This may be my shortest blog entry as it contains only one salient but, I think, profound thought & it takes the form of a question. It has come to my attention through such internet viral videos as Zeitgeist & the whining of the pathetically parrot-billed squawking puppets of atheist apologetics that Christianity was nothing more than a repackaging of some very “well-known” (their words, not mine) pagan myths such as the stories of Mithra & Osiris. Now, putting aside the hopelessly shallow, myopic & self-serving “scholarship” offered to support this fable, let us consider one & only one profoundly revealing point.. Paul, and the subsequent churches he seeded throughout the PAGAN world from Rome, to Corinth to Greece & beyond, speaking to & converting thousands, perhaps millions of PAGANS from their PAGAN Roots which for some ran deep into the generations of their families, let us consider the following question: If these devout PAGANS were merely hearing a variation on THEIR OWN “Well known” stories, providing they had IQ’s exceeding that of the average parsnip, rather than be converted to Christianity, might they not say, “Hey! We’ve already got THAT “well known” story in our repertoire! Jesus? Jesus?! We don’t need no stinkin’ Jesus! We’ve got Mithra/ Osiris/ (insert favorite pagan god brought back from the dead here). WHY CHANGE?” In short, if I may be allowed a follow-up question, why so many converts among PAGANS who supposedly already had this OLD-HAT story “well known” for supposedly thousands of years? Sounds strikingly double fishy to me. What about you? Hmmmm…? Think about it. I’ll get back to you!
Challenges? Questions? Gripes? Groans? Let me know what you think! [questions@eternalanswersministry.org]
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
DeuteroPaul
Text: I Tim 5:1-2
1 REBUKE not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Some theologians & scholars (post-Bower, Ehrman , Brown et. al.) argue that Paul can not possibly be the author of I & II Timothy or Titus since all these "Pastoral Epistles" mention "elders." They attribute these works to a later period & label the author as "DeuteroPaul" ie "Second Paul."
The argument goes that the New Testament churches were Spirit-driven anarchistic entities that did not use elders. Later, post-Clement of Rome & onward, a more monarchical, authoritarian structure developed. Therefore, these three letters must be from that later period, not from Paul. The problem with this argument is that it begs the question ie it assumes its answer in its premise. It is invalid to use the New Testament as evidence of a theory then use that same theory to invalidate part of the New Testament! Doing so makes the argument invalidate its own proof!
Other weak argument has been offered in the form of vocabulary analysis observing that "Paul" uses different words than he does in his other letters. This is very weak because, as Paul is addressing very different issues in Romans, Corinthians, etc. than he is in these three letters. By way of example, if you were writing a letter to the editor about prostitution downtown, you would use very different vocabulary from when you write your little brother or sister about getting their first job (unless of course, it is as a prostitute!). This is very parallel to Paul's situation: the other epistles are for a general audience; these are personal. The others address problems to be corrected in society or in the church; these are to exhort individuals. The list of differences continues & greatly weakens this argument, too.
All in all, the arguments for "DeuteroPaul" are very, very weak & can probably be ignored as generated by an a priori agenda that does not include honestly evaluating the integrity of the New Testament. Up against 2000 years of textual pedigree, style examination, contemporary correspondence & many other tests by which we can analyze these letters, the "Second Paul" arguments are less than second rate.
1 REBUKE not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Some theologians & scholars (post-Bower, Ehrman , Brown et. al.) argue that Paul can not possibly be the author of I & II Timothy or Titus since all these "Pastoral Epistles" mention "elders." They attribute these works to a later period & label the author as "DeuteroPaul" ie "Second Paul."
The argument goes that the New Testament churches were Spirit-driven anarchistic entities that did not use elders. Later, post-Clement of Rome & onward, a more monarchical, authoritarian structure developed. Therefore, these three letters must be from that later period, not from Paul. The problem with this argument is that it begs the question ie it assumes its answer in its premise. It is invalid to use the New Testament as evidence of a theory then use that same theory to invalidate part of the New Testament! Doing so makes the argument invalidate its own proof!
Other weak argument has been offered in the form of vocabulary analysis observing that "Paul" uses different words than he does in his other letters. This is very weak because, as Paul is addressing very different issues in Romans, Corinthians, etc. than he is in these three letters. By way of example, if you were writing a letter to the editor about prostitution downtown, you would use very different vocabulary from when you write your little brother or sister about getting their first job (unless of course, it is as a prostitute!). This is very parallel to Paul's situation: the other epistles are for a general audience; these are personal. The others address problems to be corrected in society or in the church; these are to exhort individuals. The list of differences continues & greatly weakens this argument, too.
All in all, the arguments for "DeuteroPaul" are very, very weak & can probably be ignored as generated by an a priori agenda that does not include honestly evaluating the integrity of the New Testament. Up against 2000 years of textual pedigree, style examination, contemporary correspondence & many other tests by which we can analyze these letters, the "Second Paul" arguments are less than second rate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)