Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

I think we can infer that Paul thought Jesus's mother's home cooking was the best he'd ever had.

Yes I believe his mums Lamb-of-God pie was famous throughout Judea, and a great favourite at the Christmas festivities. Although, apparently, several people did afterward rise from the dead to complain that her preference for adding half a cup of rotting lizards had fatally poisoned them all … still, you can’t have everything can you.

 

[Belz...]

No. Completely untrue. I am reading the words that are in the letter.

Not that I am comparing you to such, but this reminds me of biblical literalists who insist that they read the text without interpretation, only to continually interpret what they read to suit their pre-conceived notions.

 

[pakeha]

I believe I have answered this question many times before, and I don't think answering again at this point would be useful.

Are you saying nothing that's been discussed here has influenced your point of view whatsoever?

No, this is not at all what I am saying, and I don't understand how you can possibly understand this from my post above.

You say you've answered this question many times and you 'don't think answering again at this point would be useful.'
Aren't we all to understand your opinion hasn't changed so you'd be simply repeating it?

A good point about the accuracy of documentaries.
However, aren't we talking about an entirely different genre when referring to the sources for the Jesus story?

We are talking about people reporting stories with an agenda in mind. I don't see an important difference, even with religion involved. Of course the style and genre differ, but I don't think this significantly undermines my example.

Of course it does.
You're comparing a tv documentary with pious hagiography.
Or are you saying that anything published be it fiction or non-fiction is to be judged with the same criteria?

In any case, there's a wealth of data outside that documentary you cited to demonstrate to what point it can be taken seriously.

But let's assume that you live in a post-apocalyptic world , and find the documentary. You happen to have a functional DVD player, and plug it in to watch the documentary. You have zero evidence outside of this video for this flood event. What can you conclude from it ?

Let's not.
Why not stick with the comparisons that are already on the table?
Do you want us to think you're throwing out a hypothetical situation to avoid discussing when there are real examples of legendary figures to compare to Jesus?

It seems apologists and HJ proponents are reduced to claiming the Romans crucified people, therefore Jesus.

Can you cite someone making such an argument ?

Do you deny plausibility is an argument used by HJ proponents and apologists?

I think we can infer that Paul thought Jesus's mother's home cooking was the best he'd ever had.

Fascinating.
I know biblical scholarship has evolved a vocabulary designed to dissimulate unpalatable truths- pseudoepigraph for forgery, for example, but I had no idea 'home cooking' was used to describe 'the best he'd ever had'.
Putting the E into JREF, you are!

 

[Belz...]

You say you've answered this question many times and you 'don't think answering again at this point would be useful.'
Aren't we all to understand your opinion hasn't changed so you'd be simply repeating it?

No, we are not. I would appreciate if you didn't add content to my posts that I didn't write. I am simply saying that I have answered this question several times, and that therefore you should know the answer by now.

Of course it does.
You're comparing a tv documentary with pious hagiography.

I am comparing one story with an agenda with another story with an agenda. That's the scope of the analogy/comparison.

Or are you saying that anything published be it fiction or non-fiction is to be judged with the same criteria?

No one is discussing criteria. I am simply illustrating that one mistake, omission or fabrication in a story does not tell us whether some other element of the story is true or false.

Let's not.
Why not stick with the comparisons that are already on the table?

I am sticking to it. The point is that you have no other text to verify the first's allegations. I am trying to get you to stick to the hypothetical.

Do you want us to think you're throwing out a hypothetical situation to avoid discussing when there are real examples of legendary figures to compare to Jesus?

Speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for anyone else who may or may not interpret my posts as you do, especially after I correct your misrepresentations. Also, I would appreciate if you refrained from attempting to play the psychology card with me. "You wouldn't want me to say that you're evil, would you ?" isn't a very convincing argument, nor is it likely to lead to constructive discussion.

Do you deny plausibility is an argument used by HJ proponents and apologists?

I repeat: Can you cite someone making such an argument ? It is not my burden to prove you wrong.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

I am reading the words that are in the letter.

Nobody doubts that, Ian.

And quoting them here repeatedly.

Well, quoting is a a stretch. It's an English language forum, so we all use translations here. For many passages, we find a variety of often incompatible translations. That's what you quote, your choice of translation from a wealth of possibilities.

In any case, after we read, regardless of the language involved, then we seek to understand the meaning of the words we have read. This cannot be anything other than uncertain. These are letters, and we lack the entire other side of the correspondence. They are business letters that refer to an ongoing business enterprise, apparently in collusive competition with other vendors, all of whom passed from the scene centuries ago, leaving only this contemporary trace. It is not a complete record of the one vendor's business correspondence, but a quirky selection from it.

There would be much in such letters for reasonable diagreement, even if they discussed less contentious subject matter.

You are inventing your own personal Jesus belief, contrary to the factually existing evidence written in P46. I am not doing any such thing.

You don't know me. The fact is that we disagree, and you are, for whatever reason, unable or unwilling to accept that a person can disagree with you without invention. This attitude is not my problem, Ian, and it has nothing to do with what does interest me, the early history of Christianity and Islam.


proudfootz

He distinguishes this from sources for any information he gets about Jesus.

Not with regard to his statements about the occurrences of Jesus' natural life, death and burial. Paul does insist that his religious interpretation of those statements and of what happened after Jesus died and his corpse was buried doesn't come from consulting other people.

To insist on that requires Paul to come to terms with the obvious, that such consultations are a potential source of purported factual information about Jesus. Having done so, and having insisted that nevertheless, his religious interpretive teachings are uncontaminated, Paul proceeds to describe such meetings, which occurred over the course of several years, with people whose business he already knew about from having persecuted and then competed with them, and others in the same line.

But since Paul does not apparently have any notion of a 'Jesus biography' it's a moot point where he might have gotten information we don't know he was in possession of.

What information Paul got and relayed about Jesus' natural life story isn't a moot concern here.

 

[dejudge]

Sadly, the only one missing is Paul.

We have but one reference in Paul, and it is most likely spurious.

We also have one reference in writings attributed to Aristides, Origen, Hippolytus, and Lactantius.

It is not logical at all that one mention of an event makes it spurious.

This is a partial list of Four Apologetics with ONE REFERENCE that the Jews killed Jesus.

1. Aristides' Apology ----But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.


2. Hippolytus' 'Against the Jews' ----7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? ....... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor.

3. Origen's "Against Celsus" 1---he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ.

4. Lactantius' "How the Persecutors Died"-- I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

 

[David Mo]

No. You need to read the post again. What I described as the "fact", was the existence of P46 with it's words translated to give the quotes from Corinthians and Galatians. It is apparently claimed as a "fact" (not claimed by me, but claimed by bible scholars and others) that p46 exists, and that P46 and/or other existing translated mss contain the above quoted passages from Corinthians and Galatians.

There are different, although related, problems with texts in Ancient History: Dating, authorship, reliability and interpretation.

You have regularly maintained in this forum that Paul never obtains information from nobody, but only by his personal inspiration or by revelation. You have maintained this as a fact, refusing to admit not a single critical interpretation of the Paul's words. The word of Paul was a factual evidence for you.

P46 poses a dating problem. This is a different problem. Not a problem of reliability. But occasionally you also maintain the peculiar doctrine that a text only can be dated by existent manuscripts. This is a dating problem but affects to the first one because if the text is from the Second Century has not any reliability.

If you maintain the latter theory the first one has no sense. The whole debate we have maintained in this forum is nonsensical. You have taken our time in vain. It will be useful that you decide what of the two positions is yours, because if we take them together they are incompatible.

 

[pakeha]

You say you've answered this question many times and you 'don't think answering again at this point would be useful.'
Aren't we all to understand your opinion hasn't changed so you'd be simply repeating it?

No, we are not. I would appreciate if you didn't add content to my posts that I didn't write. I am simply saying that I have answered this question several times, and that therefore you should know the answer by now.

That would be a 'yes', then.
I don't think it's problematic that nothing in these threads has influenced the way you view a HJ. I've certainly learned a lot here and was surprised to find you hadn't.

Of course it does.
You're comparing a tv documentary with pious hagiography.

I am comparing one story with an agenda with another story with an agenda. That's the scope of the analogy/comparison.

Not really.
The one story with an agenda is an example of contemporary shoddy journalism destined for the mass media market.
The other is hagiography from the beginnings of the common era in the Roman Empire, destined to foment a cult.

Or are you saying that anything published be it fiction or non-fiction is to be judged with the same criteria?

No one is discussing criteria. I am simply illustrating that one mistake, omission or fabrication in a story does not tell us whether some other element of the story is true or false.

You don't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction?
Or consider the glaring errors and inconsistencies in the passion story make it reasonable to doubt the veracity of the execution itself?

Let's not.
Why not stick with the comparisons that are already on the table?

I am sticking to it. The point is that you have no other text to verify the first's allegations. I am trying to get you to stick to the hypothetical.

It's quite true we have no other text to verify the Jesus story, other than what we find in the NT.
It's why I was asking for reasons to consider Jesus as more likely to be an historical personage than Till Eulenspiegel or Robin Hood.

While positing a post-Apocalyptic scenario and wondering whether we'd take your video seriously or not could be an amusing pastime, why insist on it? I'm interested in knowing just what can be gleaned from narrative theology, if anything at all.

Do you want us to think you're throwing out a hypothetical situation to avoid discussing when there are real examples of legendary figures to compare to Jesus?

Speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for anyone else who may or may not interpret my posts as you do, especially after I correct your misrepresentations. Also, I would appreciate if you refrained from attempting to play the psychology card with me. "You wouldn't want me to say that you're evil, would you ?" isn't a very convincing argument, nor is it likely to lead to constructive discussion.

Sorry my question was so poorly worded you thought I was attempting to play the psychology card with you.
In any case, as I asked earlier, do we have reasons to think Mary Magdalen existed? Or is she simply a narrative element of the Jesus story?

Do you deny plausibility is an argument used by HJ proponents and apologists?

I repeat: Can you cite someone making such an argument ? It is not my burden to prove you wrong.

Of course it isn't your burden.
I was surprised you'd want me to cite someone using the plausibility argument for an HJ, though as I started up the JREF search engine it quickly became clear that I'd drastically oversimplified the use of the plausibility argument.

As I read over the discussions about the plausibility of Jesus' existence both here and at RatSkep, I see it's brought up to point out its unreliability as methodology

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1317654.html?hilit=plausibility Jesus plausible Jesus#p1317654
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1346286.html?hilit=plausibility Jesus plausible Jesus#p1346286

Thanks for giving me the chance to reread some of those discussions.

 

[IanS]

No. You need to read the post again. What I described as the "fact", was the existence of P46 with it's words translated to give the quotes from Corinthians and Galatians. It is apparently claimed as a "fact" (not claimed by me, but claimed by bible scholars and others) that p46 exists, and that P46 and/or other existing translated mss contain the above quoted passages from Corinthians and Galatians.

There are different, although related, problems with texts in Ancient History: Dating, authorship, reliability and interpretation.

You have regularly maintained in this forum that Paul never obtains information from nobody, but only by his personal inspiration or by revelation. You have maintained this as a fact, refusing to admit not a single critical interpretation of the Paul's words. The word of Paul was a factual evidence for you.

P46 poses a dating problem. This is a different problem. Not a problem of reliability. But occasionally you also maintain the peculiar doctrine that a text only can be dated by existent manuscripts. This is a dating problem but affects to the first one because if the text is from the Second Century has not any reliability.

If you maintain the latter theory the first one has no sense. The whole debate we have maintained in this forum is nonsensical. You have taken our time in vain. It will be useful that you decide what of the two positions is yours, because if we take them together they are incompatible.

Well first of all, I just very clearly pointed out to you that the post you were complaining about made repeatedly clear that the “fact” I was talking about was the “apparent” existence of mss such as P46 and the “apparent” “fact” that the words we have had quoted here so many times from Corinthians and Galatians, are indeed the same passages which are always quoted from those letters. Why did you not just reply accepting that is indeed as I said “apparently” a “fact”? Why did you not have the decency to admit you were wrong when you tried to criticise me for describing the existence those passages and their words as a “fact”?

But as far as the rest of your above post is concerned, I’m afraid the English is just too opaque for me to know what you are trying to claim.

However, what is clear is what I said to you before about why I did not accept eight bits claim that he is at liberty to read into Paul’s letters words that are not actually in the letters, i.e. the words “corpse”, “survivors” and “grieving” (in what he described as clinical shock for a dead friend/acquaintance), and then to proceed to conclude from such words that Paul was speaking about a “Christ” who he believed to have been a real human person.

That is not just a matter, as eight bits repeatedly said, of just the way he decides to “read” Paul’s letters vs. the way I might decide to read those letters. Because he is “reading” words that are not actually in the letters at all.

If eight bits or anyone else here wants to believe that Paul was probably describing what he thought had once been a human person named “Jesus”, then he is perfectly free to draw that conclusion. But not on the basis of saying that Paul wrote about a “corpse”, wrote about people as “survivors” of knowing Jesus, or about peoples visions being a medically identifiable case of “grieving” from profound shock at the death of a personal acquaintance.

Of course it’s true that if a casual reader simply looks at the words in many of Paul’s letters, he/she may think that when Paul talks of experiencing a vision of “Christ” and says that according to scripture this figure died and was raised on the third day, it may sound as if he is talking about some person of the past, because in normal conversation if we talked today of anyone dying then it would always be presumed that it referred to a real person (imaginary people don’t literally die). But of course the entire reason for the scepticism about Paul’s words is that for over 100 years now, numerous sceptical authors have written to explain why those few words cannot automatically be taken to mean that Paul thought of this visionary “Christ” as an ordinary human person living in the past.

 

[IanS]

Ian


Nobody doubts that, Ian.


Well, quoting is a a stretch. It's an English language forum, so we all use translations here. For many passages, we find a variety of often incompatible translations. That's what you quote, your choice of translation from a wealth of possibilities.

In any case, after we read, regardless of the language involved, then we seek to understand the meaning of the words we have read. This cannot be anything other than uncertain. These are letters, and we lack the entire other side of the correspondence. They are business letters that refer to an ongoing business enterprise, apparently in collusive competition with other vendors, all of whom passed from the scene centuries ago, leaving only this contemporary trace. It is not a complete record of the one vendor's business correspondence, but a quirky selection from it.

There would be much in such letters for reasonable diagreement, even if they discussed less contentious subject matter.


You don't know me. The fact is that we disagree, and you are, for whatever reason, unable or unwilling to accept that a person can disagree with you without invention. This attitude is not my problem, Ian, and it has nothing to do with what does interest me, the early history of Christianity and Islam.

OK, well see my above reply to David Mo.

The point is - you cannot draw conclusions about Paul's beliefs by reading into his letters words that are not in the letters.

 

[David Mo]

But as far as the rest of your above post is concerned, I’m afraid the English is just too opaque for me to know what you are trying to claim.

It is easy to understand even with my opaque English. If the Paul's epistles can be dated in the Second Century -as Drew and others maintain-, what they actually say and who said it are irrelevant questions about our subject He or they can by no means be witnesses of the historical Jesus. First of all, we ought to discuss the problem of dating. All the rest is a loss of time.

PS: I hope now it will be clear. I have checked the text by an English corrector twice. (The English correctors you know... Sometimes they are a cure worse than the disease.)

 

[Belz...]

That would be a 'yes', then.

Why do you persist in pretending that what I say means its precise opposite ?

I don't think it's problematic that nothing in these threads has influenced the way you view a HJ.

What's problematic is that it isn't the case. What's also problematic is that it has nothing to do with my reluctance to repeat myself. Your continued insistence on making it appear that it does is puzzling.

Not really.

Interesting. You know the scope of my own example better than I, apparently.

You don't distinguish between fiction and non-fiction?

Again: why do you continue to attempt to make this personal ? Have I done something to you in the past ?

I was surprised you'd want me to cite someone using the plausibility argument for an HJ

I find that surprising, as well, given that people on this forum are very often asked to support their assertions. Did you think I would simply take your word for it ?

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

I can see that I liked Belz...'s example better than you did. I am +/- OK with your characterization of gospels as hagiography, but I also think that one propagandist is much like another, and that what hagiographers do is much like what other propagandists do. If so, then the proposed analogy(-ies) would go through profitably.

...Mary Magdalene...

An interesting problem, but a different one than Jesus, I think.

She really is someone like Robin Hood. Nothing in the observable world is known to have been affected by whether either one of them was real. People made up stories in which each one influences history, but we can't find any actual trace of their influence being effective. It was a secret marriage, or a secret teaching, or an irregular guerilla force, don't you know. Like the Mossad agent visiting the WTC with a backpack full of thermite, their activity wasn't supposed to leave traces of their personal involvement, and didn't.

"Historical Jesus" refers to hypotheses in which Jesus not only existed, but also took active steps that turned out to help spread what has become a pandemic. "Historical Magadlene," like "Historical Robin," never leaves the skull of some storyteller, so far as we can tell, and so far as we imagine we ever could tell. So, different problems, IMO.

 

[dejudge]

Of course it’s true that if a casual reader simply looks at the words in many of Paul’s letters, he/she may think that when Paul talks of experiencing a vision of “Christ” and says that according to scripture this figure died and was raised on the third day, it may sound as if he is talking about some person of the past, because in normal conversation if we talked today of anyone dying then it would always be presumed that it referred to a real person (imaginary people don’t literally die). But of course the entire reason for the scepticism about Paul’s words is that for over 100 years now, numerous sceptical authors have written to explain why those few words cannot automatically be taken to mean that Paul thought of this visionary “Christ” as an ordinary human person living in the past.

The Pauline writings are about the BODILY resurrection of God Incarnate. The Spirit is IMMORTAL [cannot die].


Pharisees do not believe the Soul can die.

1. A Pauline writer claimed he was a Pharisee. [Philippians 3]

2. A Pauline writer claimed the Jews Killed Jesus. [1 Thessalonians 2]

3. A Pauline writer claimed Jesus was Raised from the dead on the Third Day. [1 Cor.15]

Josephus' Wars of the Jews 2.8.14

the Pharisees......They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment..

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.3.

Now, for the Pharisees...... They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them......

As soon as it was claimed Paul was a Pharisee then immediately it is understood that he was claiming the dead body of the Son of God was raised from the dead on the THIRD Day after he was Killed by the Jews.

On the other hand, if it was claimed Paul was a Sadducee then it could be argued that the Soul resurrected.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 18.1 4.

But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies..

The Pauline writings are compatible with the NT, Apologetics and the teachings of the Church that Jesus, the Son of God, was or caused to be Killed by the Jews and that he Bodily Resurrected on the THIRD day.

 

[IanS]

It is easy to understand even with my opaque English. If the Paul's epistles can be dated in the Second Century -as Drew and others maintain-, what they actually say and who said it are irrelevant questions about our subject He or they can by no means be witnesses of the historical Jesus. First of all, we ought to discuss the problem of dating. All the rest is a loss of time.

PS: I hope now it will be clear. I have checked the text by an English corrector twice. (The English correctors you know... Sometimes they are a cure worse than the disease.)

Why are you talking about Paul's letters being dated in the second century?

I did not say they must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century. It is dejudge who is saying that.

Perhaps you are mixing up what I posted with what dejudge says about the 2nd century date of Paul's letters.

 

[dejudge]

Why are you talking about Paul's letters being dated in the second century?

I did not say they must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century. It is dejudge who is saying that.

Perhaps you are mixing up what I posted with what dejudge says about the 2nd century date of Paul's letters.

Please, I did not say that the Pauline must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

I have developed a THEORY, a THEORY, a THEORY based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.

The EXISTING evidence from antiquity supports my argument.

Why are you talking about early Pauline writings WITHOUT the supporting corroborative evidence?

This is found in Commentary of John attributed to Origen.

.....Paul, who fulfilled the Gospel from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, did not write epistles to all the churches he taught, and to those to whom he did write he sent no more than a few lines.

1. In writings attributed to Origen claimed the Pauline writer knew gLuke and was ALIVE after it was composed. [Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1]

2. In writings attributed to Eusebius the same claim is attested. [church history 6.25]

3. In writings attributed to Origen it is claimed Paul wrote no more than a FEW lines to Churches.

4. The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed AFTER Revelation by John his predecessor.

5. Acts of the Apostles shows no influence by the Pauline Corpus and made zero mention of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus]

6. The earliest version of the Canonised Jesus story, the short gMark, does NOT contain post Resurrection Narratives. Such narratives are found in the LATER Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the PAULINE Corpus.

7. Multiple Apologetic writers did NOT show any influence by the Pauline Corpus and knew NOTHING of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus].

8. The Pauline writers were known as LIARS since at least by the 4th century.

9. No well known writers of antiquity mentioned Jesus and Paul.

10. ALL manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus that have been found and dated are from the mid 2nd century or later.

11. The Pauline Corpus is riddled with Forgeries or false attribution.

 

[IanS]

Please, I did not say that the Pauline must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

I have developed a THEORY, a THEORY, a THEORY based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.

The EXISTING evidence from antiquity supports my argument.

Why are you talking about early Pauline writings WITHOUT the supporting corroborative evidence?

This is found in Commentary of John attributed to Origen.



1. In writings attributed to Origen claimed the Pauline writer knew gLuke and was ALIVE after it was composed. [Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1]

2. In writings attributed to Eusebius the same claim is attested. [church history 6.25]

3. In writings attributed to Origen it is claimed Paul wrote no more than a FEW lines to Churches.

4. The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed AFTER Revelation by John his predecessor.

5. Acts of the Apostles shows no influence by the Pauline Corpus and made zero mention of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus]

6. The earliest version of the Canonised Jesus story, the short gMark, does NOT contain post Resurrection Narratives. Such narratives are found in the LATER Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the PAULINE Corpus.

7. Multiple Apologetic writers did NOT show any influence by the Pauline Corpus and knew NOTHING of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus].

8. The Pauline writers were known as LIARS since at least by the 4th century.

9. No well known writers of antiquity mentioned Jesus and Paul.

10. ALL manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus that have been found and dated are from the mid 2nd century or later.

11. The Pauline Corpus is riddled with Forgeries or false attribution.

I am not arguing with you about any dates for any of Paul's letters.

I was replying to David Mo who seems to think I was saying that Paul's letters were written in the second century.

Afaik, it's you (not me) who thinks the evidence shows that Paul's letters were written much later than the commonly claimed dates of c.55-60AD.

I made no firm comments about when I think any of those letters were written. Or if it comes to that, who wrote them.

In general you are misunderstanding all that I have said in my above replies to eight bits, CraigB and others. I have not said anything about me holding any firm beliefs about any dates or anything else here. Not even about the existence or otherwise of Jesus.

Instead what I have argued with them is that even if we accept the dates that they and bible scholars claim for various gospels and letters, and even if we accept the translated quotes universally given by the academics they are relying upon for the words of those letters and gospels, still the quoted letters and gospels do not provide any reliable evidence that either Paul or any anyone else ever wrote to provide reliable evidence of ever knowing anyone to have met a living human Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

I am not arguing with you about any dates for any of Paul's letters.

Did you not post this?

Why are you talking about Paul's letters being dated in the second century?

I did not say they must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century. It is dejudge who is saying that.

Perhaps you are mixing up what I posted with what dejudge says about the 2nd century date of Paul's letters.

I have merely shown that your statement is in error.

I never said that the Pauline writings must have been written earlier than the 2nd century.

It is extremely important that you state EXACTLY what I argue.

My THEORY can be REVIEWED if NEW evidence surfaces.

My THEORY is based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity.

Examine fragments of Celsus' "True Discourse" found in "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

There is NO mention of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Celsus' True Discourse" appears to corroborate the writings attributed to Justin Martyr who also mentioned Nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

In general you are misunderstanding all that I have said in my above replies to eight bits, CraigB and others. I have not said anything about me holding any firm beliefs about any dates or anything else here. Not even about the existence or otherwise of Jesus.

I understand that you are arguing that the Pauline Jesus was NOT believed to have been an atual living character who Bodily Resurrected.

Instead what I have argued with them is that even if we accept the dates that they and bible scholars claim for various gospels and letters, and even if we accept the translated quotes universally given by the academics they are relying upon for the words of those letters and gospels, still the quoted letters and gospels do not provide any reliable evidence that either Paul or any anyone else ever wrote to provide reliable evidence of ever knowing anyone to have met a living human Jesus.

Again, I have shown that your statement is in error.

The Pauline writings do claim that the JEWS Killed Jesus.

The Pauline writings do claim Jesus was CRUCIFIED before the EYES of people in Galatia.

1 Thessalonians 2

For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us..

Galatians 3:1 KJV

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth , crucified among you?

Again regardless of the time the Pauline writings were fabricated, in the letters it is claimed people SAW the crucified Jesus with their very EYES, that the Jews Killed Jesus and that people SAW the Bodily Resurrected Body Jesus on the THIRD Day..

The Pauline Corpus is compatible with the NT, Apologetics and the teachings of the Church.

 

[proudfootz]

The point is - you cannot draw conclusions about Paul's beliefs by reading into his letters words that are not in the letters.

If people want to write their own pseudographs of Paul, why not just start fresh with a clean page?

1 Greetings to you in Christ Lord Jesus who reside now in Pergia! 2 I am now returned from a business meeting with my friends in Jerusalem. Really - no lie! 3 Cephas (known among some of your as Simon Peter) tells me that James, the brother of Jesus, strongly resembles the Lord in face and manner, doubtless because they both take after their Mother. 4 I cannot help but reflect that hearing James and Cephas reminisce about Jesus and the times they had make me jealous sometimes, 5 But I remember the words handed down to us from His Twelve Disciples that Jesus spoke in one of the Parables He is so famous for: "The last shall be first, and the first shall be last." 6 This can also be found in the many oral traditions preserved among us, which will one day be recorded Lord willing.

 

[proudfootz]

Fascinating.
I know biblical scholarship has evolved a vocabulary designed to dissimulate unpalatable truths- pseudoepigraph for forgery, for example, but I had no idea 'home cooking' was used to describe 'the best he'd ever had'.
Putting the E into JREF, you are!

In Koine Greek the term usually applied to Mary was μιλφ .