This might turn out to be a bad thread as I'm only starting it to ask some questions and don't have much to add to the discussion myself. Hopefully this can be overlooked, if not though I understand if the thread is closed. Also, I started another thread a few months back that asked similar questions. Hopefully the questions in this thread merit discussion and aren't seen as repeats.

I've been reading about the NT and how there are scholars that believe some of Paul's writings are fabricated, which I can understand. I'm trying to understand what that says about the the Jesus story (what actually happened, if anything). As far as I know, Paul existed. He had a conversion experience (was he actually blinded and healed in Damascus after Ananias laid hands on him though?). What can be proven about Paul and what can be looked upon as not true? If it can be proven that Paul existed what does it say about Jesus, even if some of the writings attributed to Paul are falsehoods or embellishment? That a Pharisee existed who decided to become a disciple of Jesus? Does this lend credence to the Jesus story even if at an extreme most of the details about Paul have been embellished? I honestly don't know. If you read the epistles that are considered to be authentic Paul has a lot to say. It's difficult to read them and say, "This man is making things up and is trying to mislead people." It appears he believes what he is writing and has good reason to. Is it possible that Paul was mislead to believe the Jesus story was true? As far as I know Paul is removed from what happened in the gospels and relies entirely on what others have said about Jesus (unless of course his conversion story is true). When considering all of this what does it say about the Jesus story, if anything? Is it worthwhile to consider what may or may not be true about Paul and then weigh that against what may or may not be true about Jesus? There isn't any evidence for the Jesus story being factual outside of the Bible (as far as I know), do the writings by Paul that are considered to be authentic give any reason to believe the Jesus story may be true? Obviously, this a question about the motivations of the people involved and as such is open to debate. I think it's worth asking though.

Can you cite specifically which scholars and what they're saying? I've never heard this perspective. My gut reaction is that this is an extension of the Jesus myth, which has very little scholarly support.

Bart Ehrman has written a lot about this. He has a book in which he addresses what he believes to be Pauline forgeries. He has a blog as well, but I think you have to be a member to read most posts. Here's a link.

I'm not as familiar with other scholars, but I have read claims that some of Paul's writings are not authentic on more than a few occasions and wasn't aware that the claim wasn't well known.

I think by forgeries we're referring to the fairly non-controversial (at this point) view that some of the epistles which were traditionally attributed to Paul are in fact pseudopigraphic.

In the same way, it's generally held that the gospels were probably not written by the actual apostles they are associated with, although it's probably fairer to say that there's just no way to know.

As far as "proof" goes, there's basically never going to be a conclusion that gets close to that level of certainty for these sorts of questions. It seems likely that Paul actually existed simply because that explanation seems more plausible. Many historians think it's more likely than not that some historical Jesus existed (however different he may have been from the gospel accounts) for the same reasons. There will never be a proof of the existence of either, and the historical value of the N.T. writings is itself on even less sure footing, or more bluntly it's just correct to say they surely aren't histories, nor even likely to have been intended as histories in any modern sense. Paul being thought to actually exist and to actually have written certain texts does not lend any credibility to the context of the text itself, anymore than the fact I exist guarantees that this post is free of error.

One attitude towards these considerations is to reject the entirety of the Christian enterprise. To the extent that Christianity asserts that either these things are historical truths or there is no point (cf. 1 Cor 15:17), then fair enough, I suppose. But it seems to me that the gospels, and even Paul, are far more interesting when you stop worrying so much about them as history. Just as an example, I would argue that the sermon on the Mount is both inspirational, thought-provoking and intriguing even if it's pure mythology.

Thanks for the clarification. When read in the context, it really sounded like you were taking a much stranger position that pseudopigraphy because you kind of tipped into Jesus myth territory later in your paragraph.

I thought it was fairly well established that most of his books are attributed to him, and then there are several that debatably are not.

But I don't see what this has to do with the question of the truth of stories about jesus. If you are talking about the historicity of a mortal jesus, it says little. If you are talking about the supernatural associations with jesus, it says nothing.

My theory based on not much is that Paul fantasised about talking to some ghost called Christ. Clearly he could not actually be talking to a ghost so he was quite possibly mad.

Whatever the truth of this when Mark (the gospel writer) started his historical novel he thought Paul's ramblings made good source material for the central character he was developing.

Really I think how Mark compiled the background source materail for his story is the critical point.

If the claims in "Forged" are solid, this is very interesting. I know mid Antiquity was much more advanced than later European periods (up untill perhaps the early 1700s?) when it came to documenting and writing, but I still actually believed it was customary to compile texts long after the (supposed) originator lived / stopped writing.

It's certainly a complex and interesting question, and not a new one. Although Ehrman's popularity has driven this particular conversation in the general culture, the question has been floating around in scholarly circles for quite some time. Pseudepigrapha is important to our understanding of ancient Jewish thoughts and traditions.

A criticism I read of Ehrman's book is that it doesn't reach into the scholarly literature very much, and doesn't take any time to address opposing viewpoints. He basically treats his conclusions as if that's representative of the scholarly consensus even when the conclusion is far from settled. There are also some questions on his ability to handle Christian theology in a manner that demonstrates he understands the cultural context of the texts (which is important to understanding the question of pseudepigrapha).

Yeah, because there is SO much scholarly support for the opposite of the 'Jesus myth'.

'Jesus myth' has a fairly specific meaning in this context, I believe, i.e the contention that Jesus was entirely mythical rather than being based on some actual person who was subsequently mythologized. The latter certainly does have more scholarly support than the former.

It seems to me that this argument gets confused pretty often, mostly by people who take "the opposite of the mythicist position" to entail some belief in the historical veracity of the gospels, which isn't correct. Sometimes its Christians mistaking the proposition that many scholars think a historical Jesus is more likely for support of Christianity, and sometimes its atheists making the same mistake and having the opposite reaction...

And..... some believe that Jesus was a composite of different entities and the name was chosen several hundred years later at the Council of Nicea, wherein the entity Constantine ordered the various religious sects to come together and create a single religion for Rome, a Universal religion that incorporated all of the aspects of the various religions, so that all could accept and subscribe to it.

So.....

People believe all sorts of things. The question is whether their belief is warranted. Just claiming that someone believes something doesn't mean very much on its own.

So... Do you believe their reasons for believing justify the beliefs they are claiming to hold?

There are only a very few scholars who accept the mythicist position - I think it fair to say that there is a consensus among academics that it is false.

The Jesus Historicity Orthodox is basically synonymous with "Whatever Bart Ehrman Believes."

Ehrman, an agnostic, is a very influential guy.

He believes that Jesus is an "apocalypticist". He came to this conclusion because John the Baptist and Paul were also apocalypticists, and Jesus was sandwiched between them.

He believes that Jesus did exist but that he was just human. It was his followers and early church leaders that made him God.

Ehrman says that only the following letters are for sure written by Paul:

Galatians, Romans, Thessalonians 1, Corinthians 1 and 2, Philemon, and Philippians. The others were either definitely not written by Paul or 50/50.

Paul was the earliest writer in the New Testament and only talked about theology. He never described Jesus or talked about his life, ever.

Ehrman summary: Jesus existed. Just not God. People made him God. His book "How Jesus Became God" covers this subject super awesomely.

No.

He's very influential in the public sphere. He's a noteworthy scholar, but he's just one of many. He's not the one who sets the bar in academia and there are a good many scholars of equal quality that disagree with him in many areas.

This view pretty much has to be false, at the level of rigor acceptable for history of the time period. There are references to Jesus being crucified from non Christian sources before Nicea and the non existence of Jesus wasn't push as a theory by contemporary critics in the early years of Christianity.

In terms of the overall story, very little is agreed upon other than the fact that he was a real person who was baptized by John the Baptist and later crucified. He almost certainly was a religious teacher who prob said things similar to some of the stuff attributed to him. Other than that its tough to say anything definitive about him to a suitable level of rigor. That's my understanding at least.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Erhman a scholar on studying ancient text and making sure it is correctly translated? It seems like making claims about the past and creating historical theories is slightly outside of his expertise, which is exactly what he is famous for.

Ehrman's latest is "Jesus Before The Gospels: How The Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories Of The Savior." The argument is that when it comes to Jesus, all we have are memories written after the fact by people who were not actually there to observe him. And the way we remember is highly selective and distorted by the reasons we choose to remember in the first place, usually in light of what it most important to us in our own lives. A good follow-up to "How Jesus Became God."

It's hard to make sure a text is properly translated without having historical theories about how people understand/interpret words and ideas in their specific historical contexts. So this criticism is probably too much.

As an conservative Reformed Christian I've always believed that if we can't trust the entire Bible, how could we trust any of it? For instance, I've always found if fascinating that people will claim to believe that Jesus was a "good teacher" and some of what he said in the Bible is true but other parts aren't true, for instance the places where He claims to be the only way to the Father etc. So for me, if you only believe part of the Bible, how do you determine which parts? Is its verse by verse you make this decision? Chapter by chapter, book by book? For me, it's either all God's Word or it's not. I see no in-between because there would be no way to determine what was and wasn't.

As for ever "proving" that part of the Bible is false or "embellished" will never happen for true believers. We have faith that it's God's inspired word and if we doubt that then we aren't true believers to begin with.

I hope that makes sense. I have faith the Bible is 100% legit. You might have faith that it's not. Neither of us can ever "prove" it on this side of eternity. That's why it's called faith.

"Faith" is an inner activity in which we move on into the future. "Faith" isn't about knowledge or wisdom where one "believes" something untrue.

Another perspective is that to expect the Bible to be true(knowledge) and base judgment on this is entering the world of miscomprehension. The activity of seeking comprehension of the Bible will, in and of itself, bring forth proper understanding. Through this activity, within faith, inner truths become apparent.

An example of incomprehension to most; the idea of the "Virgin Birth" thought of as ridiculous to many people. In the lexicon of ancient man, up and into the time of Christ Jesus, the idea of "Virgin" is associated with the total cleansing of the "sentient body" of a human being;that part of the human being which is not physical but more of the soul nature had been cleansed by Mary in her development from life to recurrent life.

In the Bible we have the "Fall" in which "Lucifer( luciferic beings)" brought forth the "temptation" and in this he entered into the "sentient body' of mankind and has been present ever since. The results of this "temptation" are the work of Man, the cleansing not only of Man but "Lucifer" himself; Mary is the apotheosis of the futuristic state of Man sans Lucifer , a marvelous working.

The area of the "Luciferic" temptation is also known as the Astral Body of that in which Man thinks, feels and wills; this again supersensible.

As an aside, just as Christ Jesus was able to "resurrect" the Physical body so is it able to be "healed" and bring this body to its original state; Christ as the healer.

Two distinct responses:

1) Why must all-or-nothing be the only route? If I have a friend who gives excellent poker advice, but makes really bad life decisions outside of poker, wouldn't I still trust his poker advice?

2) What does it mean to "trust" the "entire Bible"? We'll pick the easy-to-get-into-an-argument topic of creation. I can say that I "trust" the creation account insofar as it's giving me a theological reference point for understanding who God is and God's purposes, while not "trust" it as giving me a detailed literal historical account of the beginning of the universe. In your view, have I distrusted part of the Bible by understanding it in one way as opposed to the other?

Fair enough questions.

My response to your first and probably your second question would be this.... If your friend seems to give good poker advice but then you discovered he was lying to you about many other things he told you, wouldn't you begin to question his poker advice and pretty much every story or "fact" he told you? Put very simply, sort of like the little boy who cried "wolf!". How do you know when to believe your friend and when not to? Unless the Bible explicitly says or implies that a particular story or potion is a parable, how can we start waving our wand over certain parts and deciding what is a parable or allegory or not?

Let's use the creation account example you mentioned. The Bible gives a very detailed timeline of the events of creation. If you choose to believe it's just a parable or a story to help you understand God's plan for creation but it's not a literal historical account, where did you get that information? No where does the Bible say that it's not factual and literal.

Following that line of thinking, how do we know the story of Noah is true, or Exodus is true concerning all the plagues and miracles surrounding the story of the Israelites escaping the captivity of Pharaoh? And if those miracles aren't all true, let's skip forward and talk about the miracles of the New Testament. Was Jesus really born of a virgin or was that a story told to help explain how important and special Jesus was? Did he really perform all the miracles the Bible claims he did? Did he really say that "no man comes to the Father, except through me."? Or was He just letting us know that He is one of the ways? Did Jesus really die on the cross and rise from the dead 3 days later or did he just "seem" dead? Or is the whole resurrection a hoax put on by the Apostles?

I'm not saying you disbelieve all these things because I honestly have no idea what you believe but these are lines of thinking I've heard before when people start saying they believe this but not that in the Bible. Without some magic truth meter how do we determine what is true and not? What is literal and not, especially where there are no clues that tell us it's a parable?

Speaking about these sort of common beliefs/disbeliefs, it's not unusual to find people who say, "Yes I believe Jesus was a good teacher. He had a lot of good things to say about being a good person and we should listen to what he says, but there are other ways to get to heaven than just Jesus." What they have done is seemingly randomly chosen to believe the parts of the Bible where Jesus gives us moral instructions but decided to not believe the part where he says he is "THE way, the truth and the life and no man comes to the father except by me." So either Jesus lied there or that part of the Bible is incorrect. Either way, how would one decide which verses were true and which weren't?

I hope that makes a little sense. I'm on my phone typing and it's late.

I'd probably do the same thing that I would recommend you do in evaluating the biblical texts: look for independent ways of assessing their reliability beyond mere claims to authority. If no such possibility existed, it might make practical sense to distrust the poker advice more than you would otherwise in this case, but since there are fairly reasonable and objective ways of evaluating both poker advice and readings of biblical texts (at least on certain questions) there doesn't appear to be any reason to approach the decision this way.

In any case, you earlier claimed that no one can "prove" the legitimacy of the Bible. It's not entirely clear what you mean by that, but there are certainly many readings of many biblical texts which can be demonstrated to be false (or perhaps more accurately bad readings to begin with), starting from strict creationist readings of Genesis which you mention. If you believe that the legitimacy of the Bible hinges on the creation narratives being "literal historical" fact, then you should reject the legitimacy of the Bible, because those stories are not historical, and that has been demonstrated.

Beyond that, archaeological evidence and comparisons between the Hebrew scriptures and those of other cultures (see for example arguments about early Hebrew polytheism based on comparison of the Bible to the Ugaritic texts) help us put the Hebrew texts into context, where it is obvious that they aren't unique and divinely inspired histories, but rather cultural stories that reflect regional beliefs. Anthropology helps make the human origin and context of those beliefs and writings clearer.