Dogs don't know it's not bacon. They can't read!

by peacefulpete 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Leolaia

  Let me try that again....for some reason, all the formatting in my post disappeared.....Leolaia
• 

  Leolaia

  Pete....I've read quite a bit about New Testament scholarship and I don't think "all but fundamentalist[s]" would go along with your characterization of the Pauline epistles. I don't know of any scholars that limit Pauline authorship to just 1 Cor and Gal, and the view that the "entire bunch" were fabricated by the Marcionite school is very far from the mainstream in biblical criticism. The general concensus is that there exists a core group of genuine letters (Gal, 1, 2 Thes, 1, 2 Cor, Rom, Phlm), a second group of sub-Pauline letters (Philp, Col, Eph), and a third group of Pastorals (1, 2 Tm, Tit). Some of the genuine letters (such as 1, 2 Cor) may have been edited from fragments of several letters. Some scholars also view the Pastorals as containing genuine Pauline fragments as well. Scholars have long been divided over the sub-Pauline letters. Philippians is most commonly viewed as genuine and Ephesians is most commonly viewed as not genuine, with much disagreement over the status of Col.

  The "late authorship" you cite for the Pastorals and Hebrews (mid-to-late II cent.) sounds more at home with mid-19th century Tubingen scholarship than modern criticism. As far as I know, most scholars view these as written between 90-110. The terminus ad quem for the Pastorals is fixed by their use by Ignatius of Antioch (110-117) and Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 155). Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, for instance, has two quotations from 1 Tm. in a single verse (4:1, quoting 1 Tm. 6:10 and 1 Tm. 6:7). Justin Martyr's Dialogue (mid-II. cent.) also alludes to the Pastorals. As for Ephesians, the other frequently labeled sub-Pauline letter, a date between 80-110 is also generally accepted. A substantially later date is ruled out by its use by the apostolic fathers......Ignatius quotes Eph. 5:25 in his letter to Polycarp 5:1 (and in several other places as well), Polycarp quotes Eph. 2:8 in his letter to the Philippians 1:3, and so forth. The letter was also used by late II. cent. gnostic sects, as references to gnostic literature in Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Epiphanaeus show a familiarity with Eph.

  As for Hebrews, the homily is anonymous and the earliest suggestion that Paul had anything to do with it comes from the early IIIrd. cent. father Clement of Alexandria and was far from unanimous in the subsequent period. Apollos, Silas, Barnabas, Aristion, and others have been suggested as the author, of these that of Barnabas was most popular (cf. Tertullian's De Pudicitia 20, "exstat enim et Barnabae titulus ad Hebraeos"). Most modern scholars reject such identifications and regard the author as anonymous but acquainted with Alexandrian Judaism (analoguous to the early II. cent. Epistle of Barnabas, which is also anonymous). Hebrews is also commonly dated to between 70 and 95. Its terminus ad quem is determined by its use by Clement of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians written in 96-98. 1 Clem. 36:1-5 is clearly derived from Heb. 1:3-7, 13 -- plus refers to Jesus Christ characteristically as "the High Priest of our offerings". It is also quoted in several places in an anonymous mid-II. cent. homily attributed erroneously to Clement of Rome (cf. 2 Clem. 11:6=Heb. 10:23 and 16:4=13:18). The mid-II. cent. author Hermas of Rome also quotes Hebrews (Vis. 2. 3. 2 and 3. 7. 2=Heb. 3:12; Sim. 1. 1. 1-10 alludes to Heb. 11:13-16). These sources, and the familiarity of Heb. by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180) and Pinytus of Knossus (c. 160-180), shows that Heb. was widely read and regarded as edifying in the early Church -- tho indeed its canonization was slow and fitful as authoritative scripture.

  The internal evidence of Heb. is also consistent with the late I. cent. It shows some familarity with the genuine Pauline letters (esp. Rom. and 1, 2 Cor.), avoids ecclesiastical terms like "deacon" and "bishop" (common to the later Pastorals) in favor of hagoumenoi "leaders" (also used by Clement of Rome in late I. cent.), refers to the first generation of apostles as already dead but Timothy as still alive (Heb. 13:7, 23), assumes that the readers of the homily belonged to the second generation of Christians (Heb. 2:3), mentions a past persecution of Christians "in earlier days" (Heb. 10:32-34) that most likely took place in Rome (13:24), which included "violence," "public" spectacles, loss of property, and possibly the martyrdoms alluded to in 13:7, and finally mentions a new second wave of persecution then on-going in the Church (Heb. 12:2-4; 13:13, 23) of which Christians should think back to the persecutions of Old Testament prophets (11:34-40), Jesus (12:2; 13:2), and the last persecution of Christians (10:32-34), though this current struggle has not yet claimed any new martyrs (Heb. 12:3-4). All this points pretty convincingly to a date between 80 and 95, during the Domitian persecution which was less severe than that of Nero (64-65) some time earlier.

  A good survey of the general consensus on the date and authorship of early Christian writings can be found here:

  http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

  Leolaia
• 

  peacefulpete

  Leo...Great post and yes I gave too broad of generalizations. Yes I have been influenced by the Dutch Radicals you refer to. I believe their basic conclusions have yet to be challenged, dispite the more conservative consensus. Some of my characterizations reult from interpretation of what constitutes "authentic" Pauline. Fragmentary passages woven artificially (bridged by later work) into a new book addressed to a fictional congregation is in my definition a fraud.This field is new to me and your well expressed post is greatly appreciated. I also am familiar with Peter's websites.
  
  PS I meant Ephesus not Laodicea in my first comment (I don't know where THAT came from)
• 

  Leolaia

  Pete....I would be very interested to read whatever "radical" works you've been reading....if you have any references that would be great. I find this subject to be very interesting and try to keep up with the literature, even if it is stuff I totally disagree with. One of the hugest problems with downdating the NT epistles and homilies to the mid-to-late II. cent. is their use by the apostolic fathers. How can a book be quoted or used by a writer between 95 and 140 if it wasn't written until sometime later? The direction of dependence is quite clear as to which source was more original -- Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp combine the thoughts from many different sources, the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians essentially strings together statements from many different NT epistles and the OT regardless of the context. And it isn't just the fact that these letters were already in existence. Since these letters internally claim to have been written by Paul, their widespread and early use shows that Pauline authorship was also widely accepted. In the mid-II. cent., we know that Marcion had a canon of Gal., 1, 2 Cor., Rom., 1, 2 Thes., Eph., Col., Phlm., and Philp. That means that Marcion knew and accepted these letters as Pauline while rejecting the Pastorals (possibly because of their use in catholic ecclesiology). An anti-gnostic tract from the same time also attests the existence of a Pauline corpus subject to "twisting" misinterpretations that was already regarded as grapha, "scripture" (2 Pet. 3:15-16; written in the mid-II. cent.).

  There is no evidence that Marcion formed the corpus himself. If he did, not only was this heretic's collection accepted in all parts of the Church less than a half century later in their own respective canons, but within that time it was contrived to reintroduce into it both whole epistles (the Pastorals of 1, 2 Tm. and Tit.) which he had omitted, and all the sections, sentences, and words which he had "erased" (as claimed by late II. cent. writer Tertullian), e.g. in Gal. and Rom. appeared the ideas of the righteousness of Abraham, and of the pedagogic function of the Mosiac Law, which fundamentally altered St. Paul's conception of Christianity. It makes far more sense that Marcion issued his revised edition of an already existing corpus, as he did of an already existing Gospel of Luke.

  There is evidence that a quarter of a century BEFORE Marcion, some of the Pauline epistles were beginning to the collected in the East, particularly in Asia Minor (where many of Paul's letters were addressed). A treasuring-up of his letters is suggested by the actions of the church at Philippi. They wanted to do just the same with the letters of Ignatius (115-117) and asked Polycarp to send them a copy of the letter that Ignatius had written to him, with any others that he had. Polycarp himself, as his letter in reply to them shows (written around 135-137), knew at least Rom., 1, 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., and 1, 2 Tm., and so these letters must have ALREADY BEEN collected at Smyrna. In 11:2 he quotes 1 Cor. 6:2 and attributes it to Paul ("Or do we not know that the saints will judge the world, as Paul teaches?"). Then he goes on to say that in their "midst the blessed Paul labored, who were HIS EPISTLES in the beginning. For he boasts about you in all the churches" (Polycarp 11:3). Not only does this attest a collection of Pauline letters, but evokes Paul's habit of referring to the churches themselves as letters (cf. "you are yourselves a letter" 2 Cor. 3:2; "you are a letter from Christ" 2 Cor. 3:3) and Paul's thanking of the Philippians for their support at "the beginning" of his ministry (Phil. 4:15). Then Polycarp does something quite astonishing. He says in 12:1: "For I am convinced that you are well trained in the SACRED SCRIPTURES and that nothing is hidden from you. Only, as it is said in these Scriptures, 'be angry but do not sin,' and 'do not let the sun set on your anger.' " Now, Ps. 4:5 is quoted in the first allusion, but a comparison with Eph. 4:26 shows that Polycarp is actually quoting Eph. which has both statements. For Polycarp to quote Eph. as "sacred scripture" it is quite inconceivable for it to be a late mid-II. cent. writing.

  And we independently know that a Pauline corpus had formed in the East.....Ignatius, in his own earlier letter to the Ephesians (115-117), calls them "fellow initiates of Paul ... who in every letter remembers you in Christ Jesus" (IgEph 12:2). That means that already in the early II. cent. Ignatius knew of a Pauline corpus at his church in Antioch in Syria. And when we remember that every one of his letters, except that to the Romans, was written to a church in Asia Minor, or in Macedonia, or Achaia on the other side of the water, it is natural to suppose that these were the regions where the collections were first made. And they must have been made independently as that explains why, in collections known to us a little later, they are arranged in different orders.

  This explains other things as well. If it was in the East, in Asia Minor and Syria, that a corpus of Paul's epistles first formed, this explains why Clement of Rome, writing around 96-98, shows a knowledge of very few epistles. Since he wrote from Rome to Corinth, it is not surprising that the ONLY TWO epistles with which he shows undoubted acquaintance are Romans and 1 Cor. The Asian epistles of Eph., Col., Gal. and the Macedonian epistles of Phil. and 1, 2 Thess. are not known to him. In 1 Clem. 47:1-3, he writes: "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he first write to you in the 'beginning of the gospel'? Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions." That is a reference to none other than 1 Cor. 1:12. This shows clearly that not only did Clement know 1 Cor. and accepted it as Pauline, but that the Corinthian church also recognized this letter as something that Paul had personally written to them. Remember, this was still in the I. cent.!! "The epistle" need not necessarily mean that Clement did not know 2 Cor. because later writers similarly called the First Epistle as "the epistle" and Origen and Chrysostom used similar language to refer to 1, 2 Thess. Clement would of course know Rom., and indeed he quite clearly echoes it in 1 Clem. 35:5-6, where he gives a list of 13 sins, eight of which occur in the same order in Rom. 1:39-32, and he adds a remark similar to Paul's: "For they who do such things are haters of God, and not only they who do them but also they who take pleasure in them." This shows that also in the I. cent. the epistle to the Rom. was also accepted as genuine by the church to which it was addressed.

  If the Pauline letters (including Eph. and the Pastorals) were accepted in the East by the time of Ignatius (who was bishop of Antioch between 100 and 117) and Polycarp (a friend of Ignatius who flourished through the first half of the II. cent), and if Clement of Rome and the Corinthian Church knew Rom. and 1 Cor. by 98, they had to have been already written in the I. cent., tho not necessarily all the letters by Paul himself, as evidence re Eph. and the Pastorals suggests. One attractive theory about the Pastorals is that they were written by Timothy between 80-110, expanding on genuine personal letters Paul had written to him -- adding his own thoughts and recommendations to Pauline fragments and then circulating this expanded revision of Paul's letters at that time. This would explain how such sub-Pauline letters were accepted in Asia at such an early date.

  As for your confusion between a letter to Ephesus versus Laodicea, this is an ancient confusion....as Eph. was known under both names. Marcion, for instance, referred to Eph. as Laodiceans. Tertullian in the late II. cent. blamed him for changing the title (adv. Marc. v. 11, 17), but this was his own personal belief. The fact is that in many manuscripts of Eph. the destination place-name "in Ephesus" is missing in Eph. 1:1 and Origin also knew this phrase to be absent. The theory is that in the letter was a circular and in the original manuscripts there was a blank in 1:1 where the name of the destination church would be written.....so it is entirely conceivable that Marcion knew a manucript that had "in Laodicea" in Eph 1:1, and thus called the letter Laodiceans. There is also the enigmatic statement in Col. 4:16: "After this letter had been read among you, send it on to the read in the church of the Laodiceans; and get the letter from Laodicea for you to read yourselves." This shows that Paul's letters are sent around to different congregations and also shows that an otherwise unattested letter to the Laodiceans existed. Could Eph. be this otherwise unknown Laodicean letter. Another fact suggests it -- there is a close textual relationship between Col. and Eph. -- the latter is basically a revision of the former and reproduces much of it word-for-word. Read them both side to side to see this. The context of Col. 4:16 plainly implies that the Colossians and the Laodiceans stood in the same relationship to the two letters in question. The question, then, is whether Eph. is really that Laodicean letter, a later epistle created to fill the gap of this "missing" Laodicean letter, or something else entirely. This is one of the mysteries of Pauline scholarship....how Eph. fits into the overall puzzle.

  Leolaia
• 

  peacefulpete

  Another excellent piece of work, thankyou. The real problem with reconstructions based upon Church Father testimony is that the extend letters and dialogue are themselves riddled with interpolations and pious frauds. Tertullian for example was a master forger of previous writers. Other methods must be relied upon to corobborate the conclusions from these writings. A website that is managed by a comrade of Peter Kirby is called simply ...Radikal kritik... I have the page posted in a thread here entitled "whats wrong with this picture"by plmkrzy, if you use my posting history you can find it under Bible research from september. If you google,,"radical critic textual" it comes up. It is in 3 languages. Sorry I could not get a link to work, then or now. With respect
• 

  Leolaia

  Thanks much for the reference! The link in question is: http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

  It is a very interesting read and I'll have to spend more time thinking through its arguments. This is the biggest problem I have with the Dutch Radical Criticism: In the more moderate critical view, the pieces fit together rather well, between the NT, apostolic fathers, and other writings....placing the core Pauline writings, in fact all the Pauline writings much later necessitates making the other writings later or heavily interpolated, and seems to create more problems than solving them. It is true that some patristic writing, especially the epistles of Ignatius were interpolated, but textual criticism has done a pretty good job weeding these out. All the examples I cited were from the critical consensus text. And the allusions to the Pauline letters are too common to have been all later insertions. If we remove them all, some letters, especially that of Polycarp, would just disintegrate. So it either a fairly neat, economical historical reconstruction where most of the Pauline letters are genuine and the apostolic fathers are genuine, or a far more complex situation where both are late II-cent. forgeries and, in the case of the Pauline letters, containing even later Catholic interpolations. And labeling the Pauline discussions of the Law as Catholic interpolations seems to be based more on what is demanded by the assumption of Marcionite authorship than by any actual evidence of literary integrity. How does excising these un-Marcion-like passages affect the argument, the literary structure of the argument? I think that is a big question. I don't think it can be a simple matter of just labeling what doesn't fit your theory as later interpolations and be done with it. Now if for a long while, scholars have independently had problems with these passages because they seem foreign to the context or have problematic textual histories, then that would make the argument much more convincing. As it is, the less needlessly complex hypothesis tends to be right.

  The author does tho point out quite a bit of interesting evidence that suggests that Paul had gnostic tendencies, and issues about the history of the church and traditions about Paul. The examples cited tho seem to overstate the case of the Paulinist author of the epistles as being Marcionite. For instance Rom. 8:3 is described as docetist, despite it clearly saying that Jesus' body was "as physical as any sinful body." Certainly doesn't sound docetist to me. The whole lengthy discussion of resurrection in 1 Cor. is also very far from docetism. Phil. 2:7 is likely drawn from a preexisting liturgy, so it doesn't seem to originate with Paul. There is lots of gnostic or pre-gnostic stuff in 1 Cor. about "mysteries" and "wisdom"....but careful analysis by Koester and others suggest that this was in response to a local Corinthian collection of Jesus sayings very different from that of the synoptics, except for a strand in Mark about "mysteries of heaven". I think it quite likely that Paul and other Diaspora/Gentile Christians of his time in the mid-I. cent. were semi-Gnostic or pre-Gnostic. It seems more typical of the late-I. cent. and II. cent for an orthodox Christianity to be defined in opposition to Gnosticm (cf. the anti-docetist polemics in 2-3 John, the Gospel of John, 2 Peter, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and so forth). Paul seems to be tinged with a little Gnosticism, John definitely is.....tho drawing on a clearly Gnostic or pre-Gnostic source, he explicitly tries to refute certain Gnostic claims (i.e. that salvation lies in knowledge rather than in Jesus himself) while accepting its dualism. The Gospel of Thomas imbibes both the synoptic and more Gnostic pre-Johannine traditions. An excellent example of early Christian dualism is the doctrine of the Two Ways. It finds its expression in the synoptic tradition (i.e. the narrow path vs. the wide path, sheeps vs. goats). It also occurs fully fleshed out in light vs. darkness symbolism in the Two Ways document in the Didache (early II. cent.) and Epistle of Barnabas (early II. cent). These documents are related to the earlier Hebrew version of the Two Ways discovered at Qumrum in the Dead Sea Scrolls. So slight gnostic tendencies in Paul without overt Marcionite/Gnostic doctrine seems to fit much better with the mid-I. cent. than with later periods.

  In any case, no one really knows, so it is all very interesting anyway. It is right to question every now and then "sacred cows" and assumptions which we all take for granted, so it is refreshing too. Still, the common consensus seems much more coherent, involves less stipulation (i.e. requiring certain texts that don't fit with Marcion to be regarded as interpolations), and so forth than radical view. It would seem a little strange too that virtually nothing would survive from the I. cent. compared to a sh*tload of stuff from the II. cent.

  Leolaia
• 

  peacefulpete

  Leo...once again your comment is well expressed. The fundemental difference between the work of Detering and his ilk and more conservative scholars is the value placed upon literarary criticism. Both the Bible books and other early writings have need to be viewed critically prior to drawing conclusions. Of course ,as your comment bore out ,everyone believes they have satisfied the demands of skepticism. I am hardly in a position to debate the relative merits of these schools of thought. I am however aware of many of the conclusions drawn by these scholars and a few of the rebuttals that are used in response to the usual arguments. I have largely enjoyed the Jesus Mysteries Yahoo forum (dispite the repeated digression to speculation on both sides). If you join the group (easy)you can read all of the documents and archives as well. It does seem to me that presently a full reconstruction that does justice to all the evidence is beyond us. Theory and model creation and disection is the best we can do. This is how it always is at the edges of scholarship.
  

  Fortunately for us here at this forum, what matters most is that all but Fundementalists recognize the writings of Paul do not merit slavish devotion as infallible messages from God. This was my original point abeit hastily presented.

  btw the page I referred you to has even more resources.

  With Respect PP
• 

  peacefulpete

  Aktuelle Artikel Bücher Rezensionen Klassiker Biographien Links Meinung

  E n g l i s c h e N i e d e r l ä n d i s c h e F r a n z ö s i s c h e Beiträge Neue Website: Critica Radicale del Nuovo Testamento - Fabrizo Palestini Seit 22. August 03 : Kritische Anfragen zum "Gefälschten Paulus" - Briefwechsel Pfr. Carl Beleites - Dr. Hermann Detering G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga: Die paulinischen Briefe. Aus dem Niederländischen übersetzt von Frans-Joris Fabri, Berlin 2003 -pdf Arthur Drews: The History of the Denial of the Historicity of Jesus , 1926 - Eine Zusammenfassung von Klaus Schilling Nikolaus Ebbinghaus, MA: Wer war Silvanus? Der große frühchristliche Denker und seine Lehren im Lichte der Radikalkritik, 2003 RadikalkritikBeiträge zur Radikalen Kritik der frühchristlichen Geschichte Texte - Materialien - Perspektiven De omnibus dubitandum © Hermann Detering, Berlin - letzte Änderung September 2003

  Was ist Radikalkritik? Trotz aller Anstrengungen der historischen Kritik in den letzten 200 Jahren liegen die Anfänge des Christentums immer noch im dunkeln. Auch die moderne Forschung hat es nicht vermocht, dieses Dunkel wesentlich zu erhellen. Das Bild der frühchristlichen Geschichte, das sie uns vermittelt, erscheint heute widersprüchlicher und verwirrender denn je. Dabei betreffen die Widersprüche und Unklarheiten nicht nur unwichtige Randbereiche der Forschung, sondern ihren Kern. So sind im Hinblick auf die Gestalt des Paulus entscheidende Fragen immer noch ungeklärt: Welches ist das Zentrum der paulinischen Theologie? Welche Stellung hat Paulus gegenüber Gesetz und Judentum? Mit welchen Gegnern setzt sich Paulus in seinen Schriften auseinander? >> weiter Despite all efforts of historical criticism during the past two centuries, the origins of Christianity remain hidden in deep darkness. Even modern research has not been successful in throwing full light upon them. According to Radical Criticism, this is due to the fact that the decisive presuppositions of previous work on the history of early Christianity have never been questioned methodically. This is true especially for the supposed genuineness of important documents of early Christianity as, for example, the Ignatian letters, 1 Clement and all of Paul's Epistles. Radical Criticism has shown that their genuineness has by no means been firmly established. Nor can the human Jesus of Nazareth as a figure of history be regarded as a self-evident basic assumption. Following the footsteps of the German critic Bruno Bauer and of the Dutch Radical School (W.C. Van Manen, G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga), Radical Criticism tries to excavate the roots of early Christanity without any ecclesiastical or ideological bias. NEW: Read the following introduction by Klaus Schilling: Klaus Schilling : A survey: Van den Bergh van Eysinga, 2003 Arthur Drews (1865 - 1935) Abgesehen von Bruno Bauer und Albert Kalthoff gehört der Karlsruher Philosoph Arthur Drews zu den bekanntesten deutschen Bestreitern der Existenz eines historischen Jesus. Nach dem Erscheinen seines Buches: "Die Christusmythe" (1909) kam es zu heftigen öffentlichen Kontroversen. Albert Schweizer hat den von Drews aufgestellten Thesen in seiner "Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung" (1913) ein ganzes Kapitel gewidmet. Heute ist die "Christusmythe" in Deutschland - anders als in den angelsächischen Ländern, in denen noch immer eine Übersetzung (The Christ Myth) auf dem Markt ist - weithin in Vergessenheit geraten. Über den Verfasser weiß kaum jemand etwas. Dr. Bernhard Hoffers ist den Spuren des umstrittenen Verfassers der "Christumythe" nachgegangen. I n seinem Vortrag bemüht er sich um eine gerechte Würdigung des umstrittenen Karlsruher Gelehrten, "sine ira et studio". Bernhard Hoffers: Arthur Drews (1865 - 1935) Professor der Philosophie an der Technischen Hochschule Karlsruhe Englische Zusammenfassung von Klaus Schilling auf Michael Hoffmans's website G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga Neue Online-Texte (niederländisch) - ab Mai 2003 Leeft Jezus - of heeft hij alleen maar geleefd? Een Studie over het dogma der historiciteit(pdf) Arnhem - 1930 Außerchristliche Zeugnisse für die Existenz Jesu? GW S VI S. 36-56, 1949 GETUIGENISSEN AANGAANDE JEZUS BUITEN HET NIEUWE TESTAMENT Das Christentum - eine Mysterienreligion? GW S VI S. 3-22, 1950 HET CHRISTENDOM ALS MYSTERIEGODSDIENST (pdf) Hinweis auf Yahoo! -Diskussionsgruppe: JesusMysteries · Explore the question, "Was Jesus an historical figure?" Laypersons and Scholars are welcome to present views. A discussion of the ideas in such recently published books as, The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy; The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? by Earl Doherty; and, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography and The Birth of Christianity by John Dominic Crossan. Also raised are relevant ideas in works by authors Paula Fredriksen, G. A. Wells, Robert M. Price, Elaine Pagels, Stevan Davies, Darrell Doughty, Burton Mack, Alvar Ellegard, Marcus Borg, John P. Meier, Hermann Detering, Robert Eisenman, John S. Kloppenborg, et al. One of the main attractions in asking the controversial question, "Was Jesus historical?" is the engagement in an intriguing, interesting, and investigative challenge to become better informed. We're doing detective work, examining the historical record, discovering evidence, researching, gathering clues from each other, marshalling and weighing evidence, sorting, assessing, trying to synthesize. JesusMysteries is an ongoing *historical* inquiry and not a religious one--do not post messages of an apologetic nature. Exploration of the widely varied theories is encouraged in your search for fact and truth. Articles, interviews, book reviews and other resources are provided in the extensive Bookmarks section to this community http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/links Please feel free to join and interact and to express yourself courteously. Welcome to everyone and enjoy! INHALT (pdf) LESEPROBE (pdf) Hiermit bestelle ich: Hermann Detering: Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus? Peter Lang 1992. 25,00 ? + Versandkosten >> Weitere Informationen siehe: Bücher Joseph Turmel/Henri Delafosse (1859-1943): Der Brief an die Römer Einleitung und KommentarÜbersetzt von Frans-Joris Fabri Der unter 14 (!) verschiedenen Pseudonymen schreibende Abbé (Henri Delafosse, Antoine Dupin etc.) gehört zweifellos zu den interessantesten und schillerndsten Gestalten des französischen "Modernismus". Nach eigenem Bekunden hatte er den katholischen Glauben bereits 1886 verloren; gleichwohl tat er alles, um ihn nach außen zu verteidigen. 1910 leistete er den Antimodernisteneid, 1930 wurde er durch die excommunicatio maior aus der Kirche ausgeschlossen. In seinem Kommentar zum Römerbrief erweist sich Turmel als brillanter Exeget. Obschon er am historischen Paulus festhält, hat er ein untrügliches Gespür für die verschiedenen Briefschichten, insbesondere für den großen Anteil marcionitischer Passagen, die er freilich für sekundär hält. Die Spannungen und Widersprüche werden. präzise erkannt und scharfsinnig gelöst. Eine Reihe von Beobachtungen deuten sicher darauf hin, daß viele Abschnitte des Briefes nur vor dem Hintergrund der theologischen Diskussion des 2. Jahrhunderts angemessen verstanden werden können. (Osterfeststreit!). Das faszinierende Buch wurde jetzt erstmals von Frans-Joris Fabri ins Deutsche übersetzt. DER BRIEF AN DIE RÖMER (Kommentar) TEXT Den Text des französischen Originals finden Sie hier: L'ÉPITRE AUX ROMAINS (Introduction et notes) TRADUCTION Mehr über Joseph Turmel: Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon Weitere Werke von Joseph Turmel auf D.J. Mahars ausgezeichneter, inhaltsreicher Marcion-Website (in englischer Übersetzung) Adversus Marcionem, Buch V - jetzt online! D as 5. Buch des großen antimarcionitischen Werkes Adversus Marcionem aus der Feder des lateinischen Kirchenvaters Tertullian (? ca. 220 n.) ist bis heute die wichtigste Quelle für die Rekonstruktion der marcionitischen Version der Paulusbriefe. Nach der lateinischen Fassung der beiden ersten Bücher wurde nun von Roger Pearse auch das 5. Buch (auf der Grundlage der Ausgabe von Ernest Evans, Oxford 1972) ins Netz gestellt. Ein Besuch der ungemein materialreichen Tertullian-Homepage ist sehr zu empfehlen! © 2000-2003 Hermann Detering Hermann Detering Der Gefälschte Paulus Das Urchristentum im Zwielicht, 1995 (pdf-Version) Die html-Version zum Herunterladen! Doherty's "Jesus-Puzzle" in deutscher Übersetzung Earl Dohertys "Jesus-Puzzle" ist in diesem Jahr im Angelika Lenz-Velag in deutscher Übersetzung erschienen Herkules - Melqart auf der Stele von B re g Hercules - Christus In seinem Aufsatz aus dem Jahre 1947 weist G.A. van den Bergh van Esinga auf zahlreiche interessante Parallelen zwischen der mythologischen Gestalt des Herakles/Herkules und Christus hin. Das Interesse am Hercules - Christus-Aufsatz ist nach wie vor groß. Schon seit langem gehört er zu den am häufigsten abgerufenen Texten dieser Website. Jetzt liegt erstmals eine deutsche Übersetzung vor. Sie stammt - wie so viele andere Übersetzungen dieser Seite - wieder einmal von Frans-Joris Fabri. Herzlichen Dank! Zur deutschen Version (pdf) Frans-Joris Fabri G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga: Hercules - Christus Godsdienstwetenschappelijke Studi ë n I, 1947 (pdf) Den lat. Text der von van den Bergh van Eysinga besprochenen Tragödie "Hercules Oetaeus" finden Sie hier. G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga Radikalkritische "Einleitung" in die Paulusbriefe In seinem Werk "De Oudste Christelijke Geschriften" aus dem Jahre 1946 gibt G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga einen kurzen Überblick über die Ergebnisse der radikalkritischen Erforschung der "Paulusbriefe". Eine radikalkritische "Einleitung", die den neuesten Stand der Forschung berücksichtigt, ist bisher leider immer noch ein unerfülltes Desiderat. G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga: Brieven (OCG - Den Haag 1946) - in niederländischer Sprache Zur "Echtheit" des 1. Clemensbriefes Onderzoek naar de Echtheid van Clemens' eersten brief aan de Corinthiers - PDF-File G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga - Leiden 1908 - niederländisch Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga und die radikale Schule V ortrag von Dr. Hermann Detering - gehalten am 21. Juni 2001 an der Universität Amsterdam (Oost-Indisch Huis) auf dem Kongress zum Thema: De Geschiedenis van Theologie en Godsdienstwetenschap aan het Athenaeum Illustre en de Universiteit van Amsterdam, veranstaltet von der Commissie Geschiedschrijving UvA, Dr. P.J. Knegtmans, Dr. Peter van Rooden (UvA). Ehrengrab für Bruno Bauer (1809-1882) L aut Beschluss des Berliner Senats Nr. 224/01 vom 21. August 2001 ist die Grabstätte von Bruno Bauer für zunächst 20 Jahre als Ehrengrabstätte anerkannt worden. Der Bezirk Neukölln ist gebeten worden, für die ständige Betreuung der Grabstätte zu sorgen. HD Bruno Bauers Grab Marcions Galaterbrief für BibleWorks 5 Für alle Anwender von BibleWorks 5 besteht ab jetzt die Möglichkeit, die von Hermann Detering rekonstruierte Marcionitische Version des Galaterbriefes herunterzuladen und als eigenständige Text-Database in Bibleworks 5 zu integrieren.Es existiert sowohl eine Text- als auch eine morphologische Version. Textversion MAT (mat.vmf - mat.ddf - mat.cat) Morphologische Version: MAM (mat.vmf - mat.ddf - mat.cat) Zu einer Version gehören jeweils drei Dateien, die 1. entzippt, 2. in das BW 5-Verzeichnis "userdb" kopiert und 3. installiert werden müssen ("Install after compiling" - im Version Database-Compiler). Hier downloaden... Für die Texte gilt das Copyright © 2003 Hermann Detering
• 

  Leolaia

  Thanks again for the information and the invitation...looks like I have a lot of stuff to wade through. About your main point in this thread, it's not clear on what the overlaid literacy rate is based on. How reliable is it? The picture in Acts of the Apostles stresses the oral teaching of the apostles and missionaries, the epistles suggest that Paul often needed Silas, Timothy, or Mark in writing the letters, the reference in Col. I cited suggests that the letters were read aloud in the congregations and in certain cases sent along to the next congregation. I don't have any problem with the notion that like in the synagogues the letters were read aloud just as the Law and Prophets were read aloud, which goes some of the way towards explaining why Paul's epistles were so quickly regarded as Scripture. It seems only one or two literate ppl were needed per congregation, and such was an essential component, and so if the numbers were few, they were sent around (as Mark apparantly was) to "where the need was greater". The tradition in Papias about Mark is that he was the literate one -- writing and composing with Peter giving his teaching orally. I don't necessarily mean that this is what happened, but I think it may speak to the general situation at the time. Papias is a good witness to the role of oral teaching over writing in his time (early II. cent). He said he always inquired from passing elders what the previous generation of elders taught because "I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice." And we all know about the oral transmission of the sayings of Jesus, the collection of oral Q sayings, and the existence of a vast body of agrapha not found in written sources. I suspect there was more literacy in the West than in the East...which probably explains the more bureaucratic, ecclesiastical nature of the former and the more traditional, looser nature of the latter. Though I am not initimately acquainted with the facts of the matter, I do doubt that literacy in the Hellenistic world, particularly in the urban centres where many of the churches started, was as rare as claimed by the author. So while I agree that most, nearly all Christians were probably illiterate, I don't see this as a problem to the authenticity of the Pauline corpus and the use of written epistles and OT texts in the early churches.

  Leolaia
• 

  peacefulpete

  The two are only indirectly related. The thread simply turned. However there is obviously greater opportunity for corruption when great trust is vested in only a handful of literate men.