Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,

You've established that Paul was selling a product that was essentially different from what the Jewish proselytizers were. That means he had to show the public why they should buy his and not theirs (while he still used theirs). However, your efforts to extract a primitive cult—as you purport with the "Nazarenes"—from the gospels is doomed to unknowingness, given that Paul is by far our earliest Jesus-promoting writer and the gospels show signs of being written after the Jewish war (Mk assuming it and the synoptics are based on Mk).

That's not the case, for the Nazarenes,

Blathering about Nazarenes will not help you. You only know them from a statement in Acts, which, if Tyson and Pervo are correct, was written well into the 2nd century. Besides Acts talks of Nazoreans, not Nazarenes.

Bernard Muller wrote:where I use all kind of evidence from other texts than the Pauline Epistles: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html as also a very noticeable silence from Paul.
Yes, the gospels were written after the events of 70, but if gMark was written in the winter of 70-71 http://historical-jesus.info/41.html, that would not prevent "Mark" and his community to have heard, from at least one disciple, stories about Jesus less than 19 years before.

This is a species of literary necromancy and of little probative value. We know that Paul was writing several decades before the earliest gospels we have. I don't believe you can do the sort of gematria you are attempting with any seriousness.

Bernard Muller wrote:

There are no eye witness accounts. If eye witness material has been incorporated in the gospels you have no way of distinguishing them from other tradition materials they contain. That means that any possible eye witness reports—if there were any—have been transformed into tradition materials.

Can you prove there are no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark,

I already did. Had you asked "Can you prove there [were] no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark", that would be a little more difficult. You would merely be in a position of never knowing. But, to repeat, we can be sure that there is no eye witness material, because if there were any originally it would have been absorbed into the matrix of tradition development without means of detecting it, so it becomes lost, ie it is no more.

Bernard Muller wrote:once you remove the obvious embellishments and fiction?

The sad problem is that "obvious embellishments and fiction" are not necessarily the only classes of non-real information in the texts. Just as a simple exercise, take the work known as Petronius's Satyricon and remove the "obvious embellishments and fiction" and what do you have left? A narrative about a young man's experiences while traveling around southern Italy. Your arbitrary means for arriving at good narrative is useless. Read the following evidenceless musing and see what I mean:

Bernard Muller wrote:Actually, when it is done, the story of a rural uneducated Jew who become believed by some as king of the Jews during his lifetime http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html, even if that looks far-fetched, makes a lot of sense, and that story is helped greatly by the immediate religious and historical context. And that can be determined by just looking at a few elements from gMark.

Paul is not presenting his gospel in any of his letters. He merely alludes to it in passing and, while I accept the possibility of his gospel having evolved, one cannot assume through silence that his gospel was limited by that silence. If we go back to the claim of abolishing the law, there is no connection between Christ's death and the abolition of the law. There is a connection between the death and the law, if Christ's death was under the law. Christ's death, Christ's blood, Christ's sacrifice are all facets of presentation of a single idea, and not just his sales pitch.

"I accept the possibility of his gospel having evolve" => Good, that's encouraging.
Well, I am not a theologian. I am just looking at Paul's earliest epistles and I do not see that kind of things.

It seems to me that you have invented a personal notion of "earliest epistles". Status quo pundits think 1Thes was writen circa 50 and Gal circa 53. Although I don't put much credence in all these tendentious datings, you for some reason call Gal late.

Worse still is that you expect stuff (about crucifixion) from a pastoral letter that you have no grounds for expecting, but we'll come to this.

Bernard Muller wrote:But these notions may apply to his latest epistles, such as Galatians and Romans.

You will have concocted a web of assertions that comfors you into thinking this, but it seems as well founded as your nonsense about Nazarenes.

Bernard Muller wrote:However I do not remember where it is written Christ's death was under the law.

It's a consequence of being born under the law.

Besides, how can someone be a suitable scapegoat—and take away sin—if they do not fill the necessary criteria (born under the law, born of a Jewish woman, retain ritual purity)? To free those under the law through sacrifice, you have to be liable to the same law. Otherwise how can the scapegoat make the payment to save or redeem those who fall foul of the law?

Bernard Muller wrote:Also, earlier than these two last epistles, in 1 Cor 9:8-9, the Law is mentioned by Paul in good terms.

So you might understand the problem with your earlier notion of abolishing it.

Bernard Muller wrote:And in 1 Cor 9:20, Paul is not bothered being under the Law when dealing with other Jews.

Paul fullfills his Jewish obligations although he—through the death of Jesus—has been freed from the law.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Christ was born under the law. Why is that significant? It puts him in a relationship with the law, so he too is accountable to the law. (I wave away your assertion that this is later Pauline thought, as you have no meaningful way to support the claim, not the sin of omission.) Why do people need to be redeemed? Under the law the result of sin is death: death is the payment for sin and in Judaism the means of redeeming is through an unblemished sacrifice (which is problematic with the fall of the temple). What was the mechanism of that redemption in Paul's theology? Christ's death, Christ's blood, Christ's sacrifice.

I did not think I would get some preaching from you, spin.

That's ok, my son.

Bernard Muller wrote:I agree these notions can be extrapolated from his later epistles, but not his first ones.

The allusions to Paul's gospel found scattered across his letters is reasonably coherent. He offers a way to justification through the death of Christ and salvation through his resurrection, for if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:7). Christ's death under the law and his subsequent resurrection is the core to Paul's salvation theology. Paul again (Rom 8:3)

You are always quoting these later epistles, more so Galatians and Romans. And in 1 Cor 15:7, Paul based his argumentation not on Jesus' death & sacrifice, but his alleged resurrection.

You keep on with this unsupportable stuff about early and late concerning Gal. Assuming standard chronologies for the moment, we see over several years Paul's theology seems relatively consistent, from at least Gal to 1 Cor and on to Romans. Though you won't admit it, you rely on silence from 1 Thes.

(By the way, I can see that you didn't check my quotes. 1 Cor 15:7 was a typo: my shitty keyboard didn't register the "1" before the "7". It should have been 1 Cor 15:17, but hey, it didn't matter!)

Bernard Muller wrote:

The longer Pauline works seem to contain—irregularly scattered through them—a consistent theology. You cannot expect short works to contain casual explanations of facets of his theology. These works are all ostensibly dealing with pastoral issues of his communities, so they are not focused on his theology, but their problems

Yes, but in the shorter earliest epistles, Paul is not able to explain "Christ crucified" and the meaning of the cross,

This is totally silly. Paul doesn't even talk about the cross or crucifixion in 1 Thes. What other so-called early letters do you have in mind where he discusses the topic?

Bernard Muller wrote:and that in most of four chapters (1 Cor 1-4). He said that's according to God's hidden wisdom and appealed to the Spirit in order to explain them.

That he doesn't go into the issue when you want him to is nothing to do with Paul. Just you.

He clearly asks "was Paul crucified for you?" 1 Cor 1:13, implying that Jewsus was crucified for them. That is consonant with his theology. What was the power of the cross (1 Cor 1:17)? The theology you won't accept explains the phrase.

Bernard Muller wrote:He claimed he is the steward of God's mysteries, but never reveal these mysteries. But he also said his gospel is like a seed, needing later Apollos and God himself (probably through his Spirit) for growing, basement-like and even welcoming the "good" additions to it (which I think the author of Hebrews did).

This is all just you projcting onto Paul what you think you would have written given your presuppositions. There is nothing probative in it.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Once again lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Actually, the evidence for Paul about not able to explain the meaning of the cross and "Christ crucified" in most of four chapters is not a lack of evidence. It is fully documented at length.

This has all been a demonstration that you have no evidence and that you try to convert that lack of evidence into evidence of lack by pretending you know what Paul should have said in his "earlier letters".

to Ben,

Bernard, your position appears to require (A) that Paul did not know why Jesus had to die "for" believers and (B) that his converts did not ask him why (at least not until his later letters were penned). I find these requirements to be virtually impossible from a psychological point of view; your position will never tempt me so long as they remain intact; they would constitute a dealbreaker for me even if it were pressed in support of my favorite pet theory. Is there any argument you might be able to present to help overcome this hurdle?

First, I do not think you are right about the psychological point of view. If the Thessalonians, when Paul was with them, believed him about avoiding God wrath and being appointed by Jesus' salvation "For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Th 5:9) and being called in (soon to come) God's Kingdom at the Lord's coming (1 Th 3: 13, 2:12), all of that for as little as turning to God from idols and then be good (1 Th 1:9, 4:7,11), I do not see why they would ask questions about why "Jesus died for us".
Actually, these ideas, as shown in the aforementioned verses, may have offered an answer to why "Jesus died for us" for the Thessalonians at the time of Paul's visit: that's to have the converts of Paul to be appointed by God in order to avoid his wrath to come, because they rejected the idols for God and then were "good".
Here, no need for atonement of the sins they committed prior to their conversion.

And obviously, the Thessalonians did not ask questions if their dead would be called to the Kingdom. And Paul probably never told them about the possibility some of his converts would die before. Paul was not telling things he will "know" and acknowledge later, but just the minimum, as he admitted in 1 Cor 1-4.
It certainly does not look that, when Paul was with the Thessalonians, he was asked about that and he answered.

And they did not ask questions then about when exactly that Coming & Kingdom would come, because they did that well after Paul left Thessalonica (1 Th 4:13). It seems to me these Thessalonians were led to believe the Coming will happen very soon and they went along with that without further inquiries.
Essentially, Paul was saying as little as possible in order to make converts, as again transpiring from 1 Cor 1-4.
And one reason for the conversion of some Thessalonians is that Paul & helpers displayed a holy behavior (1 Th 2:9-10).

Now I want to show that Paul did not answer alleged important questions, or divulge some mystery of God, when he was with the Corinthians, even if later he pretended to be a steward to these mysteries (1 Cor 4:1) .

1) I think I said enough about Paul being very evasive about the meaning of the cross and "Christ crucified" in 1 Cor 1-4, even if that seems to require urgent explanations. Actually, he never gave a true answer. And he admitted his message was about Christ and him crucified when earlier he was in Corinth (1 Cor 2:2). Certainly it looks Paul did not provide an explanation then and was never asked to.

2) At 1 Cor 7:1 "Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.", it is clear Paul never was asked this question (which is rather important for day to day life of married couples) while he was in Corinth (for 1.5 year according to Acts). And Paul took great pain into offering a lengthy answer (7:2-40), obviously which was not known before.
So questions could not be asked on matter of importance.

3) At 1 Cor 15:35-36a, Paul wrote: "But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" You foolish man! ...". That's probably what Paul heard from some Corinthians. And then he spent a lot of verses to answer that through seed & plant, then moon & sun and finally Adam & Jesus. But all of that is not much convincing, more so as presented as just Paul's thinking.
It seems to me Paul realized that because at 15:50a he wrote: "I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, ...", which is one of his rare statements which are very direct.
And then, for good measure, he revealed a mystery (to be understood as a revelation from God (1 Cor 4:1)) in order to close his argumentation with authority, something that the Corinthians never heard before, as for dead & alive getting a spiritual body going to heaven.
Once again, it looks that Paul was never asked about that and also, he never volunteered a statement about these future spiritual bodies, when he was in Corinth.

That's it.

About evolution of Paul's theology:
1 Cor 6:2-3 "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!"
But later, likely realizing his converts were not saints, still sinners, and therefore unfit to judge the world and angels, Paul replaced his converts by Christ (2 Cor 5:10) and then God (Ro 2:2-3,5, 3:4-6, 14:10).

Cordially, Bernard

to spin,

Blathering about Nazarenes will not help you. You only know them from a statement in Acts, which, if Tyson and Pervo are correct, was written well into the 2nd century. Besides Acts talks of Nazoreans, not Nazarenes.

It is not blathering. It is from evidence and clues: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
I know that Nazarenes might not be the most appropriate term to call the Galilean eyewitnesses of Jesus in the Church of Jerusalem. That's why I put it between apostrophes. And the word is convenient rather than a long description. But Nazoreans might apply to others than members of Jesus' groups, such as the earliest Mandeans.

This is a species of literary necromancy and of little probative value. We know that Paul was writing several decades before the earliest gospels we have. I don't believe you can do the sort of gematria you are attempting with any seriousness.

"little probative value"? that's encouraging from you. That's a start anyway.
Paul wrote his epistles between 53 and 57 (except for 1 Thessalonians written earlier). That's not several decades before gMark.
I do not know why you use the word "gematria" in this context.

I already did. Had you asked "Can you prove there [were] no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark", that would be a little more difficult. You would merely be in a position of never knowing. But, to repeat, we can be sure that there is no eye witness material, because if there were any originally it would have been absorbed into the matrix of tradition development without means of detecting it, so it becomes lost, ie it is no more.

"I already did": where did you do that?
"Had you asked "Can you prove there [were] no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark", that would be a little more difficult"". You said it: difficult.
"But, to repeat, we can be sure that there is no eye witness material, because if there were any originally it would have been absorbed into the matrix of tradition development without means of detecting it, so it becomes lost, ie it is no more."
I do not have a clue about what you are saying here.

The sad problem is that "obvious embellishments and fiction" are not necessarily the only classes of non-real information in the texts. Just as a simple exercise, take the work known as Petronius's Satyricon and remove the "obvious embellishments and fiction" and what do you have left? A narrative about a young man's experiences while traveling around southern Italy. Your arbitrary means for arriving at good narrative is useless.

I removed a lot beyond "obvious embellishments and fiction", such as itinerant preacher, teacher, parables, the trials, etc. Things which are normally accepted by non-Christians. Actually, in my website, I spent a lot of efforts at removing most of what I found in the gospels (with good reasons, and according to the parameters found in Paul's epistles). What was left are only a few elements from gMark. But that's enough to have a comprehensive understanding on how an uneducated Galilean unwittingly started Christianity.
Many works of fiction contain true elements in order to make their whole story more palpable. I do not see why it is not the case about gMark, especially, when I see many items which go against what the author was trying to assert: http://historical-jesus.info/28.html

It seems to me that you have invented a personal notion of "earliest epistles". Status quo pundits think 1Thes was writen circa 50 and Gal circa 53. Although I don't put much credence in all these tendentious datings, you for some reason call Gal late.

No, I did not invent a personal notion of earliest epistles. I followed the evidence, mostly from the same epistles and supplemented at times from Acts. And a good part of my website is about that, starting by http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html.
I agree about what your pundits says about 1 Thessalonians but disagree (as other pundits do) about the dating of Galatians, which I put at late 56, according to my study here http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3xx.html and a few months before the writing of Romans.

Cordially, Bernard

to spin,

You will have concocted a web of assertions that comfors you into thinking this, but it seems as well founded as your nonsense about Nazarenes.

No, that what I found after I analysed the texts. I did not conform any assertions to make it fit my thinking. What nonsense about the Nazarenes? Do you think they were the first Christians or proto-Christians?

Besides, how can someone be a suitable scapegoat—and take away sin—if they do not fill the necessary criteria (born under the law, born of a Jewish woman, retain ritual purity)? To free those under the law through sacrifice, you have to be liable to the same law. Otherwise how can the scapegoat make the payment to save or redeem those who fall foul of the law?

Where in the gospels or the epistles Jesus is considered a scapegoat? Nowhere. Aren't you concocting an assertion?
For your theme, I think it is argued by Paul in Galatians, but that came late.

So you might understand the problem with your earlier notion of abolishing it.

But 1 Cor 9:8-9 (same for 1 Cor 9:20) is in one of the three first epistles (http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html) and represents the view of Paul before he changed his mind about the Law, as seen in Galatians & Romans.

You keep on with this unsupportable stuff about early and late concerning Gal. Assuming standard chronologies for the moment, we see over several years Paul's theology seems relatively consistent, from at least Gal to 1 Cor and on to Romans. Though you won't admit it, you rely on silence from 1 Thes.

But I did support all that stuff about the dating of the epistles of Paul and the fact that each of our two "canonical" Corinthians letters is a combination of three original letters: http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html, plus interpolations.
I relied from silence also from 1a Cor and 1b Cor., plus some non-silence and the fact Paul is seen here unable to answer important concerns.
I did not check your 1 Cor 15:7 because I knew the quote you gave for that verse was in Corinthians 15. No need to check the validity of your reference.

This is totally silly. Paul doesn't even talk about the cross or crucifixion in 1 Thes. What other so-called early letters do you have in mind where he discusses the topic?

Here I was referring only to 1 Cor 1-4 about the cross and Christ crucified. What other early letters? As I wrote to Ben on that thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2717&start=40#p60756 I consider 1 Thessalonians and 1a Corinthians (1:10-4:21) and 1b Corinthians (9:1-27) as early.

That he doesn't go into the issue when you want him to is nothing to do with Paul. Just you.

He clearly asks "was Paul crucified for you?" 1 Cor 1:13, implying that Jesus was crucified for them. That is consonant with his theology. What was the power of the cross (1 Cor 1:17)? The theology you won't accept explains the phrase.

He did go into the issue for most of four chapters but he was evasive and did not provided any comprehensive answer.
"Jesus was crucified for them": that's no news because in 1 Thessalonians we have the same about "Jesus Christ ... died for us". But that still does not explain why the crucifixion is salvation for others, and certainly does not say it is for atonement of sins.
So what is the power of the cross? What about "Christ crucified"? Any 'Christ' is not supposed to be executed as a criminal. "Christ crucified" was revulsing to most Jews and Gentiles alike as a non-sense. But Paul put that as a mystery from God's hidden wisdom with no other badly needed explanations.
Consonant with his theology? Maybe, but that theology only appears in Paul's last letters.

This is all just you projecting onto Paul what you think you would have written given your presuppositions. There is nothing probative in it

I just mentioned facts, as shown in 1 Corinthians 1-4.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to spin,

Blathering about Nazarenes will not help you. You only know them from a statement in Acts, which, if Tyson and Pervo are correct, was written well into the 2nd century. Besides Acts talks of Nazoreans, not Nazarenes.

It is not blathering. It is from evidence and clues: http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
I know that Nazarenes might not be the most appropriate term to call the Galilean eyewitnesses of Jesus in the Church of Jerusalem. That's why I put it between apostrophes. And the word is convenient rather than a long description. But Nazoreans might apply to others than members of Jesus' groups, such as the earliest Mandeans.

OK, no content.

Bernard Muller wrote:

This is a species of literary necromancy and of little probative value. We know that Paul was writing several decades before the earliest gospels we have. I don't believe you can do the sort of gematria you are attempting with any seriousness.

"little probative value"? that's encouraging from you. That's a start anyway.
Paul wrote his epistles between 53 and 57 (except for 1 Thessalonians written earlier). That's not several decades before gMark.
I do not know why you use the word "gematria" in this context.

So the "earliest letters" becomes the brief 1 Thes.

Gematria is a type of divination by numbers, which seems to me what you're doing plucking these dates and calculations from somewhere.

Bernard Muller wrote:

I already did. Had you asked "Can you prove there [were] no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark", that would be a little more difficult. You would merely be in a position of never knowing. But, to repeat, we can be sure that there is no eye witness material, because if there were any originally it would have been absorbed into the matrix of tradition development without means of detecting it, so it becomes lost, ie it is no more.

"I already did": where did you do that?

What you'd quoted and the repetition....

Bernard Muller wrote:"Had you asked "Can you prove there [were] no eyewitness(es)' account in gMark", that would be a little more difficult"". You said it: difficult.
"But, to repeat, we can be sure that there is no eye witness material, because if there were any originally it would have been absorbed into the matrix of tradition development without means of detecting it, so it becomes lost, ie it is no more."
I do not have a clue about what you are saying here.

I'm you can understand "we can be sure that there is no eye witness material" and "if there were any originally".

The "matrix of tradition development" includes "obvious embellishments and fiction" and all the other other means of tradition development included in the evolving gospels. Any possible eye witness material ends up incorporated in that collection of developing tradition. The possibility of distnguishing eye witness material is like peering into a communal piss-bucket and deciding who pissed what. Any possible eye witness material is lost and gone. There are no eye witness materials.

Bernard Muller wrote:

The sad problem is that "obvious embellishments and fiction" are not necessarily the only classes of non-real information in the texts. Just as a simple exercise, take the work known as Petronius's Satyricon and remove the "obvious embellishments and fiction" and what do you have left? A narrative about a young man's experiences while traveling around southern Italy. Your arbitrary means for arriving at good narrative is useless.

I removed a lot beyond "obvious embellishments and fiction", such as itinerant preacher, teacher, parables, the trials, etc. Things which are normally accepted by non-Christians. Actually, in my website, I spent a lot of efforts at removing most of what I found in the gospels (with good reasons, and according to the parameters found in Paul's epistles). What was left are only a few elements from gMark. But that's enough to have a comprehensive understanding on how an uneducated Galilean unwittingly started Christianity.
Many works of fiction contain true elements in order to make their whole story more palpable. I do not see why it is not the case about gMark, especially, when I see many items which go against what the author was trying to assert: http://historical-jesus.info/28.html

Arbitrary criteria for extracting genuine apostolic piss from the average run of the mill piss is you playing games.

You did not deal with what you can tell me about the Satyricon once you've applied your arbitrary criteria to it. Thrill the forum with a bit of work rather than the usual referals to the ideosyncratic machinations of your past errors.

Bernard Muller wrote:

It seems to me that you have invented a personal notion of "earliest epistles". Status quo pundits think 1Thes was writen circa 50 and Gal circa 53. Although I don't put much credence in all these tendentious datings, you for some reason call Gal late.

No, I did not invent a personal notion of earliest epistles. I followed the evidence,

(Such assertions do inspire amusement.)

Bernard Muller wrote:mostly from the same epistles and supplemented at times from Acts. And a good part of my website is about that, starting by http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html.
I agree about what your pundits says about 1 Thessalonians but disagree (as other pundits do) about the dating of Galatians, which I put at late 56, according to my study here http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3xx.html and a few months before the writing of Romans.

So you accept the pundits most of the time, except when your arbitrarily literal readings of texts tell you not to. Fine, that's convincing, isn't it?

Bernard Muller wrote:What nonsense about the Nazarenes? Do you think they were the first Christians or proto-Christians?

Your Acts source for Nazoreans was merely doing what you are: weaving a story out of shadows of earlier traditions, with apparently no way to confirm anything.

Bernard Muller wrote:

Besides, how can someone be a suitable scapegoat—and take away sin—if they do not fill the necessary criteria (born under the law, born of a Jewish woman, retain ritual purity)? To free those under the law through sacrifice, you have to be liable to the same law. Otherwise how can the scapegoat make the payment to save or redeem those who fall foul of the law?

Where in the gospels or the epistles Jesus is considered a scapegoat? Nowhere. Aren't you concocting an assertion?
For your theme, I think it is argued by Paul in Galatians, but that came late.

Cut the arbitrary piffle about early and late. Using Acts to date Paul is like using Gladiator to clarify Commodus.

And my, the slavish literalness is puzzling for someone who has bravely stepped out of the furrow and redated Galatians!

Clues for the scapegoat image, yes some are from Galatians (eg 3:10-13 again). Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law in the context of his dying to do so. "Was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Cor 1:12).

Bernard Muller wrote:

So you might understand the problem with your earlier notion of abolishing it.

But 1 Cor 9:8-9 (same for 1 Cor 9:20) is in one of the three first epistles (http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html) and represents the view of Paul before he changed his mind about the Law, as seen in Galatians & Romans.

Insisting on your ideosyncratic dating is not a convincing approach when it appears arbitrary to your interlocutors.

Bernard Muller wrote:

You keep on with this unsupportable stuff about early and late concerning Gal. Assuming standard chronologies for the moment, we see over several years Paul's theology seems relatively consistent, from at least Gal to 1 Cor and on to Romans. Though you won't admit it, you rely on silence from 1 Thes.

But I did support all that stuff about the dating of the epistles of Paul and the fact that each of our two "canonical" Corinthians letters is a combination of three original letters: http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html, plus interpolations.
I relied from silence also from 1a Cor and 1b Cor., plus some non-silence and the fact Paul is seen here unable to answer important concerns.

Silence, the "fact" that you think Paul couldn't answer concerns when he was dealing with other issues. I bet your dog is convinced!

Bernard Muller wrote:

This is totally silly. Paul doesn't even talk about the cross or crucifixion in 1 Thes. What other so-called early letters do you have in mind where he discusses the topic?

Here I was referring only to 1 Cor 1-4 about the cross and Christ crucified.

I think you are wrong in your assertions about 1 Cor 1-4. Both your and my assertions have the merit of being enunciated.

Bernard Muller wrote:What other early letters? As I wrote to Ben on that thread viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2717&start=40#p60756 I consider 1 Thessalonians and 1a Corinthians (1:10-4:21) and 1b Corinthians (9:1-27) as early.

Gematria.

Bernard Muller wrote:

That he doesn't go into the issue when you want him to is nothing to do with Paul. Just you.

He clearly asks "was Paul crucified for you?" 1 Cor 1:13, implying that Jesus was crucified for them. That is consonant with his theology. What was the power of the cross (1 Cor 1:17)? The theology you won't accept explains the phrase.

He did go into the issue for most of four chapters but he was evasive and did not provided any comprehensive answer.

He talked about divisiveness, the wisdom of god, a brief reminder of his initial proclamation, then back to god's wisdom, then back to divisiveness, and, to finish off the divisiveness discussion, an analysis of apostleship. You want him to talk about something he is not focused on.

Bernard Muller wrote:"Jesus was crucified for them": that's no news because in 1 Thessalonians we have the same about "Jesus Christ ... died for us". But that still does not explain why the crucifixion is salvation for others, and certainly does not say it is for atonement of sins.

Gosh, silence.

Bernard Muller wrote:So what is the power of the cross? What about "Christ crucified"?

How can I answer when you assert we can't play with the full deck??

Bernard Muller wrote:Any 'Christ' is not supposed to be executed as a criminal.

Umm, Paul's christ was crucified. Why don't you ask him about it?

Bernard Muller wrote:"Christ crucified" was revulsing to most Jews and Gentiles alike as a non-sense. But Paul put that as a mystery from God's hidden wisdom with no other badly needed explanations.

So Paul cannot decide what he says. He has to get your permission.

Bernard Muller wrote:Consonant with his theology? Maybe, but that theology only appears in Paul's last letters.

This is all just you projecting onto Paul what you think you would have written given your presuppositions. There is nothing probative in it

I just mentioned facts, as shown in 1 Corinthians 1-4.

You have injected your desires into 1 Cor 1-4 and shown you haven't taken notice of what Paul was doing. You don't get to whinge about not getting french fries when Paul's doing the cooking: you take what you get. He's following his own menu, not yours.

The lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

We can see how this exchange is developing. I can't see it getting further.

to spin,

So the "earliest letters" becomes the brief 1 Thes.
Gematria is a type of divination by numbers, which seems to me what you're doing plucking these dates and calculations from somewhere.

No, not only 1 Thessalonians but also 1a Corinthians (1:10-4:21 dated early 53) and 1b Corinthians (9:1-27 dated later in 53).
I do not use Gematria as you described it. Here is where I explain my dating: http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html

What you'd quoted and the repetition...

Whatever, you lost me.

The possibility of distnguishing eye witness material is like peering into a communal piss-bucket and deciding who pissed what. Any possible eye witness material is lost and gone. There are no eye witness materials.

I do not agree. Your example is misleading.

You did not deal with what you can tell me about the Satyricon once you've applied your arbitrary criteria to it. Thrill the forum with a bit of work rather than the usual referals to the ideosyncratic machinations of your past errors.

Just because the Satyricon is complete fiction, that does not mean other writings with obvious fiction & embellishments have to be complete fiction. My 'bit' of work is book-long and readily available.

So you accept the pundits most of the time, except when your arbitrarily literal readings of texts tell you not to. Fine, that's convincing, isn't it?

No, I do not accept pundits most of the time, and my reading of texts is not arbitrary.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:I do not use Gematria as you described it.

This is the thing: it's my metaphor and to me you do. You can deny my intention as much as you want, but you won't change my statement of it. You won't change what Paul communicated by you wanting a different result either.

Bernard Muller wrote:

You did not deal with what you can tell me about the Satyricon once you've applied your arbitrary criteria to it. Thrill the forum with a bit of work rather than the usual referals to the ideosyncratic machinations of your past errors.

Just because the Satyricon is complete fiction,

How can you decide that? It's a text that has been preserved in fragments and those fragments don't declare that they are "complete fiction". It is a narrative which has some fancful bits in it, which you can cut out and put aside, so as to read the good stuff that's left. From that remainder you can do what you like doing. What makes you think Encolpius was not a real person, as you have decided Jesus was?

Bernard Muller wrote:my reading of texts is not arbitrary.

to spin,

Your Acts source for Nazoreans was merely doing what you are: weaving a story out of shadows of earlier traditions, with apparently no way to confirm anything.

You are not helping your cause by insulting my work, which you never read, and assuming all kind of things about it.
Well, at times, Acts confirm what is in the epistles. I used Acts very sparingly and when there is a conflict between Acts and what Paul wrote, I follow Paul instead of Acts.
My Acts source for Nazareans? Actually, I did not agree with that source about many elements, especially that these "Nazoreans" were Christians and started the Church of Jerusalem. I got several clues and pieces of evidence to argue that.

Cut the arbitrary piffle about early and late. Using Acts to date Paul is like using Gladiator to clarify Commodus.
And my, the slavish literalness is puzzling for someone who has bravely stepped out of the furrow and redated Galatians!

Why should I? I spent a lot of time about dating and I am very confident of my finds. And comparing my work with Gladiator & Commodus is not evidence against my findings. "stepped out of the furrow"? If you mean my conclusions were quickly formulated, you are wrong. I spent many years on this topic of very early Christianity.
Also I made a study about dating Galatians, but of course, you did not bother to read it.

Clues for the scapegoat image, yes some are from Galatians (eg 3:10-13 again). Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law in the context of his dying to do so. "Was Paul crucified for you?" (1 Cor 1:12).

I think you have a lot of imagination in order to formulate that, from "Was Paul crucified for you?".
I would not conclude anything like that on so little evidence, or clues.

Insisting on your ideosyncratic dating is not a convincing approach when it appears arbitrary to your interlocutors.

That would not look arbitrary if you (or anybody else) would study my website.

Silence, the "fact" that you think Paul couldn't answer concerns when he was dealing with other issues. I bet your dog is convinced!

Paul is answering the cross and "Christ crucified" in 1 Cor 1-3 by taking evasive actions and eventually drifting away, instead of addressing the topic head on.
I do not have a dog, BTW. But I got quite a few readers who greatly appreciated my work: http://historical-jesus.info/50.html

Gematria.

No, I do not use Gematria for the dating. How many times I have to tell you that?

You have injected your desires into 1 Cor 1-4 and shown you haven't taken notice of what Paul was doing. You don't get to whinge about not getting french fries when Paul's doing the cooking: you take what you get. He's following his own menu, not yours.

Of course, I am not. What Paul was doing is your interpretation. Later, Paul will be more direct in his explanations to concerns or questions from the Corinthians, without hiding behind the secret & hidden wisdom of God.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:

Cut the arbitrary piffle about early and late. Using Acts to date Paul is like using Gladiator to clarify Commodus.
And my, the slavish literalness is puzzling for someone who has bravely stepped out of the furrow and redated Galatians!

Why should I? I spent a lot of time about dating

Every time you point me to this stuff and I go and look at it, I come back thinking, why did I bother? I can see you spent a lot of time in your efforts. I just don't appreciate the methodology or the results. You can guess that by the "arbitrary piffle" comment. I've argued with you for many years on your lack of methodology and often spurious results, but, hey, you're happy.

Bernard Muller wrote:I think you have a lot of imagination in order to formulate that, from "Was Paul crucified for you?".
I would not conclude anything like that on so little evidence, or clues.

But you don't read the texts for what they say, but for what you want them to say as in the case of 1 Cor 1-4.

Gal 3 literally tells you Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. What does "redeem" mean? To pay the price to reclaim. Redeem from what? The curse of the law. How did Christ pay the price? He was crucified for our sake (or "on our behalf", υπερ ημων) (1 Cor 1:13) and back to Gal 3, he redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for our sake (υπερ ημων). He takes our place, becoming the curse instead of us.

I cannot help it if you will not read these texts as Paul wrote them and prefer to ignore them in order to assume that Paul didn't think this at the time 1 Thes was written because he doesn't deal with the subject as you desire.