The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Ref. Post #690: Just because there might be variations in "Paul's" writing it doesn't mean that there were several writers if he was indeed real. People do change styles and opinions over the years.

As you may know my opinion is that an English committee wrote the Bible with various writers writing different parts. That could also contribute to the variations in the Paul character's writing. Regardless, it's safe to say that almost everything attributed to Paul is just silly BS that has minimum value.

[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.

[Whateverist]

I've created a little thread in R'leh (sp?) for anyone who needs to get something off their chests without going postal in public.

[Mudhammam]

[Randy Carson]

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The Paul dialogue has him saying that he was a deceiver (all things to all men), a babbler, and a crook (he stole from churches so that his favorite one wouldn't have to pay him). The English committee included those gems to show that the Paul story was BS. They actually wanted to retain their own ethnocentric religion and not adopt Christianity. so they wrote the Bible as an elaborate prank to fool the Catholics because the stories had never been written down together in a single book before they did it.

[IATIA]

For those not in the know, here is how oral history works.

Randy:  Hey IATIA, I saw a spaceship while looking at the stars in my backyard.

IATIA:  Hey Snowy, Randy saw a spaceship in his backyard.

Snowy:  Hey Woody, A spaceship landed in Randy's backyard.

Woody: We have not seen him in this thread for a while.  Suppose he got abducted?

Woody: Hey Min. Randy was abducted by aliens.

Min:  Fuck 'em

[Minimalist]

Go Blow Aliens Out Your Ass

[Randy Carson]

For skeptics of the traditional authorship of the gospels, some questions:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
   
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
   
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? 
   
4. Why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true that Matthew wrote it?
   
   

[dyresand]

For skeptics of the traditional authorship of the gospels, some questions:

1. Why would copies of gospels circulate anonymously all over the Roman empire for decades and then suddenly be ascribed to the authors we know today unanimously without dispute in the second century?
   
2. When the gospels were being read in the liturgy, how would they have been distinguished one from another if they did not have names such as “The Gospel of Mark” or “The Gospel According to Luke”?
   
3. Why attribute a gospel to someone who had a somewhat dubious track record (like Mark who abandoned Paul on a missionary journey) unless it was true that Mark wrote it? 
   
4. Why attribute a gospel written for a Jewish audience to Matthew, a man who would have been hated as a Roman collaborator by that audience, unless it was true that Matthew wrote it?
   
   

1. gospels are not even a accurate account of history. if you look up the dates they were written in order the gospels in the bible were just late additions.
2. Again the gospels were written at a later date and time hundreds of years.
3. paul and even the rest of the apostles pretty much gave themselves that position to control people and to add their own word into the bible. 
4. The gospels yet again pointless along with psalms both are equally stupid.