Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:22 pm I think Paul's letters reveal rather that Christians of the sort he calls "false brothers" were not "typical early Christians," or at least that their views regarding Gentile Torah observance did not prevail with Christian leaders.

At the same time, while Paul's mission to the Gentiles had the approval of Christian leaders, his letters also reveal that his views on Jewish Torah observance were too extreme for Christian leaders and he was reproved for that.

With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting them about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Furthermore, your admission that Paul was reproved fore his views about torah observance by other Christian leaders reveals that he was not a typical early Christian even when such a term is limited to leaders.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:32 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:35 am

John T wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 1:41 pm

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:30 pm

John T wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 11:16 am It's not too late to actually read; Did Jesus Exist? by Dr. Bart E. Ehrman.

Pst ... I don't want to embarrass Ehrman publicly so keep this between you and me: It was plain as day to anyone who read Erhman and the books he criticized that he had not actually read them for himself. So you (and GaslightingDon, too) are in excellent company -- no need to read the mythicist works, no need to read Ehrman, no need to even read the Bible verses touted -- case closed. Facts can have no power over an argument bulwarked behind deliberate ignorance.

So, are you admitting you haven't read the book either?
Don't worry, your secret is safe here.
Ain't ignorance bliss!

Here is a better resource showing that Neil has read the book in question: https://vridar.org/series-index/did-jes ... n-reviews/ - under the heading "My own posts".

I think you might be befuddling our friend John T here. Why read books you want to mock when you can just come to a forum and ask others what's in them or better still, just assume you know what's in them and start making fun of them. We've seen others on this forum claim to be addressing posts and works they clearly have not read. Even Ehrman does it and makes money out of it. So I think such persons must wonder "What's the point?" if you demonstrate someone has actually read a work they can criticize.

I do it in order to enhance your credibility.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:49 am. . . .

It is from here (found on https://churchhistory101.com/feedback/t ... ionism.php . . .

. . . . For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: . . . . .

One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. ...."Against Marcion," cir. 212AD

I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Tertullian on anything but the parts I've pulled from the extract here really are the sum total of sound historical methods as I've tried to set out in the How Do We Know X Existed? thread.

The idea may be brilliant but the execution can be lousy, as they say. One can claim Acts is the verifying source but stop short of asking how we know of its origin -- and requiring witnesses for the claims it makes.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:48 pm With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting them about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Furthermore, your admission that Paul was reproved fore his views about torah observance by other Christian leaders reveals that he was not a typical early Christian even when such a term is limited to leaders.

True but if there was a variety of leaders teaching different things then it's hard to know if there even was a typical early Christian in that environment
There were competing sects and he was one of them. Of course if there was a single origin the others emanated from then it would be that sect that would rightly claim to be the typical Christian. I think the Odes of Solomon are from that sect because they are Jewish Christian but they aren't the strict Torah observance of James they're more like Paul but with some key noticeable differences. One could see how Paul could have emerged from such a community as a reworking of it

davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 1:25 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:48 pm With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting them about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Furthermore, your admission that Paul was reproved fore his views about torah observance by other Christian leaders reveals that he was not a typical early Christian even when such a term is limited to leaders.

True but if there was a variety of leaders teaching different things then it's hard to know if there even was a typical early Christian in that environment
There were competing sects and he was one of them.

I would say that we agree there was a Christianity in Paul's time and that we further agree that Paul did not represent typical Christian views at that time. Are we correct? Whether such a thing as a "typical Christian" in Paul's time is, perhaps, a separate issue which may deserve its own thread.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:48 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 12:22 pm I think Paul's letters reveal rather that Christians of the sort he calls "false brothers" were not "typical early Christians," or at least that their views regarding Gentile Torah observance did not prevail with Christian leaders.

At the same time, while Paul's mission to the Gentiles had the approval of Christian leaders, his letters also reveal that his views on Jewish Torah observance were too extreme for Christian leaders and he was reproved for that.

With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting them about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

But resurrection of the dead wasn't a settled matter in Judaism and hasn't been in Christianity since more or less day one. This is why some Christians didn't agree with Paul during his lifetime (to judge from his letters) and after (to judge from the NT gospels, which espouse a physical resurrection). There doesn't appear to have been a "typical" Christian view of resurrection, but I gather that Paul's view was in line with Christian leaders of his day, so I suppose at that time it could be called normative. Same goes for Paul's view regarding Gentile Torah observance.

And Paul also complained about early Christians who followed him, since he includes himself with Cephas and Apollos in that respect. Here is how he puts it in 1 Cor. 3:4-7:

For when one of you says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? They are servants through whom you believed, as the Lord has assigned to each his role. I planted the seed and Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow.

I don't see this as criticizing anyone else's teaching, otherwise Paul would be criticizing his own teaching, but rather he is criticizing people boasting that they were baptized by or followed this or that Christian figure.

Furthermore, your admission that Paul was reproved fore his views about torah observance by other Christian leaders reveals that he was not a typical early Christian even when such a term is limited to leaders.

But Paul was willing to at least pretend to be Torah observant (as per 1 Cor. 9:20), and he is presented as being Torah observant in Acts. He may not have agreed with Christian leaders regarding Jewish Torah observance, but he was willing to defer to them on it (however insincere he may have been). And in that respect he was a typical early Christian.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:49 am

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:40 pm I've looked through all five books by Tertullian against Marcion as well as "The Prescription against Heretics", and Tertullian only seems to have praise for Paul, at one point claiming that Genesis prophecised the coming of Paul. Perhaps it is in another book? Do you have a reference to where Tertullian questions Paul's claim to legitimate status as an Apostle, please?

It is from here (found on https://churchhistory101.com/feedback/t ... ionism.php but Tertullian seems to be arguing that since Marcion rejects the other apostles why does he accept Paul because he later says "I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him to compel you to defend him. I deny him to convince you that he is mine....If you challenge us to your belief, tell us what things constitute its basis"

Thanks, davidmartin. Yes, I saw that from Book 5, Chapter 1:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an125.html

It's just after Tertullian claims that the OT prophecises the coming of Paul:


So Tertullian didn't have doubts about Paul's role as an apostle, as interesting as that would have been!

davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:49 amI think if you're looking for reluctance to accept Paul among the proto-orthodox Tertullian is way too late but i don't doubt it existed because Justin talks of some Christians that follow the law and he will treat them as fellow Christians but they would be ones that reject Paul and were a minority but Justin doesn't mention Paul either so something changed shortly after Justin. It's confusing I'm not sure what best explains it

Justin Martyr's three major extant works are two apologies to the pagans and his dialogue with Trypho. I don't think the name "Paul" would have had much meaning to the pagans. More likely to see Paul's name pop up with Justin's discussion with Trypho but it is probably not too surprising that it doesn't appear.

I think a problem is that Paul looms large in our modern consciousness about Christianity, just like the Gospels and what Jesus said and did do today. So we tend to assume that a similar view existed among early Christians as well.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:41 pm
But resurrection of the dead wasn't a settled matter in Judaism and hasn't been in Christianity since more or less day one. This is why some Christians didn't agree with Paul during his lifetime (to judge from his letters) and after (to judge from the NT gospels, which espouse a physical resurrection). There doesn't appear to have been a "typical" Christian view of resurrection, but I gather that Paul's view was in line with Christian leaders of his day, so I suppose at that time it could be called normative. Same goes for Paul's view regarding Gentile Torah observance.

And Paul also complained about early Christians who followed him, since he includes himself with Cephas and Apollos in that respect. Here is how he puts it in 1 Cor. 3:4-7:

With all due respect, I think that I miscommunicated my ideas, for which I apologize. I meant to say:

With all due respect, though, early Christians were not only the leaders but also the followers (including followers of Paul, but also of other leaders) - and if Paul had been typical of Early Christians (by which is meant leaders and followers alike) in his beliefs, then he would not have had to keep correcting his followers among the early Christians about issues such as whether the dead would raised - or complaining that they were following other early Christian leaders such as Cephas and Apollos.

Does that clarify anything?

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:41 pm I don't see this as criticizing anyone else's teaching, otherwise Paul would be criticizing his own teaching, but rather he is criticizing people boasting that they were baptized by or followed this or that Christian figure.

Furthermore, your admission that Paul was reproved fore his views about torah observance by other Christian leaders reveals that he was not a typical early Christian even when such a term is limited to leaders.

But Paul was willing to at least pretend to be Torah observant (as per 1 Cor. 9:20), and he is presented as being Torah observant in Acts. He may not have agreed with Christian leaders regarding Jewish Torah observance, but he was willing to defer to them on it (however insincere he may have been). And in that respect he was a typical early Christian.

1. You ignore passages in which Paul does condemn his followers for following other Christian leaders - such as 2 Corinthians 11:1-15.

2. Acts is not historically reliable; rather, the Acts Seminar has revealed that it was 2nd century propaganda meant to impose precisely what you are deriving from it - an impression that early Christianity was united and that Paul was typical of it.

2. Acts is not historically reliable; rather, the Acts Seminar has revealed that it was 2nd century propaganda meant to impose precisely what you are deriving from it - an impression that early Christianity was united and that Paul was typical of it.

An argument can be made the the Paul in Acts was not really Paul of the epistles ( and has been started: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9331 )