Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View Son of Man: History and/or Culture
4 years ago  ::  Feb 26, 2010 - 2:36PM #41
Community.beliefnet.comstone
Posts: 180

Feb 26, 2010 -- 7:52AM, Dennis wrote:


There is very little narrative found in the Paulines.



Narratives are irrelevant to my point.  Rather, the discrepancies found between a number of references in the authentic Paulines versus those in Acts are.  What you wrote two or three posts ago implied that what we see in Acts can sometimes be judged as on a par with the authentic Paulines.  This is patently absurd.  The authentic Paulines have priority.  Acts is spin -- as is much of Luke (although some would make an exception for the double-tradition sayings material).  It may well be plausible that in the authentic Paulines, Paul sometimes arrogates to himself more status than he really had, but he clearly figures he can get away with it.  Otherwise, there are, in fact, certain basic discrepancies relating to basic timelines and voyages that cannot be put down to Paul's divertingly oversized ego and point to "carelessness" in Acts.


Feb 26, 2010 -- 7:52AM, Dennis wrote:

The largest block of narrative is found in Galatians, which is unattested before the last half of the second century, when it was seen as being discovered by Marcion (See Tertullian and Irenaeus) and had to be explained ("defended") on the terms of Marcion.


The same basic group (the Tubingens) responsible for the notion of 'seven authentic Paulines' had whittled that to four by the mid-19th century.



Ironically, the latest statistical analysis of the Greek in the authentic Paulines, vintage the 1960s, did bring the authentics down to four, and Galatians (along with Romans and Corinthians 1 & 2) actually survived the cut.  What do you mean by "basic" group?  Who was the scholar who first whittled it down to seven and who first whittled it down to four, and were they really one and the same?


Feb 26, 2010 -- 7:52AM, Dennis wrote:

This was pared to none authentic by the end of the nineteenth century... The only rational reason they are still considered "authentic" has nothing to do with their authenticity and everything to do with the fact that the theology of Christianity can not withstand this knowledge.



Please spare me your conspiratorial soapbox.  All of today's peer-reviewed scholarship uniformly sets the fundamentalists' teeth on edge.  The notion that today's scholars, many of them skeptics, give a damn about "the theology of Christianity" that "can not withstand this knowledge" is laughable.


Walther

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2010 - 7:42AM #42
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

"What you wrote two or three posts ago implied that what we see in Acts can sometimes be judged as on a par with the authentic Paulines."


I don't think I said that, but in one way (probably not the one you think I mean), this is correct... Neither are "authentic." Neither are "historical." They are both largely second century Church creations. In this way, they are comparable.


On the other hand, they are two separate genre of literature. It, therefore, is difficult to compare them. Some of the Acts Seminar discussion deals with the relationship of the two. Research has been very mixed as to the use of the Paulines by Acts. (When one is speaking of the second and third century, one doesn't speak of "authentic" Paulines, since all were considered "authentic" then.) There was an article in the JS journal "Forum" a few years back in which either Pervo or Tyson had found around 80 references to specific Paulines in Acts. In that scholar's opinion, the Paulines were a major "building block" for Acts.


It is helpful to realize that Acts was created because the Gnostics and Marcions had "sprung" a new, heretofore unrecognized "apostle" on the proto-orthodoxy, "Paul." This figure of the letters was responsible for what the early church leaders saw as heresy. At the same time, the Marcionites, Valentinians and other groups were "stealing" adherents from their religion. What we have with Acts is an attempt to create a new "Paul," one who didn't write letters at all in the narrative, one for whom a "Jewish" name, the name of a fallen (mythic) king, "Saul"... The name, however, is only equated to "Paul" in one verse of Acts! (This verse seems to relate to a writing by Galen in the mid-second century, but that's another story.) We find "Acts of the Apostles" attached, in early codices, to the letters, not to the gospels. This is obviously the reason. We also find many interpolations in the Paulines reflecting a "softening" of the letters... Even Origen remarked in the early third century about the many differences in what are now the Christian testament texts, made to reflect different views.


Dennis

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook