Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-08-2013, 01:28 PM

I have been searching McClelland's article and there is no specific reference to whether he thought 'Judaism' was added in the second century but in his blog posts he consistently references the idea:

Quote:

In my estimation, there is little reason to reject chapter 7 as a later addition to the narrative. The phrase “King of the Universe” in chapter 7 and the use of the phrase “Judaism” elsewhere in the book (which I discuss here) also support the idea that the addition of chapter 7 and the final redaction of the book occured not in the second century BCE, but in the late first or early second century CE.

Certainly he would argue that Galatians is the first reference and it caught on from there. However the passage in Galatians was almost certainly NOT found in the Marcionite text. As such it could theoretically have been a second century addition to a first century text. I am not sure the term 'Judaism' existed before or was in widespread circulation before the second century.

Duvduv · 04-08-2013, 02:06 PM

Bernard, how do you know all this information? You speak about it as if you have some way of knowing it happened. Whose information do you rely upon to determine this 1st century dating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

The word Christian(s) happens in Acts (11:26 & 26:28) and 1 Peter (4:16).
I think 1 Peter (which was known by Papias) was written around 80 and Acts around 90 (justification here).

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874 · 04-08-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I will expose another flaw in the claim that Pauline writings were 1st century if they do not mention Christians.

It is accepted that the Pauline corpus is a product of Multiple editors.

The Epistle to the Ephesians and the Pastorals do NOT mention Christians but they are considered to have been written after the death of Nero when it is claimed he persecuted and killed Christians.

Now that Scholars have deduced that the Pauline Corpus had multiple editors it is now demonstrated that Epistles that do NOT mention the name Christian were written AFTER the name Christian should have already been known according to apologetics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The Pastorals are so short in total that the non-use of Christian may be a matter of chance. Ephesians is probably late 1st century.

There would be a period of time between the invention of the term Christian (probably as you suggest under Nero) and its widespread use.

Andrew Criddle

Please, your argument is extremely weak. You are merely assuming when all the letters under the name of Paul were composed when you have no data to support you.

Why was Ephesians probably composed in the late 1st century?

What source of antiquity made such a claim?

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/barnabas.html

The Epistle of Barnabas does NOT mention Christians.

When was it written? Before or after Nero supposedly killed the Christians?

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians does NOT mention Christians.

When was Polycarp's Epistle written? Before or after Nero supposedly killed the Christians?

See http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/letpet.html

The letter from Peter to Philip does NOT mention Christians.

When was it written? In the 2nd or 3rd century??

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...n-address.html

"Tatian's Address to the Greeks" does NOT mention Christians!!

When was it written? In the 2nd century?

Church writers and Apologetics claimed people called Christians of the Jesus cult were persecuted and killed by Nero and that there were Christians since the time of Pilate.

Examine an APOLOGETIC writing. There were people called Christians in the time of Paul according to the Acts of Peter and Paul.

The Christians were arguing at Paul's door.

The Acts of Peter and Paul

Quote:

And in the morning of the following day, at dawn, behold, Peter coming, finds a multitude of the Jews before Paul's door.

And there was a great uproar between Christian Jews and the Gentiles.

Now Examine Acts of the Apostles.

People were FIRST called Christians in Antioch directly as a result of Paul's teachings.

Acts 11

Quote:

Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:

26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch.

And it came to pass , that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch

In Acts, Paul and Barnabas were the teachers of those who were FIRST to be called Christians.

Your argument is extremely weak based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

1. Apologetic writings composed long after c 70 CE did NOT mention Christians. See Apologetic writings

2. All Epistles in the Canon do NOT mention Christians. See the NT

3. All the Gospels do NOT mention Christians. See the NT

4. Revelation by John does NOT mention Christians. See the NT.

5. In the Canon, Paul was DIRECTLY associated with the supposed FIRST to be called Christians in Antioch. See Acts 11

6. Church writers claimed Nero persecuted and Killed Christians. See Church History

7. Church writers claim Paul and Peter were Executed under Nero. See Church History

Bernard Muller · 04-08-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Bernard, how do you know all this information? You speak about it as if you have some way of knowing it happened. Whose information do you rely upon to determine this 1st century dating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

The word Christian(s) happens in Acts (11:26 & 26:28) and 1 Peter (4:16).
I think 1 Peter (which was known by Papias) was written around 80 and Acts around 90 (justification here).

Cordially, Bernard

Click on here for dating of 'Acts'.
For Papias (120-140) knowing about '1 Peter', See Eusebius, 'History of the Church', 3, 39:
"And the same writer [Papias] uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise."

Cordially, Bernard

Duvduv · 04-08-2013, 04:44 PM

Bernard, I don't see what any of this tells you about these texts being written in the 1st century UNLESS you are trying to argue that you have to take the historical claims at the church at face value allowing for a little wiggle room.
There is no evidence that any of these texts was written and approved by any church in those days at all.

Bernard Muller · 04-08-2013, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Bernard, I don't see what any of this tells you about these texts being written in the 1st century UNLESS you are trying to argue that you have to take the historical claims at the church at face value allowing for a little wiggle room.
There is no evidence that any of these texts was written and approved by any church in those days at all.

I do not know what you mean. Why do you say UNLESS? Did you read my piece on the dating of 'Acts'?
What historical claims of the church are you talking about? Is it about Eusebius writing Papias knew about 1 Peter?
Just be specific in your critique.
And why do you ask for evidence about these texts being approved by any church in the 1st century?
I do not see why a written text should be approved by a church. But it seems Papias approved of part(s) of 1 Peter, just as later on, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen did.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874 · 04-08-2013, 07:26 PM

The insurmountable problem with dating Paul is that Church writers place him AFTER gLuke was composed but still claimed he was executed under Nero.

Up to the 4th century the very Church writers could NOT date Paul. The very Church did NOT know when Paul lived.

Examine "Church History" 3.1.2

Quote:

2. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion.

And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way.

What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero?

These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.

Now Examine "Church History" 6.25. Eusebius will quote Origen again. This time Origen will claim that Paul commended gLuke.

Church History 6.25.

Quote:

3. In his first book on Matthew's Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows:

4. Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew............

5. The second is by Mark................

6. And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John...

It gets worse. It is confirmed.

The Church writers did not know when Paul lived.

Examine the Muratorian Canon. Again the author of the Muratorian Canon stated that Paul was aware of gLuke and its author

The Muratorian Canon

Quote:

.....3 The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself as one studious of right.

The Church and its writer did NOT know when Paul really lived and when he died.

Paul was NOT executed under Nero. Paul was Alive after the Apocalypse of John was already composed in the same Muratorian Canon.

Paul FOLLOWED the rule of his predecessor John.

The Muratorian Canon

Quote:

.....the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order...

Now, examine Tertullian's "Against Marcion". Tertullian claimed that gLuke was even ascribed to Paul.

The Church and its writers do NOT know when Paulive and when he died.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion"

Quote:

For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters...

Examine "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus. He too does NOT know when Paul lived and when he died. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age and that gLuke is a record of Paul's teachings.

Not even the Church and its writers were able to date Paul.

They claimed claimed he was Executed under Nero but simultaneously that he was aware of gLuke, The Apocalypse of John and that Jesus was crucified under Claudius AFTER Paul preached Christ suffered during the time of King Aretas.

Paul cannot be dated--Paul was fabricated.

Duvduv · 04-09-2013, 05:58 AM

Well, there is no evidence anywhere of churches in the first century. No corroborating evidence of anything in the NT including Acts either. So what does that leave you with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Bernard, I don't see what any of this tells you about these texts being written in the 1st century UNLESS you are trying to argue that you have to take the historical claims at the church at face value allowing for a little wiggle room.
There is no evidence that any of these texts was written and approved by any church in those days at all.

I do not know what you mean. Why do you say UNLESS? Did you read my piece on the dating of 'Acts'?
What historical claims of the church are you talking about? Is it about Eusebius writing Papias knew about 1 Peter?
Just be specific in your critique.
And why do you ask for evidence about these texts being approved by any church in the 1st century?
I do not see why a written text should be approved by a church. But it seems Papias approved of part(s) of 1 Peter, just as later on, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen did.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 04-09-2013, 06:54 AM

to Duvduv,

Quote:

Well, there is no evidence anywhere of churches in the first century. No corroborating evidence of anything in the NT including Acts either. So what does that leave you with?

Did you read Acts?
Did you read the Pauline epistles?
Did you read Revelation?
Did you read Tacitus' 'Annals'?
Did you read Suetonius' 'the twelve Cesars'?
Did you read Pliny the Younger's letters to Trajan?

Maybe you reject all of these as frauds, but they are evidence for me for Christians and Christian churches in the 1st century.

Cordially, Bernard

Duvduv · 04-09-2013, 07:31 AM

Yes, but how can you confirm that they are 1st century productions unless you have a signed affidavit or a video of them?? You have no possible way of knowing they were from the 1st century at all. Do we have to go through this again?
There is NO EVIDENCE that the epistles were written by anyone in the first century.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the epistles were received by anyone in the first century.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the epistles were collected by anyone in the first century or thereafter.
There is NO EVIDENCE that any communities of Christians existed in those locations in the first century. UNLESS you simply accept on faith the statements of ancient Christian apologists, which is your right.
The Paul of Acts is a different character than the Paul of the epistles, and there is no evidence that it too was written in the first century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to Duvduv,

Quote:

Well, there is no evidence anywhere of churches in the first century. No corroborating evidence of anything in the NT including Acts either. So what does that leave you with?

Did you read Acts?
Did you read the Pauline epistles?
Did you read Revelation?
Did you read Tacitus' 'Annals'?
Did you read Suetonius' 'the twelve Cesars'?
Did you read Pliny the Younger's letters to Trajan?

Maybe you reject all of these as frauds, but they are evidence for me for Christians and Christian churches in the 1st century.

Cordially, Bernard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2013, 04:44 PM	#15
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Bernard, I don't see what any of this tells you about these texts being written in the 1st century UNLESS you are trying to argue that you have to take the historical claims at the church at face value allowing for a little wiggle room. There is no evidence that any of these texts was written and approved by any church in those days at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.