take a long time for Paul's churches to have been established.
I don't know what basis there is for such a claim.

If Mormonism could grow to 6,000 in 8 years, why is there a reason to think Paul couldn't have established a number of churches [in] just a couple of years?
I & this raises at least two questions:

* Firstly, whether it happened mostly by the activities of a mid 1st century Paul(?), as the Pauline texts are understood.
* Secondly, whether a Christian church, as we know it today, or in relation to what or how a 4th C Christian church would be, could have developed without the canonical gospels.

The issue of how long it took is kind-of a separate one: the Christian church seems to have taken several centuries to develop 7 evolve, as summarized in the Catholic encyclopedia -
The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council ...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
I even think it's possible Paul, or others like him, was/were active BC/BCE
.
steve43
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by steve43 »

"You have obviously don't have any clue about what some of "us guys" actually argue. What have you actually read by "us guys"?

So you have no argument to refute my point. Just a personal swipe substitutes for reasoned justification of an argument, does it?[/quote]


"You guys" refers to those who use every means possible in order to date Acts as late as possible. The goal is to undermine Christianity. Same with Josephus. It probably would have been better if he had not referred to Jesus or James the Just at all. As it is, he is casually dismissed as a charlatan and fiction writer by "you guys." All because of the two references.

Fun to see how "you guys" reinforce each others specious arguments. Sham scholarship at its best.

Your point about Tacitus still makes no sense to me.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by neilgodfrey »

steve43 wrote:
"You guys" refers to those who use every means possible in order to date Acts as late as possible. The goal is to undermine Christianity. Same with Josephus. It probably would have been better if he had not referred to Jesus or James the Just at all. As it is, he is casually dismissed as a charlatan and fiction writer by "you guys." All because of the two references.

Fun to see how "you guys" reinforce each others specious arguments. Sham scholarship at its best.

Your point about Tacitus still makes no sense to me.
So that's where all this nonsense is coming from. What a load of bunk. So I should ignore your comments here for the same reasons I should ignore the knee-jerk nonsense of MrMacSon. You have no intention of engaging in a rational discussion.

How can anything I argue or suggest ever come even close to "undermining Christianity"? Why would I ever bother with such a pointless exercise?

I have more things to do with my life than go on some quixotic crusade to "undermine Christianity". I have never (not that I recall) ever attempted to undermine anyone's faith.

I can point to scholars who date Acts very early who are atheists and I can point to scholars who date Acts very late who are Christians. How on earth does the date of Acts affect anyone's faith?

I'm quite willing to date Acts early if I think that makes best sense of the evidence as I understand it. I certainly don't bet my house on Acts being very late but it is the best explanation that accounts for all the evidence, I think. I'm quite willing to change my mind given new understanding.

But if you are worried that genuine scholarship is undermining fundamentalist traditions that are in fact extra-biblical (e.g. that Acts was written before Paul was executed) and your faith stands or falls on believing Acts was written before that date, then you have a rather problematic faith upon which to base your salvation.

I thought you were here to present reasonable arguments about the scholarly research. Clearly I was quite wrong.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by neilgodfrey »

steve43 wrote: Your point about Tacitus still makes no sense to me.
It wouldn't. It's an argument based on background knowledge and valid logic.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
steve43
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:36 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by steve43 »

That makes two ad hominem attacks on me in one day!

Must be some sort of a record.

I might add that ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the incompetent.

For your information I am an atheist but more importantly I am a historian. I draw my conclusions based on where the facts and best evidence leads me.

Note that I say BEST evidence.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by neilgodfrey »

steve43 wrote:That makes two ad hominem attacks on me in one day!

Must be some sort of a record.

I might add that ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of the incompetent.

For your information I am an atheist but more importantly I am a historian. I draw my conclusions based on where the facts and best evidence leads me.

Note that I say BEST evidence.
So what's all this with lumping me and anyone who argues for a late date for Acts being on some sort of agenda to undermine Christianity?

What qualifications as a historian do you have and that allow you to date Acts prior to the death of Paul on the non sequiturs that you have given us so far here?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by neilgodfrey »

steve43 wrote: more importantly I am a historian.
You have completely fooled me. I presume you mean an amateur historian. Historian of what, exactly?
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: A Jumble in Corinth and Paul’s Human Foibles

Post by Ulan »

steve43 wrote:I draw my conclusions based on where the facts and best evidence leads me.
In this case, you seem to follow the habit of mistaking termini post quem for the date of when stuff actually happened. I admit it's a time-honored tradition, even of "liberal" scholars, but it's more of a peace offering to keep the struggles within scholarship to a minimum and not really sound practice.

To add some completely idle speculation (as there isn't any information available whatsoever as far as I know), it would be interesting to know why the report of Paul's death was removed. Perhaps he was killed in some sectarian struggle? Who knows. And you are free to make your jokes about this.
Post Reply