Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Contrary to appearance, a forgery is more under control, against the risk of possible alterations, than a genuine epistle. The forger is absolute master of the his invention.

One has to interpolate all the copies of the genuine epistle that have been sent in the whiletime, if his goal is to interpolate the genuine epistle. Otherwise the risk, for the forger, is the survival of copies of the genuine epistle that have been still not touched by the his alterations.

Therefore, the existence of only a single Pauline Corpus is evidence alone against the authenticity of the epistles.

Authenticity requires multiple different corpus.

Since multiple different corpus don't exist, then the authenticity of the only existing Pauline Corpus is not probable.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 11:01 am Contrary to appearance, a forgery is more under control, against the risk of possible alterations, than a genuine epistle. The forger is absolute master of the his invention.

One has to interpolate all the copies of the genuine epistle that have been sent in the whiletime, if his goal is to interpolate the genuine epistle. Otherwise the risk, for the forger, is the survival of copies of the genuine epistle that have been still not touched by the his alterations.

Therefore, the existence of only a single Pauline Corpus is evidence alone against the authenticity of the epistles.

Authenticity requires multiple different corpus.

Since multiple different corpus don't exist, then the authenticity of the only existing Pauline Corpus is not probable.

That's an interesting one really, Giuseppe.
Naturally I have the 3 very different and sloppy Greek fragments against the one single beautifully consistent Coptic complete text, but what you assert does make great sense: good stories get copied, rewritten, twisted and turned

In theory the Church could only have burnt all the copies that came after the Pauline Corpus that we hold in our hands now, but still

mlinssen wrote, above, in part:
"...Naturally I have the 3 very different and sloppy Greek fragments against the one single beautifully consistent Coptic complete text, but what you assert does make great sense: good stories get copied, rewritten, twisted and turned..."

I wonder how one has determined that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas text is "beautifully consistent" and "complete."

And a related question:
Are there any other ancient text manuscripts that you consider "beautifully consistent" and "complete"?

An important comparison for the Pauline Corpus—in reference to a number of topics and questions—are the epistles of Plato. Do we have a thread about this?

It is a funny coincidence that exactly 13 letters were attributed to both the canonical Paul (if Hebrews doesn’t count) and the great Athenian.

from Wikipedia—

The Epistles (Greek: Ἐπιστολαί; Latin: Epistolae) of Plato are a series of thirteen letters traditionally included in the Platonic corpus. With the exception of the Seventh Letter, they are generally considered to be forgeries, although many scholars even reject the seventh.They were "generally accepted as genuine until modern times"; but by the close of the nineteenth century, many philologists believed that none of the letters were actually written by Plato.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 12:18 pm mlinssen wrote, above, in part:
"...Naturally I have the 3 very different and sloppy Greek fragments against the one single beautifully consistent Coptic complete text, but what you assert does make great sense: good stories get copied, rewritten, twisted and turned..."

I wonder how one has determined that the Coptic Gospel of Thomas text is "beautifully consistent" and "complete."

I reckon you would wonder about that: the Commentary lays it all out. The summary for each logion is in chapters Meaning and Relation to previous logia

A few examples from linguistics are the single use of "say" and "he said", whereas the Greek fragments use 3 different verbs in the first 3 logia alone; the single use of "cast" where the Synoptics use various prefixes with this same verb in the same places; the repetition of logion 5 in logion 6 where the Greek uses entirely different words for the same meaning - and so on

There's a whole lot more than that, but let me know what you think of it

[ETA: you'll benefit from viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10612, I think]

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 1:36 pm An important comparison for the Pauline Corpus—in reference to a number of topics and questions—are the epistles of Plato. Do we have a thread about this?

It is a funny coincidence that exactly 13 letters were attributed to both the canonical Paul (if Hebrews doesn’t count) and the great Athenian.

....................

In terns of attribution Hebrews probably does count. The Muratorian Canon attributes 13 letters to Paul (without Hebrews) in two sections letters to churches and letters to individuals. However most early sources that accept the other 13 seem to accept Hebrews too. (P46 includes Hebrews.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 08, 2023 2:26 am

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 1:36 pm An important comparison for the Pauline Corpus—in reference to a number of topics and questions—are the epistles of Plato. Do we have a thread about this?

It is a funny coincidence that exactly 13 letters were attributed to both the canonical Paul (if Hebrews doesn’t count) and the great Athenian.

....................

In terns of attribution Hebrews probably does count. The Muratorian Canon attributes 13 letters to Paul (without Hebrews) in two sections letters to churches and letters to individuals. However most early sources that accept the other 13 seem to accept Hebrews too. (P46 includes Hebrews.)

Andrew Criddle

Only in the Church’s reception of Hebrews was this text attributed—or not attributed—to Paul.

The editors and scribes of the NT collection did no such thing. They left the question hanging in the air, without a mention of the name “Paul” in the title or text. The beginning is not even formally a “letter.” Then, with great perversity, they attach epistolary Pauline verbiage in the final verses. At any rate, the only basis for an attribution to Paul is the text’s physical placement among the 13 explicitly Pauline letters.

The “coincidence” of there being 13 letters, the same number as in the Platonic collection of epistles, is as speculative as any coincidence. But the possibility remains that the scribes who compiled and edited the letters of Paul—whether as historical documents inherited, or as free products of the imagination—might have intended there to be exactly 13. The 14th, as Hebrews, might have been a canonical afterthought.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 1:36 pm An important comparison for the Pauline Corpus—in reference to a number of topics and questions—are the epistles of Plato. Do we have a thread about this?

Not that I can remember. It'd be worthwhile IMO.

I'd be especially interested in tracing the mentions of the Platonic letters through the timeframes of "early and late Christian origins", That is --- how well was the Platonic collection known, mentioned and circulated as the centuries came and went between 1 and 4 ? (Everything is done and dusted by the 5th)

It is a funny coincidence that exactly 13 letters were attributed to both the canonical Paul (if Hebrews doesn’t count) and the great Athenian.

from Wikipedia—

The Epistles (Greek: Ἐπιστολαί; Latin: Epistolae) of Plato are a series of thirteen letters traditionally included in the Platonic corpus. With the exception of the Seventh Letter, they are generally considered to be forgeries, although many scholars even reject the seventh.They were "generally accepted as genuine until modern times"; but by the close of the nineteenth century, many philologists believed that none of the letters were actually written by Plato.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Apr 06, 2023 11:01 am Contrary to appearance, a forgery is more under control, against the risk of possible alterations, than a genuine epistle. The forger is absolute master of the his invention.

One has to interpolate all the copies of the genuine epistle that have been sent in the whiletime, if his goal is to interpolate the genuine epistle. Otherwise the risk, for the forger, is the survival of copies of the genuine epistle that have been still not touched by the his alterations.

Therefore, the existence of only a single Pauline Corpus is evidence alone against the authenticity of the epistles.

Authenticity requires multiple different corpus.

Since multiple different corpus don't exist, then the authenticity of the only existing Pauline Corpus is not probable.

This does appear to be a logical argument. Interpolated letters imply multiple versions as distinct from the outright forgery of the letters which gives rise to a standard set. But then there may arise the issue of pious monks interpolating the forged letters.

How does the known forged letter exchange between Paul and Seneca fit into this pattern?