News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

The Pointlessness of Prayer

Started by Non Quixote, July 24, 2012, 12:21:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 02:09:50 PM
Genuine fantasies by Paul.  Fantasies by other people pretending to be Paul.   Fantasies by other people who didn't pretend to be Paul, but pretended the fantasies were by Paul.  Fantasies which didn't claim to be by Paul, but which later people thought were by Paul.  Fantasies by other people who really were called Paul.

Biblical scholarship may in time dig up even more categories.

So, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?

OldGit

#76
QuoteSo, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?

It's all fundamentally concerned with a fantasy, so yes.  For all I know, there are odd sensible bits in there which you could quote to prove me wrong; nevertheless the fairy-tale around which it is all spun is fundamentally unconnected with any reality, so the word 'fantasy' will cover it.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
QuoteSo, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?

It's all fundamentally concerned with a fantasy, so yes.  For all I know, there are odd sensible bits in there which you could quote to prove me wrong; nevertheless the fairy-tale around which it is all spun is fundamentally unconnected with any reality, so the word 'fantasy' will cover it.

Well, I suppose that relieves you of the need to evaluate it historically.

OldGit

Fair enough, it was unmannerly of me to barge into your discussion.  You take it seriously and there's as much scope for scholarship in it as in any other branch of literature.  I'm not deriding serious scholarship of any kind.

Genericguy

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on August 01, 2012, 06:57:42 PM
Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
QuoteSo, your position is that everything Paul wrote in his 7 letters was a fantasy?

It's all fundamentally concerned with a fantasy, so yes.  For all I know, there are odd sensible bits in there which you could quote to prove me wrong; nevertheless the fairy-tale around which it is all spun is fundamentally unconnected with any reality, so the word 'fantasy' will cover it.

Well, I suppose that relieves you of the need to evaluate it historically.

Can we evaluate it historically? As far as I know, to evaluate a primary source historically, we need secondary sources to validate it. Not just the bible, but anything in general. Is this accurate?

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Genericguy on August 01, 2012, 07:09:31 PM
Can we evaluate it historically? As far as I know, to evaluate a primary source historically, we need secondary sources to validate it. Not just the bible, but anything in general. Is this accurate?

Yes, secondary sources are needed. The scope of my comment was only about the 7 authentic letters of Paul.  Some of the secondary sources that could be used to evaluate some historical components of those letters would include Tacitus and Josephus, plus any Greco-Roman writings of the period from 35-65 BCE, as those writings would give evidence of the historical situation of the time.  A large portion of Paul's epistles is devoted to dealing with events that occurred in the congregations he dealt with, so secondary sources can be consulted to judge how those life situations fit into what is known about life in general during that time. Those sources give a context against which one can judge if the epistles are real or fantasy.

Recusant

I would think that rather than secondary sources, one would prefer to use contemporaneous primary sources. After all, a secondary source can tell us that the primary document did indeed exist at the time the secondary source was created, and perhaps it can elucidate the contents of that document as they existed when the secondary source was created, but it cannot corroborate the events which the primary source purports to relate.

If such contemporaneous primary sources are not available, then there will always remain a question mark as to the veracity of the single source, in my opinion.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Recusant on August 01, 2012, 10:08:18 PM
I would think that rather than secondary sources, one would prefer to use contemporaneous primary sources. After all, a secondary source can tell us that the primary document did indeed exist at the time the secondary source was created, and perhaps it can elucidate the contents of that document as they existed when the secondary source was created, but it cannot corroborate the events which the primary source purports to relate.

If such contemporaneous primary sources are not available, then there will always remain a question mark as to the veracity of the single source, in my opinion.

When dealing with ancient documents, there's always a question mark. Regarding the letters of Paul, there is (to my knowledge) no contemporary document saying "Galatians did, in fact, exist."  However, there are multiple copies turning up in various cultures that aid experts in textual analysis to get a good idea of what the original document looked like. Now, there is the reference in II Corinthians to other Corinthian letters, so that's a primary, contemporary source in itself.  But it's basically impossible to establish with 100% certainty that any ancient document is 100% valid. History is more approximation than certainty.