Philo Of Alexandria

[TAK]

You obviously have NOT read this book. Indeed, it is dubious that you even read the wikipedia article. Here's the full title of the book:

The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters

Note the subtitle. The book is about how later Gnostics interpreted Paul. It does not claim that Paul was a Gnostic.

Quote:

In 1975, after studying the Pauline Epistles and comparing them to gnosticism and the early church, Pagels wrote the book The Gnostic Paul. This book expounds the theory that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic whose influence on the direction of the early Christian church was great enough for the creation of forged additions such as the Pastoral Epistles (those to Timothy and Titus) to make it appear as if Paul supported their interpretation rather than gnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

[selek]

Quote:

In 1975, after studying the Pauline Epistles and comparing them to gnosticism and the early church, Pagels wrote the book The Gnostic Paul. This book expounds the theory that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic whose influence on the direction of the early Christian church was great enough for the creation of forged additions such as the Pastoral Epistles (those to Timothy and Titus) to make it appear as if Paul supported their interpretation rather than gnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

So are you suggesting that the notoriously well fact-checked Wikipedia is more authoritative about the book than the book itself?

[TAK]

Is it then your position that there were no Christians until "mid 2nd Century" ???

I have no position..

I am still a student of the topic tho from what little I have read 1st century christianity looks iffy at best.

[Doctor Steuss]

This thread seems like as good a place as any to see if anyone has studied this more in-depth than Iâ?¦

The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is/was thought by R. Pesch to be written prior to 37 CE. However, Gerd Theissen seems to place its dating between 30-70 CE. Does anyone know if there has been further research on the dating of the narrative (as I imagine a â??Passion Narrativeâ? written within a stoneâ??s throw of Christâ??s death [as proposed in the later Gospels] would be rather strong evidence for His existence)?

Thanks,

Stu

[Doctor Steuss]

Arenâ??t the kerygma of â??Christ crucified,â? the warning of a coming judgment, the resurrection of the body, and the priority of love over gnosis all things that fly in the face of Gnosticism?

IIRC, the Valentinians revered Paul and claimed that he was a Gnostic initiate, but Iâ??m not sure how Pagal (if her premise is indeed that Paul was a Gnostic) can overlook the fact that Paul preached things that seemingly fly in the face of Gnosticism.

[TAK]

IIRC, the Valentinians revered Paul and claimed that he was a Gnostic initiate, but Iâ??m not sure how Pagal (if her premise is indeed that Paul was a Gnostic) can overlook the fact that Paul preached things that seemingly fly in the face of Gnosticism.

I think the contention is that everything attributed to Paul was not necessarily from him.

[Bill Hamblin]

Quote:

In 1975, after studying the Pauline Epistles and comparing them to gnosticism and the early church, Pagels wrote the book The Gnostic Paul. This book expounds the theory that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic whose influence on the direction of the early Christian church was great enough for the creation of forged additions such as the Pastoral Epistles (those to Timothy and Titus) to make it appear as if Paul supported their interpretation rather than gnosticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaine_Pagels

Have you read the book?

You still haven't demonstrated why, assuming Paul was a Gnostic, this demonstrates that his evidence for the existence of Jesus is unreliable.

With the exception of Lucian, those have all been debunked by others as likely interpolations. Lucian is mid 2nd Century.

Evidence please.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think the contention is that everything attributed to Paul was not necessarily from him.

I believe there is a consensus on this within scholarship (at least in regards to Hebrews). Second Thessalonians, and Colossians might also fall in the category. But as for his other letters, I donâ??t believe thereâ??s much debate regarding their authenticity. Unless of course she is trying to argue that there are additions to the letters themselves. But that is a strenuous position to take IMO. First Corinthians (one of the epistles that seems to me to contradict Gnostic doctrines) has a rather high percentage of variant free verses (over 75% -- which may not seem impressive, but when compared to the likes of Mark [45%] itâ??s pretty darn-tootinâ?? good).

[maklelan]

After that little spat of immaturity on your part, you can expect me to ignore all future discussions with you.

Take your little trap door out of the argument and run like a squirrel. I never doubted this is how you would ultimately resolve your inability to support your argument.

[maklelan]

With the exception of Lucian, those have all been debunked by others as likely interpolations. Lucian is mid 2nd Century.

Dude, you're still using an argument that has been shown to be false. Man up. I've shown that Josephus' text is legit and no one has even attempted to counter my evidence. You're just making yourself look stupid.

[e=mc2]

Zhavric:

Christians in the second century (like Athenagoras) were blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus.

So what makes you think Philo would be any different then? Why are you making a big deal about his silence, when even Jesus' own followers were "blithely unconcerned with the personhood of Jesus"?

[e=mc2]

Unka Dale:

Paul's theology is very close to that of the author of the Letter to the Hebrews and is generally

similar to what we read in Mark, Luke, Acts, the catholic epistles, etc.

He was NOT a gnostic.

Indeed! I am just getting into Alan F. Segal's Paul the Convert, where he notes that one of the most important aspects of Paul that we have to come to grips with is that he was, without question, among other things, a mystic. GASP! And Segal is seriously putting the proposition forward that one very good key to understanding Paul is understanding JEWISH Merkhavah mysticism.........

[e=mc2]

TAK:

I think the contention is that everything attributed to Paul was not necessarily from him.

But of course............ the same can be said of Luke as Ernst Haencken shows in his magnum opus, The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the German, Westminster Press, 1971, but this doesn't mean everything by them (either Luke or Paul) is totally blank, false, made up innuendo and false history. Even the German scholarship doesn't take it that far anymore, although in the 1800's in many of their responses to F. C. Bauer's materials they did..............

[e=mc2]

I also have to add my two cents on the Pagels book about the Gnostic Paul. Hamblin already has mentioned this, but TAK you are grossly misunderstanding what Pagels did in this book! Her entire point is that the Gnostics misunderstood that Paul was the ENEMY of their theology, and that in the 2nd century the Valentinians and Naassenes were revering him! It is about the Gnostic use of Paul that her book describes. (I get this on page 1 of the introduction). I have read her book (in fact I have read a LOT of Pagels writings and find her seriously stimulating).

[maklelan]

I may be mistaken, but I believe Zhavric's suspension is up, so I invite him to respond to my posts.

[Doctor Steuss]

This thread seems like as good a place as any to see if anyone has studied this more in-depth than Iâ?¦

The Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is/was thought by R. Pesch to be written prior to 37 CE. However, Gerd Theissen seems to place its dating between 30-70 CE. Does anyone know if there has been further research on the dating of the narrative (as I imagine a â??Passion Narrativeâ? written within a stoneâ??s throw of Christâ??s death [as proposed in the later Gospels] would be rather strong evidence for His existence)?

Thanks,

Stu

Just a wee bit of a bump on this. Anyone know? I would really like to take the lazy road here and not have to do my own research (please).

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I can't help too much, only to say its existence is as debateable as "Q". However, a fun site for the straight text analysys from the 1994 Jesus Seminar is:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion-young.html

My contention is that on several of those in attendance and commentating, I view their scholarship (and interactions with beleivers) as less than ideal. That said, it's interesting stuff.

[maklelan]

Just a wee bit of a bump on this. Anyone know? I would really like to take the lazy road here and not have to do my own research (please).

If you read Spanish this article is good: Santiago Guijarro, "El relato pre-marcano de la pasion y la historia del Cristianismo naciente," Salmanticensis 50.3 (2003): 345â??88. Guijarro also wrote "La composici

[maklelan]

Still waiting for Zhavric.

[e=mc2]

After posting all those sources, you think he's gonna have the guts to get back in the ring with you?

[maklelan]

He has yet to respond to a single source. If he responds at all it is to fallaciously criticize methodology and let others know that they are doing a disservice to Mormonism. I would like to see an actual response, but I don't see it happening. TAK has also opted out of responding to actual evidence, only he's chosen the all-too-popular "-I refuse to debate with you because you are being mean to me and I really have no response."

[e=mc2]

Makelan:

only he's chosen the all-too-popular "-I refuse to debate with you because you are being mean to me and I really have no response."

Sounds like the mopologist hack pseudo-scholar Bill Hamblin needs to take a lesson here and quit writing so many books that are being published in so many languages. He's being laughed outta the arena the critics tells us!

[cjcampbell]

Still waiting for Zhavric.

He is no longer posting here -- the mods hinted in an earlier post that he was banned. He is PMing some of the board members and inviting them to an anti-Mormon web site, claiming that Mormon apologists are getting hosed there.

[Cold Steel]

It doesn't matter how many people don't mention Jesus. It matters how many writers do mention Jesus.

Outside the NT we have mentioned

Josephus

Tacitus, Annals 15.44

Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4

Pliny the Younger, Letter 10.96

Lucian of Samosata, Passing of Peregrinus

Christian interpolations all, sir! Reasoned arguments are quite unecessary since it's obvious that Christians had their hands in the cookie jar! Read for yourself. They just weren't caught! Would you believe it?

...ehhhh...would you believe some Coptic Christians?

...how about two Gnostics and the Little Drummer Boy?