"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]

[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!