Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

harrytuttle wrote:Well, if you don't accept Luke/Acts borrowing from Josephus maybe it's not even the same evidence, the same puzzle or the same picture.

All the evidence in context points to a martyred Galilean at Passover, who took over Johns movement, who's actions in the temple before crucifixion were perceived as selfless and this generated mythology and theology FOUND valuable in Hellenistic circles that LONG wanted to divorce cultural Judaism.


NO OTHER hypothesis exist that is not laughable.

AND this one makes complete 100% sense with no mental hurdles to jump, what so ever. It is inline 100% anthropologically speaking as well as reasonable and probable.



To deviate from this hypothesis you have to throw out Jon the Baptist and Pauls historicity, and after you do that, there is nothing credible left to study

Secret Alias wrote: Would all Christians have embraced the story? No only the ones embracing and promoting falsified texts. The honest ones would either deny Ezra wrote the Torah or denied the Torah.

).

Thee was no orthodoxy in his time only popular text, so all Christians is non sequitur.

Who says what was false text? There was so much diversity and different beliefs, and different text floating around with multiple traditions of all kinds. This was the wild west.


There is no such thing as honest one either

harrytuttle wrote: And how did Acts end up in our canon?

Popularity.

Same author as Luke, and same theology that matched the most popular text of hat time period which lasted for hundreds of years. Now thousands.

and we know he did just that (corrupt scripture), and we know down to sentences and words he redacted because everybody and their brother complained about his text.

I know I will regret arguing but HOW do we know this? Did you learn this in one of your apologetic classes? What's the difference between Irenaeus writing that Marcion corrupted scriptures and we preserve that accusation and me saying you're a fucking idiot? Does the fact that one person says X mean that X is true?

to harrytuttle,

Why would Marcion keep all the stuff about Lucifer and cut out 2 Cor 11:16-12:6, including the entirely unobjectionable struggle of Paul?

(bolding mine)
How do you know that?

For example: are the pastorals and Acts big forgeries contra Marcion and pro apostolic succession?

NO. Prove why you claim.

I just stumbled again over 2 Cor 11:25-27. Surely Luke used it for Acts 27:27-28:5, right?

Because "shiwreck(s)" is/are mentioned in the two passages? Do you really think that's a proof of what you claim? I don't think so.

On the other hand it makes perfect sense for 2 Cor 12:7 to follow from 2 Cor 11:15, they are even surrounded by two parallel reference to Satan, there's no more that conflicting "boasting/no boasting" and "fool/no fool" that makes it almost unreadable.

Just because of the two mentions of Satan, that does not mean the text in between had to be interpolated.
I do not think the three mentions of boasting and fool/no fool makes the text "almost unreadable". Actually, that passage is very readable, better than most other Pauline passages.

Who is that guy he met from 14 years before?

Allegedly the Lord in heaven.

It reminds of the 14 years in Galatians 1. Is this an oblique reference to the Apocalypse of Peter? It may have been a recently published and extremely popular text at the time of Marcion, how did it end up in the Muratorian fragment if it was so late?

(bolding mine)
Why do you mean by that?

And how did Acts end up in our canon?

Because of Irenaeus.

Cordially, Bernard

Popularity.

What is the evidence that Acts was popular? This is silly. Why couldn't Acts have been placed in a public library or many popular libraries and came to define Christianity that way - in the same way that Kim Kardashian is 'popular.' Did the celebrity of the Kardashians precede or come after their manipulation of social media?

And how did Acts end up in our canon?

Because of Irenaeus.

Bernard and I agree on something. I'll be darned.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Michael BG wrote:I disagree. It is quite legitimate to state which parts of someone else’s case you find unconvincing. This does not oblige me to state an alternative case to try to convince them their case is wrong. I might be happy just to disagree. It might be that there are no convincing alternative cases.

Indeed.

But in the context of thread, nobody advanced the appeal to 1 Cor 9:5 as part of a "case" for anything (except Bernard, apparently). Certainly not your interlocutors.

It's apparently a ghost argument. Nobody's making it. So why are we talking about it at all?

Well, it goes back to this utterance:

Michael BG wrote:Can you present a case to try to convince me that 1 Cor 9:5 is an interpolation or do you not see this a reference to a human Jesus?

Let's say we accept the pretense that you are simply asking a question, ignoring all the wrangling you've engaged in here.

Then the answer to the first part is "no," I cannot. It's not even an idea that seems to be floated much.

The answer to the second part is "yes," that I do not see this as as a reference in the way that you describe.

If this is simply a plain question, there's no need to talk about it further.

1 Cor 9:5 isn't an argument for anything until someone accepts the responsibility of making it an argument for something. Without that, it's nothing.

I accept that I raised (13 Sept.) “James the brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19) and “the brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor 9:5) in relation to you raising the issue of interpolations in Paul’s epistles. Others joined in discussing these texts.

Posted 14 Sept (as can be seen my question was in response to a comment by MrMacson):

Michael BG wrote:

MrMacSon wrote:I think all references to Jesus in the Pauline texts stand a reasonable chance of being later redactions (to align them with the Synoptics as the Canon was being put together)

Can you present a case to try to convince me that 1 Cor 9:5 is an interpolation or do you not see this a reference to a human Jesus?

Later (16 Sept) Giuseppe supported the idea that 1 Cor 9:5 is an interpolation.

You re-entered with some evidence why “brothers of the Lord” could be seen as Christian brothers and I gave my reasons for not being convinced and then you declared it was my responsibility to provide a case for the historicity of Jesus.

So you are wrong, there was a context for my question regarding 1 Cor 9:5. It doesn't have to be part of some larger debate that you want to force on others.

You really need to come to terms that questions can be asked just to discover something. OK I receive the answers with scepticism and I will test the answers against my own current position. But it is my journey, why do you want to get in the way?

This is especially strange when you then write that you agree with my current position that 1 Cor 9:5 isn’t an interpolation. Then you state no one raised it, but that is not true even in this thread.

It is a long time since I wanted to prove anything regarding Christianity. I don’t wish to attempt to prove anything regarding the Christian texts or regarding the historicity of Jesus. I don’t want to prove anything regarding the letters of Paul. My desire is to discover what I think is LIKELY. Along the way I will question and test positions I don’t agree with, and hopefully increase others thinking about how likely their position is. From time to time my positions will change. It was only a few years ago that I decided it was likely that 1 Cor 15:3-11 is an interpolation.

Peter Kirby wrote: It has been my own work on the details of these problems -- starting with Josephus, proceeding through the Marcionite shorter readings that you and Michael dismiss with nary a moment's hesitation, and including a recent consideration of the text of the Ascension of Isaiah ...

I hope I never dismiss someone’s work without a moment’s hesitation. Maybe when you think I am doing this, all I am really saying is I haven’t seen the work and so am not convinced.

I find the idea that anyone here has to prove anything strange. Somewhere there might be a truth in these documents, but it is for each individual if they want to study them to make up their own minds regarding what they think is likely. We have moved along way from all having to accept one thing as “the Truth”.

If someone thinks that there is nothing in the gospels or the letters of Paul about someone called Jesus then they should make the case, but don’t expect you can prove it. That is too high an expectation.

outhouse wrote:this one makes complete 100% sense with no mental hurdles to jump, what so ever.

Great, so whatever question i ask or whatever point i raise you are always going to ignore them and reply that your theory is bulletproof and there is no possible alternative. I'll keep that in mind.

outhouse wrote:To deviate from this hypothesis you have to throw out Jon the Baptist and Pauls historicity, and after you do that, there is nothing credible left to study

Nonsense, i have no problems with a very real Paul, i just admit that our text is the product of the theological wars going on in the second century.

Secret Alias wrote: Did you learn this in one of your apologetic classes?

Save the personal insults for someone it might effect, it belittles your vast knowledge of church fathers.


I have never had any apologetic lectures or classes ever.