4 ms·

There is widely held view, based on textual analysis, that some letters attributed to Paul are not by him. Most prominent of those are 1 and 2 Timothy, thought

There is widely held view, based on textual analysis, that some letters attributed to Paul are not by him. Most prominent of those are 1 and 2 Timothy, thought to be by Timothy himself, and the source of many of the ideas you complain about. Those letters, even at the time the Bible was compiled - about 400 AD, were nearly not included due to doubts about their authenticity.

krapp 1y ago
Fair enough, but they were included and they were attributed to Paul. The Gospels probably weren't written by the apostles they were attributed to, either. You can put quotes around Paul's name in this context but the effect is still the same.
- Jedd 1y ago
  > The Gospels probably weren't written by the apostles they were attributed to, either. We absolutely know for sure that those books weren't written by the 'names' used - we just know that none of the authors identified themselves, or cited any sources - and were written 40-100 years after the events they claim to detail.
  - Amezarak 1y ago
    We don’t know that for sure, and the author of John does clearly identify himself in-text.. Everyone also agrees Luke-Acts is written by the same person, and that Acts shifts to a first-person perspective during the account of Paul’s journeys. It’s not currently in fashion to think they were written by their the people they are named after, but it’s not implausible; the strongest argument for later dating of the gospels is simply that they all are perceived to clearly prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem, which did occur circa 70AD. But there’s no particular reason, even from a secular perspective, to assume this wasn’t just a reasonable guess about the future given past history and the contemporary political environment. Also, it seems relevant that our earliest sources given them those credits.
    - Jedd 1y ago
      Book of John - you may be misinterpreting the claims of authorship / identity there. And 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is probably not really self-identifying anyway. AIUI consensus is that it was written by a group of people, but we really don't know. Book of Luke / (some of) Acts - yes, probably the same person, traditionally thought to be a physician friend of Paul / Saul, but again, no authorship provided or sources cited, so we don't really know. So much in the NT was written to satisfy various OT prophecies that it can all feel a bit contrived - but again, AIUI, the writings in 'Mark' (the first of the four) strongly suggest post-70CE, but perhaps much later. I suppose anything is 'not implausible' if you're inclined in a certain direction.
      - Amezarak 1y ago
        > Book of John - you may be misinterpreting the claims of authorship / identity there. And 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is probably not really self-identifying anyway We know the "disciple who Jesus loved" is John from John, and in the last chapter, the book is explicitly attributed to him as "the one who testifies of these things and wrote them down", in the typical third-person way of this sort of literature. If you care what other people close in time thought, we know that for example, Clement of Alexandria believed this based on tradition as well. Of course, we can suspend judgement: we have no way of knowing. But in the absence of clear contradictory evidence, I don't think it's unreasonable to rest on the side of "whatever the text and the closest contemporaries we have thought." > sources cited, What do you mean by this? > AIUI, the writings in 'Mark' (the first of the four) strongly suggest post-70CE, but perhaps much later. This argument rests entirely on what I alluded to earlier. As I mentioned, from a purely secular perspective, it isn't surprising that someone could guess that Jerusalem would someday be destroyed. It happened many times before! On top of this, the political situation was delicate, and very similar to the last time Jerusalem had been destroyed. But setting all that aside: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-13/ https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-13/ Read this and tell me if this is a clear, definite allusion to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70, or a vague handwavy prophecy about "Bad Things Will Happen and the Temple will be destroyed". Eventually. If anything, it's very confused, since if you assume the passage is talking about the 70AD war, it's clearly also being mixed up with the actual end of the world. It seems just as likely as vague statements that could easily be fit into later actual events. The Greek world was certainly absolutely rife with these things. No doubt it helped the Christians to point to a vague "prophecy" and say "see, we told you!" and helped its spread, which in turn made it more likely for the text to survive to present day. Historiography is not really an exact science, and it's very fad-driven. The academic consensus goes back and forth over time, depending on what's in fashion and who has died. That’s why relatively unsurprising archeological finds often result in major historiographical shifts.

krapp 1y ago

Fair enough, but they were included and they were attributed to Paul. The Gospels probably weren't written by the apostles they were attributed to, either. You can put quotes around Paul's name in this context but the effect is still the same.

Jedd 1y ago
> The Gospels probably weren't written by the apostles they were attributed to, either. We absolutely know for sure that those books weren't written by the 'names' used - we just know that none of the authors identified themselves, or cited any sources - and were written 40-100 years after the events they claim to detail.
- Amezarak 1y ago
  We don’t know that for sure, and the author of John does clearly identify himself in-text.. Everyone also agrees Luke-Acts is written by the same person, and that Acts shifts to a first-person perspective during the account of Paul’s journeys. It’s not currently in fashion to think they were written by their the people they are named after, but it’s not implausible; the strongest argument for later dating of the gospels is simply that they all are perceived to clearly prophecy the destruction of Jerusalem, which did occur circa 70AD. But there’s no particular reason, even from a secular perspective, to assume this wasn’t just a reasonable guess about the future given past history and the contemporary political environment. Also, it seems relevant that our earliest sources given them those credits.
  - Jedd 1y ago
    Book of John - you may be misinterpreting the claims of authorship / identity there. And 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is probably not really self-identifying anyway. AIUI consensus is that it was written by a group of people, but we really don't know. Book of Luke / (some of) Acts - yes, probably the same person, traditionally thought to be a physician friend of Paul / Saul, but again, no authorship provided or sources cited, so we don't really know. So much in the NT was written to satisfy various OT prophecies that it can all feel a bit contrived - but again, AIUI, the writings in 'Mark' (the first of the four) strongly suggest post-70CE, but perhaps much later. I suppose anything is 'not implausible' if you're inclined in a certain direction.
    - Amezarak 1y ago
      > Book of John - you may be misinterpreting the claims of authorship / identity there. And 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' is probably not really self-identifying anyway We know the "disciple who Jesus loved" is John from John, and in the last chapter, the book is explicitly attributed to him as "the one who testifies of these things and wrote them down", in the typical third-person way of this sort of literature. If you care what other people close in time thought, we know that for example, Clement of Alexandria believed this based on tradition as well. Of course, we can suspend judgement: we have no way of knowing. But in the absence of clear contradictory evidence, I don't think it's unreasonable to rest on the side of "whatever the text and the closest contemporaries we have thought." > sources cited, What do you mean by this? > AIUI, the writings in 'Mark' (the first of the four) strongly suggest post-70CE, but perhaps much later. This argument rests entirely on what I alluded to earlier. As I mentioned, from a purely secular perspective, it isn't surprising that someone could guess that Jerusalem would someday be destroyed. It happened many times before! On top of this, the political situation was delicate, and very similar to the last time Jerusalem had been destroyed. But setting all that aside: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-13/ https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Mark-Chapter-13/ Read this and tell me if this is a clear, definite allusion to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70, or a vague handwavy prophecy about "Bad Things Will Happen and the Temple will be destroyed". Eventually. If anything, it's very confused, since if you assume the passage is talking about the 70AD war, it's clearly also being mixed up with the actual end of the world. It seems just as likely as vague statements that could easily be fit into later actual events. The Greek world was certainly absolutely rife with these things. No doubt it helped the Christians to point to a vague "prophecy" and say "see, we told you!" and helped its spread, which in turn made it more likely for the text to survive to present day. Historiography is not really an exact science, and it's very fad-driven. The academic consensus goes back and forth over time, depending on what's in fashion and who has died. That’s why relatively unsurprising archeological finds often result in major historiographical shifts.