Plagiarism in the NT

[RoadRunner79]

RR, the Jews might take someone down.... if there wasn't a Roman standing nearby to stick a spear up his ass for doing it.  Josephus actually mentions spotting 3 acquaintances of his handing on crosses and begging Titus to spare them... one lived the other two croacked.  

Evans supposedly has written 70 books...actually he wrote the same book 70 times.  Much like Ann Coulter in that regard!  Anyway, just another apologetical fuck-up.  I'm sure you love him. 

Meanwhile, moving on from your bullshit.

I notice that you attack and try to discredit the source, rather than the information.  You actually said nothing about any of his arguments or facts in this regard. You are going to have to do a lot better than that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-domin...90387.html

The Search for the Historical Paul: Which Letters Did He Really Write?

Why 10 scrolls when Christianity’s New Testament attributes 13 letters to the apostle Paul: letters to communities such as the Romans, Corinthians (twice), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (twice) and to individuals such as Timothy (twice), Titus and Philemon.

There is, however, a massive consensus in modern scholarship that those three letters to Timothy and Titus were written in Paul’s name but long after his death. It would seen, then, that around 1265 a Byzantine artist at Sopoćani already accepted that viewpoint — hence, only 10 scrolls for 10 letters.

There are problems with the supposedly "authentic" epistles....whatever the fuck "authentic" means in that case but let's take out the lightweight stuff first.

I don't think that basing an argument on the number of scrolls depicted in a 13th Century painting is a wise choice.  For one, there is a lot of interpretation about what those scrolls represent.  Second their are much much earlier sources which dispute it, including early acceptance within the early 2nd century by the Church (which also was critical of letters attributed to Paul, but not believed to have been written by him).   Now I don't think that this evidence is absolutely indisputable, but all the evidence must be taken into account.  On the other hand, some of the more modern arguments against some of the disputed letters is questionable.  I think that some of the textual criticism, counting words, or choice of words, while of some use can be taken too far.  Similarly much is made about the style of writing.  I think that this depends on what type of style difference you are talking about.   It's not unreasonable that one writing may be of a more formal nature, while others are more personal.  This may include different words used and an overall different tone of the letter.   On the other hand, from what I have heard from those who have taken courses in Koine Greek,  there is a very definite difference between the writing of John, and that of Paul.  An early student of Greek is going to be given the works of John to read, with the works of Paul (even the disputed books), because of the technical nature of Paul's work.   And even this I think only a sharp contrast should be considered evidence (not minutia).  So I believe that these things are good to analyze, and worthwhile to study.  But we shouldn't be overly critical beyond normal reason and practice.