RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
June 6, 2015 at 11:07 am
(This post was last modified: June 6, 2015 at 11:45 am by The Grand Nudger.)
People -do- change styles and opinions, but look at how pregnant our explanations must become in order to downplay the differences even between the "undisputed epistles". Now, not only is paul historical (and this text is some record of that), we imagine that the text represents the personal evolution of paul and his faith, as well as writing style (and this text is also a historical record of that). All things must be filtered through the prisms of those initial, unfounded assumptions. No one seems to be comfortable with these assumptions out on display.
Just mentioning that the authors of the texts took artistic liberties -even when they weren't telling ghost stories- makes the historical crowd goes apeshit, apparently. Boru put it better than I ever could in a sister thread, with jesus as his focus. Arthur of Britain, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus. Paul -may have been- as historical as jack the ripper, but both are now mythologized..and the trouble with "historical paul" (relative to the ripper) is that the only source we have for that "history" -is- the myth. "Early Paul"/"Authentic Paul", limited just to his letters, is never wrong or mistaken about doctrine, his advice is sought and heeded by all, he always wins over his opposition - and he is decidedly catholic (amusingly). If we swallow the giant pill and assume for shits and giggles that the pauline epistles were written in his own hand (because: the bible says so..lol) then it's clear that paul himself is spinning a tall tale about paul. This is just the surface, this is what anyone can take from the narrative at a glance which ought to give them pause (without any knowledge of history to corroborate, understanding only that this is not a documentary account of a man -even when it's at it's "best"-. The notion that a historical paul is being presented by these texts has to be taken with a grain of salt from the word go and this is -precisely- what is done. At some point along the way, though, the historical crowd..as mentioned before, goes apeshit.
All that I can say, is that if there ever were a historical paul the authors and compilers of the text were not satisfied with him, and so wrote/edited/compiled him out. They preferred the super apostle. They preferred St. Paul. The notion that there is a man underneath the magic and propaganda isn;t far fetched....the notion that you can look at the NT and see who that man was or might have been - is. The only time paul-the-man is even remotely important in the texts is in the psuedo-epi, and myth/legend portions - when his miracles and person are to be taken as further proof of his message and mandate (and proponents of early or authentic paul cannot use those, even when they express continuity, as evidence for a historical "early paul", or as supporting evidence for the paul that -they- prefer). The paul of the NT, and yes...even the paul of the seven genuine epistles, is the paul of legend, of myth, it is paul as mouthpiece for doctrine. It is not the paul-of-history, it is not paul-as-a-man.....whoever that was, if ever there was one to begin with.
Sure, theres years of tradition and so this historical paul business has built up momentum, not that criticism of historical paul isn't equally entrenched even within the competing camps of historical pauls, mind you. To hear those camps tell it: all of the other guys are balls to the wall wrong (and when everybody points at everybody else and says "you're wrong and here's why" I'm likely to agree....with all of them). Take away that tradition though, grant that there may have been a paul, and question those foundational assumptions upon which the historical pauls on offer rely -even lightly-...and we have bumpkiss.
As to your idea of committes, it doesn't actually matter who wrote them. Their authorship doesn't grant confidence as to their accuracy anymore than an autobiography ( hell of a friendly comparison, I'll add) -today- isn't "the gospel truth" and there isn't a single one of us here who could, with a straight face, argue that the things people write about themselves somehow becomes a reliable indicator of fact simply by having been thus arranged. Peruse GW Bush Jr's account of his presidency, for further elucidation of this simple fact.
Que the "You're a moron" and "Experts say" ad infinitum from the corner which can't pull a historical paul out of a grab bag full of em.
Just mentioning that the authors of the texts took artistic liberties -even when they weren't telling ghost stories- makes the historical crowd goes apeshit, apparently. Boru put it better than I ever could in a sister thread, with jesus as his focus. Arthur of Britain, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus. Paul -may have been- as historical as jack the ripper, but both are now mythologized..and the trouble with "historical paul" (relative to the ripper) is that the only source we have for that "history" -is- the myth. "Early Paul"/"Authentic Paul", limited just to his letters, is never wrong or mistaken about doctrine, his advice is sought and heeded by all, he always wins over his opposition - and he is decidedly catholic (amusingly). If we swallow the giant pill and assume for shits and giggles that the pauline epistles were written in his own hand (because: the bible says so..lol) then it's clear that paul himself is spinning a tall tale about paul. This is just the surface, this is what anyone can take from the narrative at a glance which ought to give them pause (without any knowledge of history to corroborate, understanding only that this is not a documentary account of a man -even when it's at it's "best"-. The notion that a historical paul is being presented by these texts has to be taken with a grain of salt from the word go and this is -precisely- what is done. At some point along the way, though, the historical crowd..as mentioned before, goes apeshit.
All that I can say, is that if there ever were a historical paul the authors and compilers of the text were not satisfied with him, and so wrote/edited/compiled him out. They preferred the super apostle. They preferred St. Paul. The notion that there is a man underneath the magic and propaganda isn;t far fetched....the notion that you can look at the NT and see who that man was or might have been - is. The only time paul-the-man is even remotely important in the texts is in the psuedo-epi, and myth/legend portions - when his miracles and person are to be taken as further proof of his message and mandate (and proponents of early or authentic paul cannot use those, even when they express continuity, as evidence for a historical "early paul", or as supporting evidence for the paul that -they- prefer). The paul of the NT, and yes...even the paul of the seven genuine epistles, is the paul of legend, of myth, it is paul as mouthpiece for doctrine. It is not the paul-of-history, it is not paul-as-a-man.....whoever that was, if ever there was one to begin with.
Sure, theres years of tradition and so this historical paul business has built up momentum, not that criticism of historical paul isn't equally entrenched even within the competing camps of historical pauls, mind you. To hear those camps tell it: all of the other guys are balls to the wall wrong (and when everybody points at everybody else and says "you're wrong and here's why" I'm likely to agree....with all of them). Take away that tradition though, grant that there may have been a paul, and question those foundational assumptions upon which the historical pauls on offer rely -even lightly-...and we have bumpkiss.
As to your idea of committes, it doesn't actually matter who wrote them. Their authorship doesn't grant confidence as to their accuracy anymore than an autobiography ( hell of a friendly comparison, I'll add) -today- isn't "the gospel truth" and there isn't a single one of us here who could, with a straight face, argue that the things people write about themselves somehow becomes a reliable indicator of fact simply by having been thus arranged. Peruse GW Bush Jr's account of his presidency, for further elucidation of this simple fact.
Que the "You're a moron" and "Experts say" ad infinitum from the corner which can't pull a historical paul out of a grab bag full of em.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
