Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[JaysonR]

Exactly right! At last, we've got a point of intellectual contact! Now follow this with me, very carefully. Suppose there was a prophecy that said the anointed leader of the United States had to come from Hawaii. And an entirely mythical person was totally invented out of nothing by fabricators as fulfilling this prophecy. Now - this is the bit you have to follow very carefully; are you ready? - why would these fabricators also invent a story that the person lived in Chicago? That simply makes their fabricated story more complicated.

Why is there a story that Obama lived in Chicago? Now this is the essence of my argument, so please keep following me. The reason why there's a story that Obama lived in Chicago is twofold: a) Obama exists, and b) Obama really did live in Chicago.

Now do you see what I'm getting at? The story that Jesus lived in Galilee does nothing for the Messianic myth, so the probability is that Jesus really did live in Galilee. That bit may not be a myth, but like Obama in Chicago (thanks again for raising that) may be part of the authentic biography of a real living person.

On the other hand the Bethlehem story (from MT Micah) does do something for the myth. It is unknown to Mark and rejected by John, as we have seen; and the Matthew and Luke versions are incompatible, so at least one of them is false. Also the stories are supernatural, so the other one must be false too. Bethlehem as birthplace is not in Paul, not in Mark, not in John, not in the non-Pauline epistles, not in Revelation. It is found only in two contradictory forms in the later Synoptics. The NT is not a single unitary work created en bloc by nefarious fabricators. You think it was, so you are impressed by your own infinitely repeated arguments (I should really say unsupported assertions and disparaging comments) which depend on that false idea; but others are not, and they will not be swayed even if you utter them a million more times.

I don't mean to pick or anything, but there is a reasonable cultural motive for the Bethlehem tangent being inserted in Matthew and Luke.

The opening of Matthew (while different than the body) is clearly infused with Hellenistic values.
Firstly, no Hebrew culture would value the Magi's (such as Zoroastrian Magi which had been extremely well known, and valued, to the Mystic followings of the Hellenistic cultures for a long time) opinion about who was or was not divine, but the Hellenistic cultures definitely would - far more than they would value a Hebrew priest's opinion on the matter.

Now, Bethlehem is a compound name.
Beth (or Bet) is a Hebrew letter; it means "house" (or "tent", but given the tribal root, it nets a result of "house"), and by inference, "family" is implied.

Originally, this is cited as "Beit Lachama" by the Canaanites (from whom the Hebrew's come.
Lachama was the Canaanite variation on the Akkadian fertility god Lachmo/Lahmu.

The name essentially means "house of fertility" (or house of the fertility god, but the only reason for admiring the god was for the value of fertility).

So why would Luke and Matthew stick Jesus in this place, even if the entire story is made up?
Because there is a symbolic value to the name.
In literary terms; Bethlehem, to this story, is like saying "vagina".

It's quite openly 'he was born from the womb of Judah'.
That's not a shocking symbol to want for literary purposes.

Why have him then be from Galilee, we might ask?
Why not just have him grow up in Bethlehem if that town is so valuable as a symbol?

Because Galilee was the province of the fallen Kingdom of Israel, and from where - generally speaking - almost all Hebrew cultural revolutions flowed from (probably because it was separated by Samaria from Judah and was far more Hellenized than Judah, so people mixing between Galilee and Judah would eventually regularly be at cultural odds with each other's views on their theocratic society).

It would be quite out of the ordinary for a rogue messianic figure to come out of Judah; at least based on the information that has been gathered by the commentators.

A Galilean has a tradition of political rebellion and fanaticism.
Yet, for Luke and Matthew (at least the opening part of Matthew), Bethlehem holds symbolic value as much as the example of the Magi hold symbolic value.

However, for a group like Mark who seem to be far less interested in outright mysticism, our quantity of such reliance on symbols drops considerably.
Here, in this text, there is more value placed on prose and rhetoric; as if we are to value the philosophy or wit of the material.


This part is purely my conjecture, but I wouldn't be surprised if Luke produced the idea first, considering that author's literary talent is incredibly impressive, and that some group added Luke's Bethlehem idea into Matthew afterwards because it was a valuable tool for their symbolic ends; notably being somewhat different than Luke's.

 

[JaysonR]

Have you heard of Robert Eisenman?

He writes a lot about that stuff...

Quiet you!

 

[TimCallahan]

QUOTE=dejudge;9699252]6. c 180 CE--Celsus wrote nothing about Paul in True Discourse according to Origen in Against Celsus.[/QUOTE]

And does Origin say that Celsus mentioned the Book of Acts or any of the gospels?

7. c 180 CE, Theophilus of Antioch wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "To Autolycus"

Okay, I just read that document. Theophilus of Antioch doesn't mention anyone involved with what eventually became the Christian canon. Therefore, the fact that To Autolycus doesn't mention Paul is irrelevant.

8. c 180 CE, Athenagoras of Antioch wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "A Plea to the Christians".

I just read Athenagoras' "A Plea for the Christians." He alludes briefly to somethings Jesus says in Matthew, and possibly Luke. He doesn't mention Mark. Should we assume from this that Matthew and Luke antedate Mark? In any case, he only mentions the words of Jesus, which wouldn't involve the Pauline letters. So, this document, like so many you've quoted is irrelevant.

9. c 180 CE, Ireanaeus claimed that the Gospel, the Elders of the Church and the disciples TAUGHT in the Churches that Jesus was crucified when he was FIFTY years c 50 CE which means Paul and the Pauline Corpus was unknown c 180 CE.

So, Irenaeus, writing ca. CE 180 for some reason is the supreme authority on the life of Jesus? What reason do you have for assuming his assertion that Jesus was 50 is of any importance whatsoever.

10. In the 2nd -3rd century Minucius Felix wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "Octavius".

11. In the 3rd-4th century, Arnobius wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus in "Against the Heathen".

Yet, Origen (185 - 254) does specifically mention Paul in Against Celsus, which antedates both of these authors.

12. In the 2nd-4th century, in the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John. . . . (snip) . . .

We've already argued the Muratorian Canon to death as well. Naturally, in this late work the epistles come after the gospels.

I pointed out to you that in Galatians and in 1 Corinthians, Paul refers to the church in Jerusalem, a congregation that wouldn't have been there after CE 70. Let me compare this mention of the Jerusalem church to what the author of the Gospel of John says in his false claim to be the disciple Jesus loved (John 21:24):

This is the disciple which testifies to these things and we know that his testimony is true.

The author doth protest too much, methinks. The allusion to the church in Jerusalem in 1 Corinthians isn't either intrusive or so full of protestations. True,, it could have been part of a clever forger. However, it could as easily been a statement anchoring the epistle to a date before CE 70.

 

[bruto]

You have graded yourself, "I give you an F, kid"

I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I don't really care whether Jesus was a little bit real or not at all, but I have to remark that your continual use of this form of response is very poor form. It marks you as a loser. It has nothing to do with whether your arguments are good or bad, or whether you are right or wrong, or, for that matter, whether the criticism of you was right or wrong.

Taking a comment and throwing it back in this manner is the tactic of a school child, and not a very bright one at that. What's next, double-dog dares?

It belittles you, defeats any good arguments you might have made, and makes you look like a fool.

 

[dejudge]

1. The author of the short gMark did not acknowledge any apostle called James the Lord's brother and did not acknowledge the Pauline post-resurrection story about the visits by the resurrected Jesus to over 500 PEOPLE plus the disciples and Paul.

Mark does acknowledge that Jesus had a brother named James. As to the 500, that may well be an interpolation. Look at the passage as it now stands (1 Cor. 15:4 - 7)...

Again, the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts did not acknowledge an APOSTLE called James the Lord's brother.

There were ONLY Two Apostles named James in the Gospels and Acts --one the son of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus.

Galatians 1.19 is not corroborated in the NT itself.

In any case, each of the gospel writers made up his own story of the passion and resurrection. And this means absolutely nothing.

So why are you telling me that Jesus had a brother named James if the Gospel writers are inventors of stories in the NT?

And you're taking Acts as historical? It was clearly made up to paint a rosy picture of the early church. If the Pauline epistles used Luke and Acts as a source, why would the author of Galatians go out of his way to paint a fractious picture of the conflict between Paul and James?

Well, look at this. If Acts of the Apostles was after the Pauline Epistles why didn't the author just use the name Paul instead of Saul but had to change it later from Saul to Paul?

There is no Saul in the Pauline Corpus.


Why did the author of Acts go out of his way to give the impression he travelled with Paul "all over" the Roman Empire but still forgot to mention the supposed most significant early Christian writings?

The fact that the author of Acts did not mention the Pauline Corpus does not help the argument for early Pauline writings.

Essentially, if Paul did exist and did not write any letters to Churches then the author of Acts of the Apostles would not have mentioned them when he wrote of the activities of Paul..

That is exactly what happened in Acts.

Yeah, right, illiterates from Judea spread gospels written in Greek. Justin, as I said in an earlier post, conflated John of Patmos with a, most likely mythical, apostle by that a name who was supposed to have also written a gospel. Again, we've already argued this into the ground.

So whether or not Justin conflated John of Patmos with the supposed author of gJohn it is still seen that Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Revelations and Pauline Churches were unknown by Justin and were not used in the early development of the teachings of the Church.

Okay, I just read that document. Theophilus of Antioch doesn't mention anyone involved with what eventually became the Christian canon.

Theophilus of Antioch an admitted Christian does not help the argument for early Pauline writings and confirm that there were Christians who did not believe or had no knowledge of the Jesus story.

It is extremely important to note that Theophilus of Antioch gave an account of the amount time which had elasped from Creation to the Emperor Verus and the history of Christianity but did not mention Jesus and Paul.

See Theophilus' "To Autolycus" III.

Theophilus of Antioch is evidence that it cannot be assumed that people called Christians in the 2nd century were only those who believed the stories of Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

What I find amusing about dejudge and, to a lesser degree, IanS, is that they seem unable to distinguish their question from other people's answers. On the topic of the historicity of Jesus I see two claims:

A) A historical Jesus is probable.
B) A historical Jesus existed.

Too many times in these innumerable threads have some MJ posters (only a few, most seem entirely reasonable, on both sides) have addressed B) while their opponents were only claiming A). In fact, even after being corrected on this, they ask to show A) is true, and when they get their answers, act as if they were asking for proof of B) all along. This has been repeated so many times that, as far as I'm concerned, the benefit of the doubt has been lost: such confusion can only be wilful. A form of goalpost moving or bait-and-switch, I suppose.

In order to answer B), one does indeed need some solid evidence, something that, as many have pointed out, is hard to obtain for historical characters. But to answer A), we need a much lower standard of evidence, and a reasoning that makes sense. I believe that this has been met for A), but not for B), which is why I keep saying that I lean towards A), but not B). How this has been interpreted as a belief in B) is beyond me. They are separate claims.

My only guess is that the prospect of incomplete uncertainty is alien to these posters. It is quite possible to have reached no conclusion and hold no belief about something and yet lean towards one possibility. My _other_ guess is that, as atheists, some of us want to validate our lack of beliefs by eliminating any possible historical source for the story, much like theists try to validate miracles with science-sounding claptrap. But this isn't required: faith is faith, and lack thereof is lack thereof. My atheism doesn't hinge on Jesus being a myth, so I don't care.

 

[dejudge]

I don't really have a dog in this fight, and I don't really care whether Jesus was a little bit real or not at all, but I have to remark that your continual use of this form of response is very poor form. It marks you as a loser. It has nothing to do with whether your arguments are good or bad, or whether you are right or wrong, or, for that matter, whether the criticism of you was right or wrong.

Taking a comment and throwing it back in this manner is the tactic of a school child, and not a very bright one at that. What's next, double-dog dares?

It belittles you, defeats any good arguments you might have made, and makes you look like a fool.

If you don't care whether or not my arguments are good or bad, and you don't have a dog in this fight then what exactly is your problem?

Now, I am extremely delighted that you recognise the tactic I am using. I use it when arguing against those who pose as school children.

 

[Brainache]

What I find amusing about dejudge and, to a lesser degree, IanS, is that they seem unable to distinguish their question from other people's answers. On the topic of the historicity of Jesus I see two claims:

A) A historical Jesus is probable.
B) A historical Jesus existed.

Too many times in these innumerable threads have some MJ posters (only a few, most seem entirely reasonable, on both sides) have addressed B) while their opponents were only claiming A). In fact, even after being corrected on this, they ask to show A) is true, and when they get their answers, act as if they were asking for proof of B) all along. This has been repeated so many times that, as far as I'm concerned, the benefit of the doubt has been lost: such confusion can only be wilful. A form of goalpost moving or bait-and-switch, I suppose.

In order to answer B), one does indeed need some solid evidence, something that, as many have pointed out, is hard to obtain for historical characters. But to answer A), we need a much lower standard of evidence, and a reasoning that makes sense. I believe that this has been met for A), but not for B), which is why I keep saying that I lean towards A), but not B). How this has been interpreted as a belief in B) is beyond me. They are separate claims.

My only guess is that the prospect of incomplete uncertainty is alien to these posters. It is quite possible to have reached no conclusion and hold no belief about something and yet lean towards one possibility. My _other_ guess is that, as atheists, some of us want to validate our lack of beliefs by eliminating any possible historical source for the story, much like theists try to validate miracles with science-sounding claptrap. But this isn't required: faith is faith, and lack thereof is lack thereof. My atheism doesn't hinge on Jesus being a myth, so I don't care.

Well said.

Sometimes I think they imagine that Jesus is somehow special in the ancient world because there isn't a lot of evidence for him. That is normal for Ancient History. Nothing odd or special about it in this case.

We have a lot more material concerning Jesus than most other people from Antiquity.

 

[TimCallahan]

Again, the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts did not acknowledge an APOSTLE called James the Lord's brother.

There were ONLY Two Apostles named James in the Gospels and Acts --one the one of Zebedee and the other the son of Alphaeus.

Galatians 1.19 is not corroborated in the NT itself.

So why are you telling me that Jesus had a brother named James if the Gospel writers are inventors of stories in the NT?

If the disciples mentioned in the gospels are largely fictional, which they seem to be, what difference does it make whether they did or didn't mention James?

Well, look at this. If Acts of the Apostles was after the Pauline Epistles why didn't the author just use the name Paul instead of Saul but had to change it later from Saul to Paul?

There is no Saul in the Pauline Corpus.

I can just as easily turn that around: If the Pauline epistles were written after Acts, why didn't they mention Saul? Paul alludes to have persecuted the church in times past, but doesn't mention the whole "road to Damascus" bit. That seems to be an elaboration of the author of Luke / Acts, one that includes an allusion to the Book of Tobit. Acts also bases at least two incidents on The Bacchae. So, because this fictional work invents this elaborate "road to Damascus" narrative - allusions to which in other parts of Acts contain sentences from the The Bacchae - you think that the Pauline epistles are invalid for not mentioning Saul of Tarsus.

Why did the author of Acts go out of his way to give the impression he travelled with Paul "all over" the Roman Empire but still forgot to mention the supposed most significant early Christian writings?

The fact that the author of Acts did not mention the Pauline Corpus does not help the argument for early Pauline writings.

Essentially, if Paul did exist and did not write any letters to Churches then the author of Acts of the Apostles would not have mentioned them when he wrote of the activities of Paul..

That is exactly what happened in Acts.

What reason would the author of Acts, who probably wasn't a traveling companion of Paul's - consider the mythical event where Paul is supernaturally freed from prison - have for mentioning Paul's epistles. You are trying to use a fictional work as though it were authoritative.

So whether or not Justin conflated John of Patmos with the supposed author of gJohn it is still seen that Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Revelations and Pauline Churches were unknown by Justin and were not used in the early development of the teachings of the Church.

Other than Paul's claim in Galatians that he got his gospel from a vision, what "Pauline Revelations" are you talking about? Again, why would Justin mention Paul's letters in his allusions to the words of Jesus in the gospels.

Theophilus of Antioch an admitted Christian does not help the argument for early Pauline writings and confirm that there were Christians who did not believe or had no knowledge of the Jesus story.

It is extremely important to note that Theophilus of Antioch gave an account of the amount time which had elasped from Creation to the Emperor Verus and the history of Christianity but did not mention Jesus and Paul.

See Theophilus' "To Autolycus" III.

Theophilus of Antioch is evidence that it cannot be assumed that people called Christians in the 2nd century were only those who believed the stories of Jesus.

Nor does anything in To Autolycus particularly militate against the existence of the Pauline epistles.

 

[dejudge]

What I find amusing about dejudge and, to a lesser degree, IanS, is that they seem unable to distinguish their question from other people's answers. On the topic of the historicity of Jesus I see two claims:

A) A historical Jesus is probable.
B) A historical Jesus existed.

You seem not to understand that there are others who are arguing that:

A) A mythological Jesus is probable.

B) Jesus was a Myth.

Regardless of your argument you must present the supporting evidence which you have failed to do.

That is the fundamental problem with those who argue that an historical Jesus is probable or that an historical Jesus existed.

You have gone as far as saying the evidence for HJ is TERRIBLE and very weak but appear incapable or unwilling to show what and where the terrible and very weak evidence can be found.

Your delay in presenting evidence has exposed a very serious problem for the HJ argument.

You have confirmed with your silence that there never was any evidence in the first place.

Your claim of TERRIBLE and very weak evidence for HJ was just a smoke screen.

The smoke has cleared.

The HJ argument has been burnt to the ground.

Even if evidence existed, it is no more.

The HJ argument is a TERRIBLE state.

HJ is probably a Myth.

 

[dejudge]

If the disciples mentioned in the gospels are largely fictional, which they seem to be, what difference does it make whether they did or didn't mention James?

You seem to have forgotten that you were the one who claimed "Mark does acknowledge that Jesus had a brother named James.

Certainly, one cannot assume that only the Gospels are largely fictional when the Pauline Corpus contains events like the post resurrection visits which are fictional and is a compilation of multiple fake authors.

I can just as easily turn that around: If the Pauline epistles were written after Acts, why didn't they mention Saul? Paul alludes to have persecuted the church in times past, but doesn't mention the whole "road to Damascus" bit. That seems to be an elaboration of the author of Luke / Acts, one that includes an allusion to the Book of Tobit. Acts also bases at least two incidents on The Bacchae. So, because this fictional work invents this elaborate "road to Damascus" narrative - allusions to which in other parts of Acts contain sentences from the The Bacchae - you think that the Pauline epistles are invalid for not mentioning Saul of Tarsus.

My reasons for claiming the Pauline writings were composed at least after c 180 CE is based on multiple sources including the DSS, gMark, gMatthew, Acts, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix , Julian's Against the Galileans, Clement's First Epistle, Lactantius, Arnobius, the Muratorian Canon, Origen, Eusebius, NT manuscripts and others

What reason would the author of Acts, who probably wasn't a traveling companion of Paul's - consider the mythical event where Paul is supernaturally freed from prison - have for mentioning Paul's epistles. You are trying to use a fictional work as though it were authoritative.

The author of Acts claimed he was a travelling companion of Paul. Where did you get your authority from to claim the author of Acts probably wasn't a travelling companion of Paul?

What source of antiquity corroborate what you say about Paul and the author of Acts??

Other than Paul's claim in Galatians that he got his gospel from a vision, what "Pauline Revelations" are you talking about? Again, why would Justin mention Paul's letters in his allusions to the words of Jesus in the gospels.

Why would Justin mention John's Revelation?

Why would Justin say that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles that was read in the Churches?

Paul could NOT write MEMOIRS of Jesus because he only saw him after he was dead. Paul could only write fiction about the resurrection which he did.

MEMOIRS are written by those who have personal knowledge and are close acquaintances.

Justin Martyr excluded Paul from those who could have written the Memoirs.

Nor does anything in To Autolycus particularly militate against the existence of the Pauline epistles.

Theophilus' To Autolycus does not help the argument for early Pauline writings and it is evidence that there were people called Christians in the 2nd century who did not need or believed the Jesus story.

Theophilus an admitted Christian believed ONLY in God--Not Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

I wonder if you think this kind of bloviating will convince anyone of your case. Because I can tell you that it isn't working for me.

Please, where is the evidence for your HJ? You are not helping your HJ at all.

 

[zugzwang]

What I find amusing about dejudge and, to a lesser degree, IanS, is that they seem unable to distinguish their question from other people's answers. On the topic of the historicity of Jesus I see two claims:

A) A historical Jesus is probable.
B) A historical Jesus existed.

Too many times in these innumerable threads have some MJ posters (only a few, most seem entirely reasonable, on both sides) have addressed B) while their opponents were only claiming A). In fact, even after being corrected on this, they ask to show A) is true, and when they get their answers, act as if they were asking for proof of B) all along. This has been repeated so many times that, as far as I'm concerned, the benefit of the doubt has been lost: such confusion can only be wilful. A form of goalpost moving or bait-and-switch, I suppose.

In order to answer B), one does indeed need some solid evidence, something that, as many have pointed out, is hard to obtain for historical characters. But to answer A), we need a much lower standard of evidence, and a reasoning that makes sense. I believe that this has been met for A), but not for B), which is why I keep saying that I lean towards A), but not B). How this has been interpreted as a belief in B) is beyond me. They are separate claims.

My only guess is that the prospect of incomplete uncertainty is alien to these posters. It is quite possible to have reached no conclusion and hold no belief about something and yet lean towards one possibility. My _other_ guess is that, as atheists, some of us want to validate our lack of beliefs by eliminating any possible historical source for the story, much like theists try to validate miracles with science-sounding claptrap. But this isn't required: faith is faith, and lack thereof is lack thereof. My atheism doesn't hinge on Jesus being a myth, so I don't care.

Good points. Yes, I see a kind of equivocation going on with regard to the notion of evidence, which can be taken in a very 'hard' way, to indicate the certainty of historical existence, hence, coins, archaeology, and so on. But ancient history also seems to allow a place for much softer evidence, in the form of hearsay, and so on. Somebody is mentioned in a document, and this is weak evidence that they did exist, or it is plausible that they did.

Thus, in the second sense, the various documents in the NT are clearly weak evidence for the existence of Jesus, although they are not hard evidence.

It's often said that much of ancient history would be erased if we only relied on hard evidence.

As to why this equivocation goes on, I don't have a clue, and I suppose it doesn't matter, but I suppose it amounts to a rejection of historical method as used in ancient history.

 

[Belz...]

You seem not to understand

Your sentence applies to you "You seem not to understand".

A) A mythological Jesus is probable.

B) Jesus was a Myth.

We've already told you that turning arguments around is childish and unhelpful, and still you keep doing it.

HJ is probably a Myth.

Well you've gone from certainly to probably. I suppose that's progress.

 

[Belz...]

Please, where is the evidence for your HJ? You are not helping your HJ at all.

That's it, keep asking for evidence of B) in response to a claim of A).

 

[dejudge]

Earlier I did state I would show that Clement's Letter to the Corinthians as claimed by Ireneaus was a really forgery and was unknown up to the end of the 4th century.

Eusebius in Church History 3 used Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3 to date the bishopric of Clement at the 12th year of Domitian and the 3rd year of Trajan [c 93-101 CE.]


1. Clement was bishop c 93 -101 CE.

2. Clement wrote a letter to the Corinthians c 93-101 CE.

3. Clement wrote the letter when there was a Great Dissension of Corinth Church.

4. Clement was the Third Bishop after the Apostles.

Now, let us see what Tertullian wrote some time after Irenaeus.


Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter....

Tertullian a supposed Roman writer claimed that Clement was ordained Bishop by Peter.

In Church History 2, Peter was killed under Nero, so Clement would have been Bishop no later than c 68 CE.


Church History 2.25.5

It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero....

There is a massive discrepancy between Tertullian and Irenaeus REGARDING the time when Clement was bishop of Rome.

Tertullian's Clement was bishop of Rome c 68 CE and Irenaeus' Clement was bishop c 93-101 CE.

There is at least 25 years difference.

This is exactly where the Great Dissension of the Corinth Church becomes very significant.

If there was a Dissension of the Corinth Church c 93-101 CE and a letter was written by Clement and was DOCUMENTED in the Church since 93-101 CE then it would be virtually impossible for Tertullian to claim Clement was bishop c 68 CE or immediately after Peter.

Effectively, Tertullian of Rome, knew nothing of a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth c 93-101 CE when a letter was dispatched by Clement as bishop of Rome.

Based on Tertullian, Clement's letter, the supposed first to mention Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, most likely was not written up to the 2nd-3rd century.

Clement's First Epistle to the Corinthians is a forgery if Clement was bishop of Rome c 68 CE and there was a Dissension of the Corinth Church c 93-101 CE.

I will continue later to show that there are at least FOUR other apologetic sources that place Clement well away from 93-101 CE and appear to corroborate that the supposed Clement letter to the Church of Corinth was a forgery.

1. Irenaeus---Clement was Third bishop of Rome after Peter [93-101 CE]

2. Tertullian--Clement was first bishop of Rome after Peter [c 68 CE]

More to come.

 

[Craig B]

... The author doth protest too much, methinks. The allusion to the church in Jerusalem in 1 Corinthians isn't either intrusive or so full of protestations. True,, it could have been part of a clever forger. However, it could as easily been a statement anchoring the epistle to a date before CE 70.

Yes we have an undoubted pre-70 AD Jerusalem in Paul, and in Acts.

Acts 21:27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” ... 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd.

So the Temple was still fully functional, and the city was policed by a Roman garrison. These conditions obtained between 6 AD and 66 AD.

Paul's visit to Damascus may be dated as pre-50 AD because Paul's account of it contains a notice of King Aretas, a secure historical figure who died in that year. Paul hallucinated Jesus, or rather a talking light in the sky claiming to be Jesus, but he sure as hell didn't hallucinate the governor of Damascus who was trying to arrest him.

 

[dejudge]

Yes we have an undoubted pre-70 AD Jerusalem in Paul, and in Acts. So the Temple was still fully functional, and the city was policed by a Roman garrison. These conditions obtained between 6 AD and 66 AD.

How quickly you forget that Tim Callahan regards Acts as a work of fiction and not an authoritative source.

It is clear that even though Acts is not regarded as credible it is still used as historically sound to date Paul.

Read this excerpt from Tim Callahan.

What reason would the author of Acts, who probably wasn't a traveling companion of Paul's - consider the mythical event where Paul is supernaturally freed from prison - have for mentioning Paul's epistles. You are trying to use a fictional work as though it were authoritative.

Paul's visit to Damascus may be dated as pre-50 AD because Paul's account of it contains a notice of King Aretas, a secure historical figure who died in that year. Paul hallucinated Jesus, or rather a talking light in the sky claiming to be Jesus, but he sure as hell didn't hallucinate the governor of Damascus who was trying to arrest him.

We can go through Acts of the Apostles chapter by chapter, line by line and word by word but you won't see any mention of a Pauline letter.

Acts in fact tend to confirm or corroborate that any letter under the name of Saul/Paul before c 62 CE are most likely forgeries.

 

[Craig B]

... We can go through Acts of the Apostles chapter by chapter, line by line and word by word but you won't see any mention of a Pauline letter.

One finds references in Acts to things also mentioned by Paul in his letters. There are no fewer than three accounts in Acts of the manifestation on the road to Damascus, in Chapters 9, 22 and 26, and at 1 Cor 15:8 Paul mentions having seen the risen Christ; but I agree that Acts nowhere says, "And then Paul sat down and wrote a letter to the Corinthians about this". You infer, then, that he wrote no such letters. Acts nowhere tells us, as far as I remember, what Paul ate for breakfast. You infer, I suppose, that he never ate breakfasts.

 

[Belz...]

How quickly you forget that Tim Callahan regards Acts as a work of fiction and not an authoritative source.

Well things are back to normal !