But what is 'usefulness' the standard by which we judge whether or not a tradition is true? Since you have the habit of ignoring what seems inconvenient I will rephrase my last post. The Marcionites say X the Catholics say Y about Paul and the origins of Christianity. You argue that figuring out what the Marcionites believed is 'useless' or at least 'less useful' than what the Catholics have handed to us. I then asked 'useful' for what purpose if - as you have noted several times in this forum - that you think Acts is a spurious history?
This is where serious scholars get frustrated with typical mythicists. If Acts is acknowledged to be a spurious history by you it would be expected that you find 'alternative historical narratives' if you are truly interested in constructing a history of Christianity - which you say you are. But you have already decided in fact that Christianity is a myth or at least the principal documents of the tradition were developed as fables so Acts becomes one of many fables created in the second century including the gospel.
The point of course is that we don't that Christianity was a myth, that it was developed in the second century and all the other assumptions that the current cabal of mythicists take as self-evident truths that they need only support by cherry picking from the available evidence. But the facts remain that once we acknowledge that Acts is a spurious history and the tradition that is based upon it is probably worthless we at least owe it to ourselves to do the hard work of tracking down alternative histories before we jump the gun and assume all that mythicists assume as self-evident.
Is that 'readable enough' for you? Or does it still closely approximate Robert Tulip? Perhaps you demand that all comments allow you the freedom to cherry pick evidence in support of your foregone conclusions. Sorry that won't happen here. Put me on your ignore list if that is the case.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I will rephrase it again making no reference to the nonsense propagated by mythicists. The Marcionites say that Paul wrote the gospel and that the gospel and the letters of Paul suffered from heavy interpolation. The Catholics say that they preserved the true collection of Paul's letters and that it is just coincidence that this canon of letters does not attest to Paul writing or knowing a written gospel. As it stands Paul said 'my gospel' but Luke wrote that gospel, the fact that Paul's letters as preserved by the propagandists for Luke show no knowledge of our gospels is more than a coincidence - it is a proof that Paul did not know the gospel and the Marcionites were dishonest guardians of a tradition. What are people stupid? There is another explanation for this situation. The canon, not just Acts, nor the canon of Paul, nor the gospel individually - but the entire Catholic canon was developed against the Marcionite reliance on a vision of a single apostle, Paul.
Why isn't that included in any consideration of 'the genre of the gospel(s)'? Neil responds it's more 'useful' to accept the gospels as they are, the canon of Paul's writings as it is, Acts as it is even though Neil denies that the gospels were written by who it is said wrote them and when it is said they were written, ditto for Paul and ditto for Acts. That someone can argue for the 'usefulness' of documents he views as entirely spurious AND MOREOVER pretends to do so as an 'objective historian' is utterly laughable. We should be in no rush to be in any conclusions once we throw out the gospels as they are (i.e. by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the first century), Acts by the a first century companion of the apostles and the letters of Paul as they claim to be (i.e. an apostle/friend of the apostles written in the first century).
We have all the time in the world now to suspend our judgement and continue to investigate all the possibilities in earliest Christianity. There should be no rush to any conclusions. Utility is not a consideration once one throws out all the evidence or at least calls everything into question.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Well my point is just to say - 'usefulness' is not an argument here. Chrestos has no place egging us on to rush to conclusions while we study his tradition. If God is dead, everyone can just relax. No reason to get excited ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
MrMacSon wrote:
I'd say a more plausible explanation for the "raft of diverse (theologically) portraits of Paul", and "very different writings supposedly by Paul", is interest generated by their appearance and momentum following that.
Not sure what you mean by "that". . . ?
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
neilgodfrey wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "that". . . ?
I'd say a more plausible explanation for the "raft of diverse (theologically) portraits of Paul", and the "very different writings supposedly by Paul", is interest generated by their first appearance in the 2nd-century, and momentum following that [appearance].
As a counterpoint to the obsessive interest in the "gap" we hear about between the beginning of Christianity (let's call that 70 CE) and the mid second century I wonder what the comparative gap between Plato and the first recorded works of "Platonists" is. More or less than 70 years?
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
neilgodfrey wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "that". . . ?
I'd say a more plausible explanation for the "raft of diverse (theologically) portraits of Paul", and the "very different writings supposedly by Paul", is interest generated by their first appearance in the 2nd-century, and momentum following that [appearance].
The reason I suggest the evidence might rather point to a first century Paul is that Paul has had time to have acquired a legendary reputation and the name open to be applied to rival teachings. Would one find so many very irreconcilable interpretations of both Paul's teachings and his life/personality if he were a relatively recent or even contemporary figure?
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
neilgodfrey wrote:
It all comes down to belief and imagination to explain where the first gospel came from.
Agree to disagree. Context dictates what would be produced and why. I would claim educated guesses over imagination, and secular study as opposed to faith.
For me, this is where context comes into play. A hypothesis, one actually does explain this textual evidence in full and in context. No other has yet.
And for me, it takes larger leaps of faith to claim Pauline communities were creating fictional competing sects in Hellenistic Judaism that also found value of some kind in the martyrdom of the crucified man.
Its one thing to claim Mark was a fictional tale only based on Pauline text. But making a decent case for such really has not been done yet even for the most skeptical.
Between me and you, I see these as primitive religious nutters who went at things pretty straight forward, and used the rhetorical artistic freedom to exaggerate heavily, to build authority their theological opinions were god given divinity. I don't think every aspect had a perfectly straight path, but I personally need more evidence before I would posit as many curves are being thrown as some posit.
