10 MN to 720 MN: Christian Demographics in Africa.

[Xavier]

Just passing through. Here's an explanation on St. Justin and St. Paul: https://pursuingveritas.com/2021/12/15/t...yr-part-1/

The vast majority of scholars concur that Justin was aware of Paul, had access to at least some of his letters, and employed his thought without formally citing him.[8] While some disagreement exists as to whether Justin simply developed Pauline themes[9] or employed specific language from his letters, many scholars argue Justin employed Romans, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians in writing the Dialogue.[10] As for why Justin did not formally cite Paul, there are two likely explanations. First is the purpose of Justin’s argument, namely, to convince Trypho that Jesus is God’s Messiah. If Trypho does not buy this argument, he is certainly not going to accept Paul’s theology. Second, the authority in question for Justin and Trypho is not Paul but the Jewish scriptures. Justin must demonstrate the case for Jesus through appeal to a source that Trypho finds authoritative, making citation of Paul unnecessary.[11] Given Justin’s dialogue partner and purpose in writing, it is not surprising to see Paul alluded to but not explicitly cited.

This knowledge and transformation of Paul is further evidenced in Justin’s utilization of Jewish scripture.[12] Of particular interest to scholars are a number of Old Testament citations which Justin either cites in the form of Paul or interprets similar to how Paul uses them.[13] For example, both Paul (Gal. 3:6) and Justin (Dial. 119.5) cite Genesis 15:6 in order to declare that Gentile Christians are justified like Abraham.[14] Not only does Justin cite many of the same passages as Paul, but he also employs a highly Christocentric reading of those passages, locating in the Old Testament numerous attestations to Christ and the truth of prophecy.[15] Craig Allert concludes that for Justin, “The [Old Testament] scriptures must be interpreted through an understanding of the events of his pre-existence, incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father.”[16] In these ways, Justin interprets the Jewish scriptures very similarly to Paul.

[SYZ]

Earlier in this thread I addressed a specific question to Xavier...

Can you please list a few of those confirmed, empirically supported
"miracles"?  Location and date of event, type of "extraordinary" event,
plus links to the specific details of each purported miracle etc.

And, true to form—and typical of numerous Christian evangelists—he
ignored responding in any way.  Whenever they're backed into a corner
by the non-religiously inclined, they invariably just disappear.

Xavier obviously lacks the courage of his convictions.  Pathetic really.

[Xavier]

I said "just passing through" didn't I? I addressed Minimalist's objection about St. Justin Martyr in the last post. Here's an answer to yours: https://cfan.org.uk/testimonies

1,145 YOUTH CRUSADES IN 9 WEEKS! “God is shaking Rwanda!” certainly captures what is taking place in Rwanda as Evangelist Samuel Hoernle reported on the team of Bootcamp Graduates and Fire camp students preaching the Gospel! In just nine weeks, 1,145 outreaches were organised and 695,699 young people made a decision for Jesus!”
(i) “This is the testimony of Olaniyi Segue Israel, who was completely healed by the power of Jesus Christ. The Lord healed his back and set him free.
(ii) This is the testimony of Jovita Bishagize, who, after 36 years of deafness, was completely healed during a Christ for all Nations crusade!   After hospitals and even witch-doctors had failed her, she turned to God for help …
(iii) Coulibaly was the provider for his family but suddenly he became ill, paralysed and blind for a period of time! Then, in one day, three people gave him a flyer to a Gospel Crusade: his nurse, his daughter and his sister. Coulibaly felt it was a sign that God was calling him to attend. Later he learned that it certainly was the Lord, as he encountered the power of God that night, forever changing his future!  Watch his full testimony.
(iv) Sidney Zambo is a young woman from Africa who received a tragic diagnosis. That sickness almost took her life, but she heard about a Christ for all Nations Gospel Crusade and an amazing thing happened.
(v) This is the testimony of Elizabeth Joe. As you'll see, she had faced eighteen years of unbearable pain. Elizabeth literally calls it "hell." She had spent nearly all of her family's money on voodoo priests and doctors but to no avail. One day, after a visit to a hospital, she heard the sounds of a Christ for all Nations crusade and decided to see what was happening. Elizabeth had been facing a tremendous challenge for years, and God was about to deal with it for her, but He had to deal with an even greater problem first.

[Edible crust]

Earlier in this thread I addressed a specific question to Xavier...

Can you please list a few of those confirmed, empirically supported
"miracles"?  Location and date of event, type of "extraordinary" event,
plus links to the specific details of each purported miracle etc.

And, true to form—and typical of numerous Christian evangelists—he
ignored responding in any way.  Whenever they're backed into a corner
by the non-religiously inclined, they invariably just disappear.

Xavier obviously lacks the courage of his convictions.  Pathetic really.

He's probably not got the time, keeping on top of all of the replies to the numerous shit threads that he's posted must be taking it's toll.
I bet he doesn't know whether he's coming or going.
He's not paced himself. It's almost like he knows his days here are numbered.

[Minimalist]

Here's the bio on your asshole apologist on his own web site.

"Jacob serves as Lead Pastor at Arise Church in Fenton, MO. He previously served as Associate Pastor of Connections and Church Planting at Rooftop Church in Affton, MO. Jacob is also Founder and Editor at Conciliar Post. He holds a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Saint Louis University (2018), a Master of Arts from Wake Forest University (2014), a Bachelor of Arts from Valparaiso University (2012), and certificates from the Oxford Study Centre and Summit Semester."

What a surprise.  A jesus freak making excuses for the failings of their bullshit.  That what apologetics is all about, sonny.

[SaxonX]

Yup linking to apologist and biased actors on proselytising websites....No surprise

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, let me ask you to spend 9 minutes listening to Bart Ehrman discuss this concept of "authenticity" and "original documents."

Generally speaking, scholars.... mainly xtian scholars which is a big part of the problem, say that there are 7 "authentic" Pauline epistles and 6 which were forged in his name by later writers.  

As you watch, keep in mind that 2 Corinthians is one of the so-called 7 authentic letters.  By the time Ehrman is finished you should be wondering what the hell "authentic" really means.




There are actual historical problems with some of what Ehrman is saying - note at one point how he tells us that our sources for this crap are the new testament which is like saying that Winnie the Pooh is real is you just read Winnie the Pooh but let's pass on that for a while and just stick to your question.

Thanks for posting that. In other words, we have no way of knowing if there even is an original, but strong reasons to believe we don't have any possession of it.

[jerry mcmasters]

Your belief is there was not a first century Paul and the Pauline letters were not written in the first century.  Correct?

Not quite, Jerry.  

We have no evidence that these letters existed in the first century.  Not a single scrap of papyrus or parchment.  Same goes for the so-called gospels, btw.

I can accept that for the sake of argument, so I'll treat that as a given.

So what we have is what emerged after the Marcion story.  Which means that early church writers were editing it. And that is a tremendous RED FLAG.


Again, the basic premise of Marcionism was that yahweh was an evil scumbag of a god, not the Supreme God who sent "jesus."  To back up his claims he produced the first xtian canon consisting of the Gospel of the Lord and 10 epistles of Paul.  Unless Marcion was a complete asshole one has to assume that the writings he put forward support that position. 

I don't want to ask questions out of complete ignorance so I will need to look up Marcion and do some research before getting back to this.  I'm unclear what "it" is- are you saying the original material is from Marcion, and he made up the character Paul and letters of Paul and this was the raw material from which the Church writers altered into the form we have today?

But that is not what we see in "Paul" now.  

Paul writes in his letter to the Romans, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith".[30] Faith is the central component of Paul's doctrine of justification — meaning that Gentiles don't need to become Israelites when they convert to Christianity, because God is not just the God of one nation, but Gentile and Jew alike.

Does that sound like the Jewish "god" is some scumbag?

I have a lot of other problems with the whole Marcion story but I'm just trying to stick to actual facts here.  

The other fact is that when Justin wrote his First Apology to Antoninus Pius he never mentions anyone named "Paul."  He does know the Marcion story, though.  How is that possible?

Yeah I'll have to look up Marcion and what he wrote and when he wrote it before I can get any further.

[pattylt]

Marcion was in direct competition with the early Christian’s. Marcion is the first to assemble writings from Paul. We don’t have his collection so we have no idea if his Paul writings look anything like our Paul’s writings as we have them now. (If I’m incorrect, correct me!). We also know that Gnosticism was developing or possible already developed around that time and they also used Paul. Whatever Paul’s original writings
looked like, it’s doubtful how well it matches our current Paul epistles.

Bart Ehrman wrote both a scholarly and general audience book about how the various early Christianities molded stories when making copies to downplay the Gnosticism and Marcion views and instead produce the proto Orthodox Christianity we inherited. Copiests not only made errors, they manipulated the text and without any originals, it can only be teased out Paul’s writings.

I’m not even sure we know whether Paul was a gnostic, a Marcionite or a proto Orthodox Christian. He may have been a mixture…we just don’t know.

[jerry mcmasters]

Marcion was in direct competition with the early Christian’s.  Marcion is the first to assemble writings from Paul.  We don’t have his collection so we have no idea if his Paul writings look anything like our Paul’s writings as we have them now. (If I’m incorrect, correct me!).  We also know that Gnosticism was developing or possible already developed around that time and they also used Paul.  Whatever Paul’s original writings
looked like, it’s doubtful how well it matches our current Paul epistles.  

Bart Ehrman wrote both a scholarly and general audience book about how the various early Christianities molded stories when making copies to downplay the Gnosticism and Marcion views and instead produce the proto Orthodox Christianity we inherited.  Copiests not only made errors, they manipulated the text and without any originals, it can only be teased out Paul’s writings.

I’m not even sure we know whether Paul was a gnostic, a Marcionite or a proto Orthodox Christian.  He may have been a mixture…we just don’t know.

I thought the claim was there was no first century Paul and thus no first century letters from Paul.  If the claim is that there was a first century Paul and he wrote letters that (perhaps through the conduit of Marcion?) were later massaged and manipulated into a message more pleasing to the early church writers, that's fine and about what I thought all along.  For certain there were outright forgeries written after the first century but intended to look as if they were by Paul.  But I don't understand the existence of the letters at all if not through a starting point of a Paul in the first century.

[Minimalist]

Yeah I'll have to look up Marcion and what he wrote and when he wrote it before I can get any further.

Good for you.

Just remember that what we "know" about Marcion and Marcionism comes from his enemies.  Tertullian's work is entitled "Adversus Marcionem" so treat it with all the respect you would a book about Hitler written by the B'nai Brith.

[Minimalist]

Thump, let me ask you to spend 9 minutes listening to Bart Ehrman discuss this concept of "authenticity" and "original documents."

Generally speaking, scholars.... mainly xtian scholars which is a big part of the problem, say that there are 7 "authentic" Pauline epistles and 6 which were forged in his name by later writers.  

As you watch, keep in mind that 2 Corinthians is one of the so-called 7 authentic letters.  By the time Ehrman is finished you should be wondering what the hell "authentic" really means.




There are actual historical problems with some of what Ehrman is saying - note at one point how he tells us that our sources for this crap are the new testament which is like saying that Winnie the Pooh is real is you just read Winnie the Pooh but let's pass on that for a while and just stick to your question.

Thanks for posting that. In other words, we have no way of knowing if there even is an original, but strong  reasons to believe we don't have any possession of it.

[pattylt]

Marcion was in direct competition with the early Christian’s.  Marcion is the first to assemble writings from Paul.  We don’t have his collection so we have no idea if his Paul writings look anything like our Paul’s writings as we have them now. (If I’m incorrect, correct me!).  We also know that Gnosticism was developing or possible already developed around that time and they also used Paul.  Whatever Paul’s original writings
looked like, it’s doubtful how well it matches our current Paul epistles.  

Bart Ehrman wrote both a scholarly and general audience book about how the various early Christianities molded stories when making copies to downplay the Gnosticism and Marcion views and instead produce the proto Orthodox Christianity we inherited.  Copiests not only made errors, they manipulated the text and without any originals, it can only be teased out Paul’s writings.

I’m not even sure we know whether Paul was a gnostic, a Marcionite or a proto Orthodox Christian.  He may have been a mixture…we just don’t know.

I thought the claim was there was no first century Paul and thus no first century letters from Paul.  If the claim is that there was a first century Paul and he wrote letters that (perhaps through the conduit of Marcion?) were later massaged and manipulated into a message more pleasing to the early church writers, that's fine and about what I thought all along.  For certain there were outright forgeries written after the first century but intended to look as if they were by Paul.  But I don't understand the existence of the letters at all if not through a starting point of a Paul in the first century.

I tend to think there was a Paul in the first century…I should have made that clear first.  I’m open to him being a later writer that was back written to appear as a first century writer, though.  Scholars, even Bart Ehrman, do think he wrote in the first century but, Christianity has so dominated the field that even the atheist scholars dare not push new ideas too far.  I think Robert Price argues for a later Paul. I can’t remember what his argument for that is.  min may know.  Richard Carrier has interesting takes on Paul’s writing but, I think he also puts him in the first century. Richard argues that Paul’s Christ was mythical and has good arguments to support it.  In Richard’s view, the later protoOrthodox took Paul’s mythical Christ and made him an actual human on earth. If I’m wrong…Min will correct me.  Btw, taking a mythical being and making him a human with a life on earth wasn’t some wacky idea….it happened a lot!

[jerry mcmasters]

I thought the claim was there was no first century Paul and thus no first century letters from Paul.  If the claim is that there was a first century Paul and he wrote letters that (perhaps through the conduit of Marcion?) were later massaged and manipulated into a message more pleasing to the early church writers, that's fine and about what I thought all along.  For certain there were outright forgeries written after the first century but intended to look as if they were by Paul.  But I don't understand the existence of the letters at all if not through a starting point of a Paul in the first century.

I tend to think there was a Paul in the first century…I should have made that clear first.  I’m open to him being a later writer that was back written to appear as a first century writer, though.  Scholars, even Bart Ehrman, do think he wrote in the first century but, Christianity has so dominated the field that even the atheist scholars dare not push new ideas too far.  I think Robert Price argues for a later Paul. I can’t remember what his argument for that is.  min may know.  Richard Carrier has interesting takes on Paul’s writing but, I think he also puts him in the first century. Richard argues that Paul’s Christ was mythical and has good arguments to support it.  In Richard’s view, the later protoOrthodox took Paul’s mythical Christ and made him an actual human on earth. If I’m wrong…Min will correct me.  Btw, taking a mythical being and making him a human with a life on earth wasn’t some wacky idea….it happened a lot!

That's about how I always understood it, Min's is the first time I've ever heard there was no Paul and Paul letters in the first century.  I'm open to anything though!  I would think post-first century authors could take earlier letters and change or manipulate them or create new ones (the non-Paul letters) but it's hard to imagine them making it all up without at least some real seed material, that would be an amazing feat of trickery as several of the letters really do sound like somebody just writing a letter to an associate in a specific time and circumstance.  From Wiki on Marcion:

Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian denounced Marcion as a heretic or antichrist,[8] and he was excommunicated by the church of Rome around 144.[9] He published his own canon of Christian sacred scriptures,[3][10][11] which contained ten Pauline epistles (the Pastoral epistles were not included) and the Gospel of Marcion which historically is claimed to be an edited version of the Gospel of Luke.[3][12] Some modern scholars[who?] have theorized that Marcion's Gospel was the oldest, although this has been contested.

This made Marcionism a catalyst in the process of the development of the New Testament canon by forcing the proto-orthodox Church to respond to his canon.[3][13]

So this does little to explain the existence of the Pauline epistles, he's working from something.  If the argument is that original "something" is not at all like the "something" that we see today as the Pauline letters, okay, I can get on board with that but that wouldn't erase the original Paul and his original letters.

[Minimalist]

I've noted Carrier does not bother much with paul but it is mainly because Carrier is concerned with a mythical jesus who is later given a human biography and setting, "euhemerization" in effect.

euhemerism
noun
eu·he·mer·ism yü-ˈhē-mə-ˌri-zəm  


: interpretation of myths as traditional accounts of historical persons and events

Merriam-Webster

"Paul's" writing depicts jesus in exactly that mythic state so Carrier has little reason to delve into him.  Although...I do recall one passage in which he does.

2. The Peculiar Indifference of Paul and his Christians

As a psychologist once put it (about Paul's letter to fellow congregants in
Rome, whom he had not yet met and thus can't have shared his own stories with):
Imagine for a moment that one of your friends writes you a twenty-page
letter passionately wanting to share her excitement about a new teacher.
This letter has only one topic, your friend's new teacher. [But] at the end
of her letter, you still do not know one thing about her teacher. Yet, Paul
presents the central figure of his theology this way . . .. It [seems] impossible to imagine how Paul could avoid telling one story or parable of--or fail to note one physical trait or personal quality of- Jesus.

Indeed, Paul mentions 'Jesus' or 'Christ' in his seven authentic letters at
least 280 times-and that doesn't count other references to him as only 'the
Lord' or 'Son of God'. Altogether, Paul found over three hundred occaisions to mention Jesus (by some name or title), and on at least half of those
occasions he tells us some particular fact or other about this Jesus. But (as
we'll see) not one of those facts connects Jesus with an earthly life (without adding suppositions not in the text). His crucifixion is mentioned over fifteen times; and his resurrection, over thirty times. But never any details.
So those could have occurred in outer space (as explained in Chapter 3). We
hear very little else.

In fact, as we'll see in this chapter, the only Jesus Paul shows any knowledge of is a celestial being, not an earthly man. Paul's Jesus is only ever
in the heavens. Never once is his baptism mentioned, or his ministry, or
his trial, or any of his miracles, or any historical details about what he was
like, what he did, or suffered, or where he was from, or where he had been,
or what people he knew. No memories from those who knew him are ever
reported. Paul never mentions Galilee or Nazareth, or Pilate or Mary or
Joseph, or any miracles Jesus did or any miraculous powers he is supposed
to have displayed ... or anything about the life of Jesus not in the Gospels.

OTHOoJ - page 514-515

The suggestion here is that "Paul's" corpus was written before jesus was invented which is possible.  We know there were scattered groups all across the east that followed various Mystery Cults.   What is much less certain is that these groups were literate to the point of writing this happy horseshit down.  These were pre-literate societies and damn few of them could read, even fewer could write, and very few of them could read complex philosophical treatises.

Yet, in that same 2 Corinthians, we get one of the few historical markers in all of "Paul."

32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33 But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

2 Corinthians 11

Aretas III, King of Nabatea, DID control the city of Damascus for a period of about 20 years....  but those 20 years were between 84 and 64 BCE ( and yes, Patty....in this case I do mean BCE!)  Xhristards twist their scrotums into knots trying to insist that "Paul" is talking about Aretas IV, who never controlled Damascus after the Romans took in in 64 BCE and who was last noted in history fleeing the army of Lucius Vitellius which had been sent to kick his Arab ass.  But what can we deduce from this "Paul" shit correctly identifying a first century BCE event?  You'd be surprised how reluctant xhristards are to engage on that point.  Or maybe not.

And in case anyone is wondering there is a list of interpolations into the Pauline corpus which scholars have identified.  Some later xtian editors apparently tried to polish up this pauline turd.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I thought the claim was there was no first century Paul and thus no first century letters from Paul.  If the claim is that there was a first century Paul and he wrote letters that (perhaps through the conduit of Marcion?) were later massaged and manipulated into a message more pleasing to the early church writers, that's fine and about what I thought all along.  For certain there were outright forgeries written after the first century but intended to look as if they were by Paul.  But I don't understand the existence of the letters at all if not through a starting point of a Paul in the first century.

The snippet of Erhman that Min posted doesn't argue Paul existed -- which I'd expect Ehrman to mention if it was in doubt. But he doesn't mention it.

What he does mention is that 2 Corinthians is not only at least composed 100 years after Paul's death, but that rather it is a composite of 3-5 different letters, all of which suspected or known to be edited well after Paul is assumed dead -- which means that provenance is in deep doubt.

According to Ehrman, the earliest version of 2 Corinthians is dated to 200 years after Christ supposedly died, which is I dunno, 150 years after Paul bought the farm?

[Minimalist]

Min's is the first time I've ever heard there was no Paul and Paul letters in the first century.

Think of this, Jerry.  The 4 gospels which Irenaeus was so fond of are anonymous.  At some point in time the names of matthew, mark, luke and john were attached to them.  For the record Justin never heard of those 4 assholes either, and he was writing in the early 160's CE ( Antoninus Pius died in 161.)  Some human did that.  There was no god involved.

So in the span of one short sentence you are actually asking 3 questions.

1-  Was there a Paul?
2-  Did he or someone else write letters?
3-  Was it the first century BCE or CE?

There is another historical fact that merits some consideration.  Between 146 and 44 BCE, there was no Corinth.  The Romans had razed the city and it was a desolate ruin for well over a hundred years.  Worse, while Julius Caesar planned to re-establish it as a colony for his veterans he was murdered in 44 and never saw the plan through.  One has to wonder how much progress was made in the ensuing 20 years as one civil war after another raged across, mainly Greece?  

It's hard to imagine Corinth being much of a going concern in the first century BCE or CE.  However, we know that by the 2d century it was well on the way to recovery.  But, damn.  There's that lousy 2d century again!

[Minimalist]

The snippet of Erhman that Min posted doesn't argue Paul existed -- which I'd expect Ehrman to mention if it was in doubt. But he doesn't mention it.

Ehrman also cites Josephus as evidence for Jesus existing.  He should know better.

[pattylt]

@Minimalist

Do you know what Robert Prices argument about Paul is? I can’t remember but at the Ehrman Price debate, when Robert mentioned he didn’t think Paul existed, Ehrman about shit his pants. I don’t have Prices book on his view of Paul…may have to find and purchase it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The snippet of Erhman that Min posted doesn't argue Paul existed -- which I'd expect Ehrman to mention if it was in doubt. But he doesn't mention it.

Ehrman also cites Josephus as evidence for Jesus existing.  He should know better.

My point is that if there was weighty doubt about Paul existing, every single epistle attributed to him would be called into doubt. That Ehrman didn't list that in his lecture means that he doesn't think Paul's existence is at issue, because Paul not existing would wipe out the provenance of every Pauline epistle and Ehrman would surely have mentioned that much.

[Minimalist]

The problem with guys like Price and Ehrman is that each has been active for so long that remembering where you saw any particular argument they made is a daunting task.

Let me clarify one thing.  Because we do not have the originals we have  no idea how they could have been edited.  It's easy to readdress a letter.  Corinthians could have been originally written to Alexandrian Jews...or whom there were plenty.  We don't know because we don't have the originals.

"Well.....someone MUST have written them," comes the expected chorus of xtian so-called "scholars."

"Yes....but WHO?" I say.  And what did he write and to whom did he write it.  

All we have to answer those questions now are much later works of dubious  authorship.

And they do so hate to have their little myths attacked.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So did Paul exist? Or was he a manufacture?

[Minimalist]

Paul's existence is at issue, because Paul not existing would wipe out the provenance of every Pauline epistle and Ehrman would surely have mentioned that much.

I agree.  And that is something that Ehrman, for all his trashing of the gospels, is simply not willing to address.

But what makes the "authentic epistles" authentic?  Ehrman has just given you a demonstration of what authenticity means.   They are called the authentic Epistles because they share the same literary style, vocabulary, theology, etc. That is, they are all clearly the work of a single author.

However, them all being the work of a single author isn't the same thing as that author being the person he says he is.   Moreover, what is to stop someone else from taking several letters - remember there was a huge library in Alexandria - and re-writing a bunch of them from whatever language they were originally written in to Greek?  How would we know?

[Minimalist]

So did Paul exist? Or was he a manufacture?

My opinion?

He is a literary creation of the 2d century to smooth over doctrinal issues between disparate xtian groups.  One group insisted that xtians had to be Jews or become Jews - including circucision and the other group that said "Go fuck yourselves on that one....I like bacon."  

And for the record, I think "jesus" is every bit as much a literary creation built out of the fantasies of one particular group of nitwits who thought that their boy cam back to life.

There are an awful lot of holes in the xhristard story as we now have it.  Not the least of which was Rome itself.  Jesusism was an Eastern Empire thing.  But an awful lot of this crap seems designed to move the political power of the church to Italy.

But that is a topic for another day.

[Thumpalumpacus]

However, them all being the work of a single author isn't the same thing as that author being the person he says he is.   Moreover, what is to stop someone else from taking several letters - remember there was a huge library in Alexandria - and re-writing a bunch of them from whatever language they were originally written in to Greek?  How would we know?

That thought occurred to me while watching the vid: if 2 Cor was slopped together from three or five letters, if they didn't agree in tone surely the editor had a prime opportunity to gussy them up with his own schtick. Good lord, my own letters -- and yes, I'm old enough to have written many -- would look like 18 different people or whatever.