- no gospels before Paul ---> no reason to invent Paul
- A gospel before Paul ----> a strong reason to invent Paul.
The gospels as a marketing ploy? Yes, the Pauline epistles would most likely have faded away as of no particular value. After all - ideas are two a penny. The Pauline writings might have drawn some interest from the philosophy inclined but of no particular interest to the man on the street. But a story based on tera firma - that can be related to and thus hold it's audience enthralled. Every marketing manager knows the power of a story - whether it's a TV advert designed to sell the latest product - or simply the face of a celebrity promoting a face cream or hair product.rgprice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:00 am
The Gospel stories are really what drew notice -- the Pauline letters just along for the ride. I think if not for the Gospels we never would have known about the Pauline letters. I mean quite honestly the Pauline letters aren't anything special. They are kind of a mess and actually don't do a very good job making any kind of case. I think on their own they are pretty unremarkable.
I don't see any explanation for the present form of chapter 47neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:37 amYou must think there are lots of silly scholars out there who simply don't know the basics of their trade. If we read the sources uncritically, naively, then your remarks carry weight. But for those of us who are more interested in critical approaches to the sources, to investigating the provenance of the sources, the evidence for their integrity, etc, .... that is, all the things historians in other fields routinely do, then no, Clement does not provide the evidence you claim. You will need to present an argument to justify such a claim -- with awareness of the relevant critical scholarship.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:05 pmClement of Rome provides evidence of knowledge of Paul's letters c 100 CE. (I'm not sure whether you accept the traditional dating of this work.)neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 1:35 pm
<SNIP>
I think the strongest reason for beginning with a second century provenance for the letters is Lemche's point about "scientific dating". If they were from the mid-first century we seem to have no evidence of any impact they -- or Paul himself -- made at that time, and hence no obvious reason why the letters were preserved.
Also we have what I consider to be a fact -- that the letters are stylized with intertextuality from the OT. They are not "natural" writings but literary compositions. Example: the author parallels himself with Jeremiah and others, and his emotional rage is an artistic adaptation of a passage from Jeremiah. Is not Paul -- all the different Pauls -- are they not all suddenly found in the second century?
Andrew Criddle
other than knowledge of something like what we know as 1 Corinthians.Take up the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul. What did he write to you at the time when the gospel first began to be preached? Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved. But now reflect who those are that have perverted you, and lessened the renown of your far-famed brotherly love. It is disgraceful, beloved, yea, highly disgraceful, and unworthy of your Christian profession, that such a thing should be heard of as that the most steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two persons, engage in sedition against its presbyters. And this rumour has reached not only us, but those also who are unconnected with us; so that, through your infatuation, the name of the Lord is blasphemed, while danger is also brought upon yourselves.
i think that might be a step too far!Mark is based directly on Paul's letters, with all of Jesus' teachings actually coming from Paul
Sceptical inquiry is not about pushing evidence to vanishing points to suit our agendas, though the term is sometimes used as if that is what is meant by it. If you see evidence in 1 Clement for a broader impact of Paul's activity within the parameters conventional wisdom assigns to it, then that's fine. Not all of us see that datum of testimony in the same way and it could be discussed at length. -- Without assuming anything about the Pauline correspondence that we have in our canon, and thinking through the contents of 1 Clement more generally, especially his references (or lack of them) to Paul, questions and doubts must inevitably surface.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:19 am IIUC you are dubious about the integrity of our present text of 1 Clement. However, I was not claiming that 1 Clement provides conclusive evidence of early knowledge of Paul, my point was that it (and other works) provides enough prima facie evidence of early knowledge of Paul to counter your concern about the lack of early impact. By treating this evidence for early knowledge of Paul sufficiently sceptically one can generate an apparent lack of such impact, but this procedure does not really establish anything.
The documentary pedigree of Christian origins is highly consistent, from the earliest fragments of papyri, to the earliest complete manuscripts, to the present day.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 2:53 amSceptical inquiry is not about pushing evidence to vanishing points to suit our agendas, though the term is sometimes used as if that is what is meant by it. If you see evidence in 1 Clement for a broader impact of Paul's activity within the parameters conventional wisdom assigns to it, then that's fine. Not all of us see that datum of testimony in the same way and it could be discussed at length.andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:19 am IIUC you are dubious about the integrity of our present text of 1 Clement. However, I was not claiming that 1 Clement provides conclusive evidence of early knowledge of Paul, my point was that it (and other works) provides enough prima facie evidence of early knowledge of Paul to counter your concern about the lack of early impact. By treating this evidence for early knowledge of Paul sufficiently sceptically one can generate an apparent lack of such impact, but this procedure does not really establish anything.
Not sure what is meant by "highly consistent" in this context. There are many diverse texts.
The question that comes to mind here is where we find "eyewitness testimony"? Not the Gospel of John, I take it. Luke's prologue sits most discordantly with what follows and introduces us to no eyewitness at all.
This is my favourite question. In order to ask it, we have to assume that the gospels are indeed derived from historical events through some train of transmission, oral or textual. Why assume that? Because the author was wanting readers to believe the historical events he was writing about? But that is simply begging the question. How do we know it is based on historical events? Does not the writing of the narrative itself point us in the direction of other literary sources, especially the Jewish Scriptures?
The problem with that scenario is that it confuses two opposing concepts. One, the Catholic orthodox story is opposed to the notion of Christianity beginning with a "revolutionary Jewish preacher" etc. The orthodox story allows for no doubt: it was not a matter of a few deluded disciples believing in the divinity of Jesus but rather many others along with them, via miracles etc, believing in him.gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:34 amSometimes I ask myself, as a lurker, if we assumed the Catholic orthodox "story" of Christian origins to be true (as in, a real, historical, revolutionary Jewish preacher named Jesus was crucified under Pilate, in 30 CE, with a small, uneducated but dedicated core of disciples convinced of his divinity), what would we expect to find in terms of documentary records 200 years later, or 2100 years later ? Would we expect to find something radically different to what we have ?
Simply that the NT as we know it from physical fragments from 100 CE onwards is highly consistent across the vast majority of texts handed down to the present day. The commentary around those texts is also highly consistent over 2000 years. As mentioned previously, you can point to inconsistencies, holes, etc. We must be impressed by the consistency of the documentary record of the NT, heavily preserved as it is, in many, many languages, from an early date, and then over 2000 years, must we not ?neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 amNot sure what is meant by "highly consistent" in this context. There are many diverse texts.
We find documents which purport to describe the life story of the founder of a new religious movement (opposed to the establishment of the time), and the troubles and tribulations of the communities that received that story and attempted to live by the founder's message. The orthodox explanation is that these stories reached a written form 50-100 years after the events they describe. I don't have the education to determine whether the documents that comprise the NT as we have it today would match what we would expect to find in such a circumstance.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 amThe question that comes to mind here is where we find "eyewitness testimony"? Not the Gospel of John, I take it. Luke's prologue sits most discordantly with what follows and introduces us to no eyewitness at all.
Well that *is/was* the exact assumption of my question, omitted in your quotation. Having said that, should it not be the default assumption, as that is what the documents and their associated commentary, and the 2000 year pedigree of the documentary record purport to show. Is it not ? Should we not start by demonstrating that the historically accepted, default, and orthodox explanation is untenable ?neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 amThis is my favourite question. In order to ask it, we have to assume that the gospels are indeed derived from historical events through some train of transmission, oral or textual. Why assume that? Because the author was wanting readers to believe the historical events he was writing about? But that is simply begging the question. How do we know it is based on historical events? Does not the writing of the narrative itself point us in the direction of other literary sources, especially the Jewish Scriptures?
I find that less relevant. What an institution ultimately decided to make (in theological terms) of that geographically widespread, textually consistent, documentary distribution, is to me, less interesting.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 amThe problem with that scenario is that it confuses two opposing concepts. One, the Catholic orthodox story is opposed to the notion of Christianity beginning with a "revolutionary Jewish preacher" etc. The orthodox story allows for no doubt: it was not a matter of a few deluded disciples believing in the divinity of Jesus but rather many others along with them, via miracles etc, believing in him.gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:34 amSometimes I ask myself, as a lurker, if we assumed the Catholic orthodox "story" of Christian origins to be true (as in, a real, historical, revolutionary Jewish preacher named Jesus was crucified under Pilate, in 30 CE, with a small, uneducated but dedicated core of disciples convinced of his divinity), what would we expect to find in terms of documentary records 200 years later, or 2100 years later ? Would we expect to find something radically different to what we have ?
This argument makes no sense whatsoever, with all due respect.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 am But how are we to imagine a "small, uneducated" band of disciples who dare to go against all that their prevailing religion teaches and believes ever gaining traction and then expansion? We have to imagine super-charismatic persons and miracles, I suggest, to make it work. Once we remove the miraculous from the earliest witnesses the story loses all credibility.