Perhaps I should have used Kloppenborg's wording: it is "almost universally acknowledged." Robert M. Price, as usual, may be the exception to the rule (although I'm not sure that Price actually denies that v. 3b-5 derives from a pre-Pauline formula).
Well, I Cor starts out with his name as the writer, and Greek scholars (which I'm not) say that the language is similar to the other undisputed Pauline letters. Some jokes about Shakespearean authorship come to mind.
Thanks for pointing this out. I have to agree that Paul-- and especially the pre-Pauline hymnic and creedal material he frequently cites-- is the most important witness to the historicity of Jesus.
thestyleguy wrote:can you quote what material you are referring to and please don't use the King James: I'm totally clueless as to what is suppose to be a creed.
I'm still clueless as to why this is evidence for a historical Jesus. The gospel of John was written by someone who walked with him - a primary source - that's an eye witness to what happened. These are some of the thoughts of Robin Lane Fox - truth and fiction in the Bible - the unauthorized version - he was an atheist and he said the gospel John is by disciple John (primary source) and for sure Galations was written by Paul - but with Peter - who ever wrote that was very educated and probably a greek speaker - not the real peter.
thestyleguy wrote:I'm still clueless as to why this is evidence for a historical Jesus. The gospel of John was written by someone who walked with him - a primary source - that's an eye witness to what happened. These are some of the thoughts of Robin Lane Fox - truth and fiction in the Bible - the unauthorized version - he was an atheist and he said the gospel John is by disciple John (primary source) and for sure Galations was written by Paul - but with Peter - who ever wrote that was very educated and probably a greek speaker - not the real peter.
These couple of threads started with posters climing that nothing about Jesus was written until 30+ years after his death. A creed from the 30s certainly cuts down on the time for legends to grow.
thestyleguy wrote:I'm still clueless as to why this is evidence for a historical Jesus. The gospel of John was written by someone who walked with him - a primary source - that's an eye witness to what happened. These are some of the thoughts of Robin Lane Fox - truth and fiction in the Bible - the unauthorized version - he was an atheist and he said the gospel John is by disciple John (primary source) and for sure Galations was written by Paul - but with Peter - who ever wrote that was very educated and probably a greek speaker - not the real peter.
These couple of threads started with posters climing that nothing about Jesus was written until 30+ years after his death. A creed from the 30s certainly cuts down on the time for legends to grow.
I guess the question is why were these things written and at what time: I don't think any of the authors thought that they would be put together in a book. They were just collected the works as the original eye witnesses died and kept people in the faith. Even though tradition has John's gospel written after Galations - he was an eye witness to Jesus's ministry and wrote something totally different than Mark etc. did. in my opinion his gospel story is a hundred times the evidence of anything paul could write.
thestyleguy wrote:I'm still clueless as to why this is evidence for a historical Jesus. The gospel of John was written by someone who walked with him - a primary source - that's an eye witness to what happened. These are some of the thoughts of Robin Lane Fox - truth and fiction in the Bible - the unauthorized version - he was an atheist and he said the gospel John is by disciple John (primary source) and for sure Galations was written by Paul - but with Peter - who ever wrote that was very educated and probably a greek speaker - not the real peter.
These couple of threads started with posters climing that nothing about Jesus was written until 30+ years after his death. A creed from the 30s certainly cuts down on the time for legends to grow.
The problem with this evidence is it is still the internal source, the Bible is being used as evidence that the Bible is true.
We don't know this was written in the 30's, no one has the original copy of this or any other book in the gospel.