"Paul" What's Bullshit and What Isn't?

[Cyberman]

"In the beginning" = "Once upon a time".

But no one lives happily ever after!

Oh I don't know - the parasites at the top of the pyramid scheme seem to do alright out of it.

[Minimalist]

But no one lives happily ever after!

Oh I don't know - the parasites at the top of the pyramid scheme seem to do alright out of it.

When they aren't in jail for buggering little boys.

[Cyberman]

Which is more often than not. The usual procedure is to shuffle them off to new areas and fresh victims.

[John V]

The logic (so to speak) in the article boils down to:

1. We know how to identify interpolations, e.g. these texts.

2. We haven't identified interpolations in Paul's letters.

3. Therefore, Paul's letters contain interpolations.

[Amarok]

Blather

[RoadRunner79]

You'll never change and I won't waste any more time arguing with a fundie.

For people who are interested in pauline frauds let's do this:


Here's Richard Carrier on two of the more obvious frauds.  Note that Carrier also treats this "paul" guy as a real person which is also debateable but for now we can use the observation that someone wrote this shit out originally ( probably Marcion ) and still acknowledge that others came along later and changed it.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/...tions.html

In the New Testament, at least two passages have been interpolated into the letters of Paul: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Today I'll present the evidence for this conclusion that most experts have long known about, but most laymen never hear.

I think that it is fairly funny, how you accuse me of dismissing anything that doesn't agree with my beliefs (when indicated no such thing) and then you do the very thing you made up to complain about! 

There have been some interpolations which made it's way into the Bible.   And many bibles point these by saying something along the lines of "this text is not found in the earliest manuscripts"  For most I would say that this is uncontroversial and their is hard evidence to support it.   Overall, the evidence shows that the Bible has been remarkably preserved, with most variants not effecting the text and no major doctrines in question. 

With these passages, I don't think that the consensus is quite as strong as is let on.   And while textual criticism has it's place I think that there are times that they are straining at gnats.   For instance, when you are counting words and come to the conclusion that a particular word is only used in one instance, and conclude that there must be a different author.  There are a number of reasons for a person to change the way they write or use different words that don't lead to a different author.   The tone and intent, can effect this, as well as; the authors familiarity with the author.   Another thing that we find in the biblical texts is that there are early Christian creeds which where brought into the text (sometimes translated).   One might even use different words based on who they have been dealing with recently.  We also know that both Paul and Peter both used amanuensis to write for them (and not always the same one).   They could have been translating, or even had their own input on how to word the text.

The other argument I find is interesting is that argument that they don't think that the author would have wrote this.  Particularly here calling Paul's antisemitic for describing negative things that where done by Jewish people.  When you read the text, it seems a stretch to turn this into hate speech, or call it antisemitic.  One might be able to say that Paul didn't normally speak like this, but it's not unthinkable or out of place, that he could.

[Angrboda]

With these passages, I don't think that the consensus is quite as strong as is let on.   And while textual criticism has it's place I think that there are times that they are straining at gnats.   For instance, when you are counting words and come to the conclusion that a particular word is only used in one instance, and conclude that there must be a different author.  There are a number of reasons for a person to change the way they write or use different words that don't lead to a different author.   The tone and intent, can effect this, as well as; the authors familiarity with the author.   Another thing that we find in the biblical texts is that there are early Christian creeds which where brought into the text (sometimes translated).   One might even use different words based on who they have been dealing with recently.  We also know that both Paul and Peter both used amanuensis to write for them (and not always the same one).   They could have been translating, or even had their own input on how to word the text.

[Minimalist]

With these passages, I don't think that the consensus is quite as strong as is let on.

I know, cuz jesus said so, right?  Fuck off.

[vulcanlogician]

The strength of consensus argument goes both ways. Aside from the fact that all these letters have been traditionally attributed to him, there is no great amount of evidence proving that a singular person wrote all of Paul's letters.

If Christians are going to attack the weakness of scholarly assumptions, they first ought to recognize that those assumptions are hundreds of times more well-founded than those of dogma and tradition.

[RoadRunner79]

With these passages, I don't think that the consensus is quite as strong as is let on.

I know, cuz jesus said so, right?  Fuck off.

I don't know how mythicism isn’t given more academic respect with such wit and intellect!