What Ludemann was learned on were the writings that related to the name and figure of Paul that appears in or is implied in those writings. He approached those writings and the history of the scholarship addressing them on the assumption that behind that figure of Paul was a historical person who had an existence beyond those writings. Highly reputable and capable scholars have in the past brought similar assumptions to the Genesis patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to Moses, and to David and Solomon and certain prophets whose names appear in the various canonical writings. One by one, despite the enormous learning that has gone into those presumed historical persons of the past, questions have come to erode the confidence of many other scholars that such persons ever existed.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:30 am Though I did not agree with everything scholar Gerd Lüdemann wrote, he was quite learned on, among other subjects, Paul. More learned on Paul than I am, for sure.
It is possible to spend much of one's career studying a historical figure whose historicity a later generation will question.
That does not mean that the scholars who worked on figures whose historicity later came to be questioned were dumb. It only means that they rested their inquiries on unquestioned assumptions about their sources or on beliefs and arguments about their sources that were later found debatable by some of their peers.
Critical questions have long been raised against the historicity of two other figures in particular -- Jesus and Paul -- but whereas Abraham, Moses and Solomon may be allowed to fall, it is surely a bridge too far for a good many to apply similar critical approaches to the foundations of why our entire cultural heritage has been built on myths about the founders of Christianity itself. The scholarship that is called into question is not doubted for its brilliance. All that is questioned are the foundational assumptions upon which it has been built.
The response to those who have asked for justification of the assumptions of historicity has more often been as it has always been -- to personally attack, ridicule, insult and misrepresent those who raise such questions. It happened with those who questioned the historicity of the patriarchs, against all who were branded "minimalists", and is happening again with an extreme vengeance against those who publicly question the assumptions of the scholarship on Jesus and Paul. The whole aim of these attacks is to discredit the character and intelligence of the critics and prejudice others against even bothering to read their arguments.
We can learn a lot from Ludemann's works on Paul about early Christian history. His work is not wasted. Even if we don't agree with his assumptions or all of his conclusions, we can always find insights that, read critically, enlighten us in whatever question we are pursuing.
So let's stop bullying others here, hey? Be nice -- even, or especially, to those we think are not as learned or skilled or educated as we ourselves are. Be humble, just a little bit. Let's pretend (at very least) to be friends imagine having a beer with each other as we discuss.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 4:30 amEarlier this year, he died. Perhaps another reminder to try to use our limited time wisely.
I simply cannot imagine Gerd Ludemann ever talking to mh here with anything other than cordial respect, and certainly never retorting with victimhood complexes whenever his views were questioned.