Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

maryhelena wrote: No, Neil, I missed no point. The internal data re Paul and Aretas is ambiguous. It cannot be used as support for Paul.

OMG. Impossible. Try to comprehend what I just wrote.

neilgodfrey wrote:

maryhelena wrote: No, Neil, I missed no point. The internal data re Paul and Aretas is ambiguous. It cannot be used as support for Paul.

OMG. Impossible. Try to comprehend what I just wrote.

bcedaifu wrote:
Kapyong, describing the epistles of 'Paul' wrote:
We know, fairly well, that they date to sometime in the first century.

bcedaifu: Nah, that's not right friend. Nope. Not at all. Please show me ONE piece of evidence supporting the claim that 'Paul' wrote anything in the first century.....
ONE piece. That's all I ask for. Good luck with that.

Kapyong]How about Paul sneaking out of Damascus during the reign of Aretas IV (2 Corinthians 11:32-33)

bcedaifu: How can you or anyone else on this forum employ 'Paul' to verify the existence of 'Paul'?

Neil: Of course 2 Cor 11 contains evidence Paul wrote in the time of Aretas. You asked for evidence and you got evidence. Internal content is very often used as evidence for dating any documents.

maryhelena: so much water under the bridge re Aretas and 'Paul' that one can't use this source to prove anything about 'Paul'.

Neil:You missed the point and thread of discussion. We have internal evidence. That was what was initially disputed. How we evaluate and test that evidence is a separate question.

maryhelena: The internal data re Paul and Aretas is ambiguous. It cannot be used as support for Paul.

Neil: OMG. Impossible. Try to comprehend what I just wrote.

The question raised by bcedaifu:

"Kapyong describing the epistles of 'Paul' wrote:
We know, fairly well, that they date to sometime in the first century.

Kapyong answered re Paul and Aretas to support his premise that Paul wrote in the first century. The internal data regarding Paul and Aretas does not support this premise. Why? Aretas' rule in Damascus ended around 62 b.c.e. That is the internal date. That the NT story also Paul places somewhere between 33 - 68 c.e. contradicts the internal data that connects Paul to an Aretas that ruled Damascus. Thus, at the very least, dating 'Paul' is an open question. Hence, the answer by Kaypong referencing Paul and Aretas as support for the Pauline writings in the first century is not supported by the internal data he referenced.

Neil, there were so many threads on this issue on FRDB - I'm surprised that you seem to have referenced this Paul and Aretas problem to support Kaypyong on his Paul writing in the first century.

Aretas III

to Neil,

Are you saying "the firmament" was the next structure above the moon? What or whose cosmology are you using here? (We know the air between the moon and earth was said to be filled with spirits but you seem to be saying spirits were only found above the moon. Where does the firmament fit in with all of this? Can you explain your understanding of ancient cosmology/ies and the sources for your understandings?

There were different beliefs about cosmology in the 1st century AD, but the most traditional one, the one referred in the OT, was about flat earth, then above the air, then, above that, God's heaven. Between the last two, the solid firmament is where the stars were located underneath, with the sun and the moon and the "wanderers" (planets), almost in the same plane, the moon being the lowest of all. In that concept, there were three heavens, the air between the earth and the moon/firmament, the moon/firmament and finally God's heaven (the third heaven).
From my website:

"In the scriptures (of which the author of 'Hebrews' had an extensive knowledge!), the domain of the winds, clouds & flying birds/fowls is considered part of the heavens (Greek root 'ouranos' in the LXX, as in previously quoted Hebrews 4:14, 8:1 & 9:24):
Genesis 1:20
Genesis 1:26 YLT "And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'"
Genesis 1:28, 1:30, 2:19, 2:20, 6:7, 7:3, 7:23, 9:2; Deuteronomy 28:26; 1 Samuel 17:44 ,17:46 ,21:10; 1 Kings 16:4
1 Kings 18:45 KJV "And it came to pass in the mean while, that the heaven was black with clouds and wind, and there was a great rain. And Ahab rode, and went to Jezreel."
Job 20:6; Ecclesiastes 10:20; Jeremiah 4:25, 7:33, 15:3, 16:4, 19:7; Ezekiel 29:5, 31:6, 32:4, 38:20; Daniel 4:12, 4:21, 7:13; Hosea 4:3, 7:12; Zephaniah 1:3"

AND

"a) The synoptic gospels and 'Acts' acknowledge the same (about the lower heaven):
Mark 4:4 YLT "and it came to pass, in the sowing, some fell by the way, and the fowls of the heaven did come and devour it;"
Mark 4:32
Mark 14:62 KJV "And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 6:26, 8:20, 13:32, 24:30, 26:64; Luke 8:5, 8:58, 13:19; Acts 10:12, 11:6
b) In 2 Corinthians 12:2-3, Paul claimed to have gone to "third heaven"/"paradise" in order to meet Christ. "paradise" appears to be the equivalent of the heavenly Kingdom, where (good) Christians would join Christ in the future:
2 Corinthians 5:1 NIV "... we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven ..."
Philippians 3:20a NKJV "But our citizenship is in heaven. ..."
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Darby "... and thus we shall be always with [the] Lord."
But where would Jesus reside in the heavens? Close to God, in the highest one:
Romans 8:34 Darby "... Christ who has died, but rather has been [also] raised up; who is also at the right hand of God ..."
Therefore, it is most likely Paul adopted a "three heavens" concept.
What about the intermediate heaven, the second one?
That would be the starry firmament (with sun & moon), between the air and God's heaven, as defined in Genesis 1:14,15,17, 15:5, 22:17, 26:4; Exodus 32:13; Deuteronomy 4:19, 10:22, 28:62; 1 Chronicles 27:23; Nehemiah 9:23; Isaiah 13:10; Ezekiel 32:7; Matthew 24:29; Mark 13:25; Hebrews 11:12; Revelation 6:13, 12:1,4. (heaven='ouranos' in LXX and NT)."

I do not see any divergence by Paul & the author of 'Hebrews' (most likely Apollos of Alexandria) from the traditional Jewish three heavens concept.

you seem to be saying spirits were only found above the moon

Oh no, I did not say that. Where does that come from?

Cordially, Bernard

Neil Godfrey wrote: Of course 2 Cor 11 contains evidence Paul wrote in the time of Aretas. You asked for evidence and you got evidence

Holy cow.

So, let's see if this makes sense to the other members of the forum (thank you Mary Helena, for your thoughtful rejoinder)

Lev Tolstoy, one of my favorite authors, was born 15 years after Marshal Mikhail Kutuzof had died. Are you attempting to explain to me, that since Tolstoy included mention of Kutuzof in his famous novel, War and Peace, that therefore, there is internal evidence that War and Peace must have been written before 28 April 1813, date of Kutuzof's demise? Does reference to the Prince of Smolensk mean that Tolstoy de facto must have known Catherine the Great, who had appointed Kutuzof?

If I now write a part deux, to War and Peace, including a flashback to the time before Catherine had appointed Kutuzof field marshal, then, does that constitute internal evidence that I too must have known Catherine-- und vielleicht haben wir zusammen gesprochen?

Nothing written by 'Paul' constitutes evidence for the existence of 'Paul'.

I again seek a piece of evidence, ONE piece will suffice, to demonstrate when 'Paul' lived and wrote.

I reiterate my question: Did Carrier explain why he believes, if he does, that Paul wrote before the gospels? Is there no one among the many cognoscenti on this forum, who can address the central issue of why Mark, but not 'Paul', omits "new" in explaining the covenant at the last supper?

Interestingly, I found no mention of Aretas in Carrier's book. The name is not in the index. 2 Cor.11.32 is in the scripture index.




Comment this references is:


I don't see the connection with 2 Cor.11.32 here....ie Paul and Aretas and Damascus.

OK - maybe I have missed something and Carrier deals with Aretas elsewhere in his book and that has not been referenced in the index. Anyone come across any reference to Aretas and 2 Cor.11.32?

Strange that someone like Carrier - being a historian - should fail to deal with the problems of 2 Cor.11.32 and how they reflect on dating 'Paul'. Paul is the top dog for the Carrier-Doherty mythicists - and here is Carrier, seemingly, not putting on his historians hat and dealing with the Paul, Aretas and Damascus problem....

bcedaifu wrote:

Neil Godfrey wrote: Of course 2 Cor 11 contains evidence Paul wrote in the time of Aretas. You asked for evidence and you got evidence

Holy cow.

So, let's see if this makes sense to the other members of the forum (thank you Mary Helena, for your thoughtful rejoinder)

Lev Tolstoy, one of my favorite authors, was born 15 years after Marshal Mikhail Kutuzof had died. Are you attempting to explain to me, that since Tolstoy included mention of Kutuzof in his famous novel, War and Peace, that therefore, there is internal evidence that War and Peace must have been written before 28 April 1813, date of Kutuzof's demise? Does reference to the Prince of Smolensk mean that Tolstoy de facto must have known Catherine the Great, who had appointed Kutuzof?

If I now write a part deux, to War and Peace, including a flashback to the time before Catherine had appointed Kutuzof field marshal, then, does that constitute internal evidence that I too must have known Catherine-- und vielleicht haben wir zusammen gesprochen?

Oh come on bce. You are just playing silly games. You know very well that content in a documents is evidence for its terminus a quo.

You are just being silly now you are trying to defend such a gaffe.

bcedaifu wrote:Nothing written by 'Paul' constitutes evidence for the existence of 'Paul'.

I again seek a piece of evidence, ONE piece will suffice, to demonstrate when 'Paul' lived and wrote.

You obviously cannot distinguish between evidence and interpretation of evidence.

bcedaifu wrote:I reiterate my question: Did Carrier explain why he believes, if he does, that Paul wrote before the gospels? Is there no one among the many cognoscenti on this forum, who can address the central issue of why Mark, but not 'Paul', omits "new" in explaining the covenant at the last supper?

Good. Smart, Get back to your original question and stop being so desperate to mindlessly knock down every single point raised along the way.

(PHI Abr 1:205) ὅνπερ τρόπον καὶ τὸ φῶς
(PHE ABR 1:205) in the same manner also the light

ἐν οὐρανῷ μὲν ἄκρατον καὶ ἀμιγὲς σκότους ἐστίν,
on one hand in heaven it is unmixed and pure,

ἐν δὲ τοῖς ὑπὸ σελήνην ἀέρι ζοφερῷ κεκραμένον φαίνεται.
on the other hand, under (the) moon the air is mingled with gloom.

(PHI Opi 1:84) παρ᾽ ἣν αἰτίαν καὶ γεννήσας αὐτόν ὁ πατὴρ ἡγεμονικὸν φύσει ζῷον
(PHE Opi 1:84) For which reason the Father who made him to be dominant by nature over living things

οὐκ ἔργῳ μόνον
not by work alone,

ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ διὰ λόγου χειροτονίᾳ
but also by express verbal appointment,

καθίστη τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην ἁπάντων βασιλέα
established him as king of all that is under (the) moon,

χερσαίων καὶ ἐνύδρων καὶ ἀεροπόρων·
(whether on) dry land, or (in) water, or crossing (the) air.

ὅσα γὰρ θνητὰ ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ στοιχείοις
For as mortal things which live in the three elements,

γῇ ὕδατι ἀέρι
land, water (or) air,

πάντα ὑπέταττεν αὐτῷ,
he put all in subjection to him,

τὰ κατ᾽ οὐρανὸν ὑπεξελόμενος
excepting the beings that are in heaven,

ἅτε θειοτέρας μοίρας ἐπιλαχόντα.
as they are part of a divine lot.

(PHI Mos 2:64) μετὰ δὲ τὴν κάθαρσιν τῶν ὑπὸ σελήνην,
(PHE Mos 2:64) But after the purification of the things under (the) moon,

ἀπολουσαμένης τῆς γῆς καὶ νέας ἀναφανείσης καὶ τοιαύτης,
the earth being thus washed and appearing new again,

οἵαν εἰκὸς εἶναι ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν μετὰ τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς ἐκτίζετο,
just as it appeared in the beginning when all the kosmos was created,

πρόεισιν ἐκ τοῦ ξυλίνου κατασκευάσματος
He (Noah) came forth out of his wooden edifice,

αὐτὸς καὶ γυνὴ
and his wife,

καὶ υἱοὶ καὶ τούτων γυναῖκες
and his sons and their wives,

Hi ho!

DCH

toejam wrote:So I'm reading Chapter 9, Part 4, p.375-78... on the supposed lack of historical Jesus references in Paul's trial scenes in Acts (as though that's somehow a big deal). Carrier spends the entire chapter dismissing Acts as historical fiction. Which is fair enough. I think most scholars realise that. But then in this section he tries to argue that these trial scenes may contain historical nuggets because they don't seem like the kind of thing Luke would make up - e.g. Carrier: "One argument for this being the case is the remarkable disparity between these trial accounts, and speeches and sermons that take place elsewhere. If Luke were simply fabricating the whole thing, these accounts should be consistent..." (p.378)

Yes, Carrier reverts to using apologist tactics when it's convenient to his argument. "The text is fiction, except for the parts that I need to not be fiction to support my argument." Doherty does this, too. It's apologetics in reverse. A famous example of this is the way they handwave 1 Thes 2:16.

Carrier cannot let go of the theologian's fantasy that there are such things as "authentic epistles" in the NT. Like all critics before him, he thinks he has to concede something to the theologians in order to be taken seriously, but this concession actually contaminates and subverts actual text criticism.

Blood wrote: A famous example of this is the way they handwave 1 Thes 2:16.

So the peer-reviewed scholarly arguments of Birger A. Pearson (1971) and Daryl Schmidt (1983) to which Doherty and Price point were mere "handwaving" and have been demolished in the literature and tossed out of polite company?

Bernard Muller wrote:to Neil,
1 Thessalonians 4:17 Darby "... and thus we shall be always with [the] Lord."
But where would Jesus reside in the heavens? Close to God, in the highest one

The verse simply says that the saints will be caught up to meet the Lord "in the air" "among the clouds". So Jesus does descend to the sublunar heaven. You also missed the other passages in the OT that portray God descending in clouds to the sublunar heaven. I don't know why you avoid clear statements in the literature of Paul's day that leave us in no doubt that the sublunar region was understood as the habitation of imperfect spirits or the clear statements even in the canonical literature that God visits this region from time to time.