I've got to break this up, Danny.
No, not quite you don't. What you refuse to realize is that we do not have anything resembling the original letters of anyone named "paul." Proto-orthodox writers in the late 2d/early 3d century tell us that Marcion of Sinope issued a canon with 10 epistles of this paul-guy and the gospel of the lord...which turns out to be a good part of gLuke. Marcion was denounced as a heretic, which must have been amusing since the Roman church in the mid 2d century was not a big deal compared to all the xtian sects in the East but whatever. As previously noted, Justin writing c 160 AD never heard of "paul" so since Marcion dates to around 144 we can assume that it took over 40 years before the proto-orthodox completed the re-write of "paul" and tacked on the first two chapters of Luke to the gospel of the lord. Obviously, Marcion's idea was too good to pass up but it sure as fuck was going to say what they wanted it to say.
However, the consensus you seek is illusory.
BTW, Second Corinthians contains this little gem:
Aretas III did capture Damascus, c 84 BC. Aretas IV is last seen in history fleeing from the Roman army c 37 AD and he sure as shit did not capture Damascus. Yet, 2 Cor is one of these alleged authentic letters. Xtians, I have noted, run like scared rabbits from this one.
Quote:Okay, now I see where you're coming from. That's an expansion on the historical narrative - almost without any question. Paul did go to Corinth and we know that from his letters which are the primary evidence for his movements and ministry. The author of Acts knows the movements of Paul very well, and this is evident by just how closely they align with Galatians and Paul's other letters. So we know that the macro information regarding Paul in Acts of the Apostles is at least mostly correct. The micro information (the details) is another matter entirely.
No, not quite you don't. What you refuse to realize is that we do not have anything resembling the original letters of anyone named "paul." Proto-orthodox writers in the late 2d/early 3d century tell us that Marcion of Sinope issued a canon with 10 epistles of this paul-guy and the gospel of the lord...which turns out to be a good part of gLuke. Marcion was denounced as a heretic, which must have been amusing since the Roman church in the mid 2d century was not a big deal compared to all the xtian sects in the East but whatever. As previously noted, Justin writing c 160 AD never heard of "paul" so since Marcion dates to around 144 we can assume that it took over 40 years before the proto-orthodox completed the re-write of "paul" and tacked on the first two chapters of Luke to the gospel of the lord. Obviously, Marcion's idea was too good to pass up but it sure as fuck was going to say what they wanted it to say.
However, the consensus you seek is illusory.
Quote:The name "undisputed" epistles represents the traditional scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter.[1][2] However, even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.[12] Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them Edgar J. Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations. However, such textual corruption is difficult to detect and even more so to verify, leaving little agreement as to the extent of the epistles' integrity. See also Radical Criticism, which maintains that the external evidence for attributing any of the letters to Paul is so weak, that it should be considered that all the letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul's name by members of the Marcionite Church and were afterwards edited and adopted by the Catholic Church.
Fr. Wiki.
BTW, Second Corinthians contains this little gem:
Quote:In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me.
2 Cor 11:32
Aretas III did capture Damascus, c 84 BC. Aretas IV is last seen in history fleeing from the Roman army c 37 AD and he sure as shit did not capture Damascus. Yet, 2 Cor is one of these alleged authentic letters. Xtians, I have noted, run like scared rabbits from this one.
