TedM

Tanya, maybe this is what you are looking for, from the link provided above:

Yes, the fragment was written in mid 2nd century, slightly earlier than Irenaeus. The point for aa though was that it clearly assumes Paul lived and wrote in the mid-first century despite aa's use of ambiguous wording in the fragment regarding the book of Revelation to bolster his claim to the contrary. He should stop using this reference now that I have shown him how inappropriate it is for his case.

aa5874

What a Load of BS.

How in the world can an IMITATOR come before that which is Imitated??

You don't know what "imitate" mean.

You have Exposed that you are extremely logically weak and your ability to reason is almost non-existent.

You ought to know that:
1. The One who IMITATES is the One who chronologically follows that which is Imitated.

2. The One who FOLLOWS an Example is the One who chronologically comes after the Example.


Your argument that One who IMITATES is NOT the One who follows chronologically is an "Argument from Silence" and is also naturally and chronologically illogical.

My argument is that The Muratorian Canon did state that the Apostle Paul IMITATED his Predecessor John.

The Imitator MUST chronologically follow that which he Imitated.

In the Muratorian Canon Paul is the IMITATOR.

The Apostle Paul, the IMITATOR, followed the Example of John and used Revelation of his Predecessor as his Model to write to Seven Churches.

No, No, No!!! If you don't desist from your ILLOGICAL argument from silence then you are involved in propaganda.

tanya

Hi Ted.

First, I am puzzled by your expression here. I need a quote from the Muratorian canon, to support your conclusion.

Second, I am skeptical of the dates you have given. So far as I can ascertain, one does not even know when this Muratorian canon, itself, was written. But, if we accept a date of mid second century, I can live with that. What I can't live with, is the notion that "...it clearly assumes ..." This is not a forum based on assumptions. Show us the text to explain your conclusion.

Where is your DATA, to support a first century Pauline corpus? My data, comes from (a) our oldest extant copy of Paul, on line, that is, Codex Sinaiticus, dating from early fourth century, and (b) reports from web sites regarding the oldest extant papyrus documents which mention the epistles, i.e. P46, dating from early third century. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume that the letters attributed to Paul, (none of which reference anything in the four gospels, to the best of my knowledge), date from middle third of the second century, CE, i.e. roughly about the same time as Justin Martyr and Marcion, three or four decades before Ireneaus, and about one or two decades before Tatian. What about the Diatessaron, Ted, does it reference Paul's epistles? No? Isn't that worrisome, Ted?

Since the date of the Muratorian fragment is unknown, one cannot reliably state that it furnishes evidence of anything earlier than mid second century, earliest date of its creation. I do agree with you, however, that we need to be careful about hyperbolic claims, based on the absence of reference. The fact that neither Justin Martyr, nor Tatian mention Paul, nor any of the four gospel writers, does not necessarily imply that Paul must have succeeded those six authors, and could not have preceded them, but, the extent of the silence does pose an obstacle to claiming that Paul wrote before those six authors, given the absence of first century evidence, supporting such belief.

TedM

AA, bottom line: Though I disagree with your restrictive interpretation it doesn't matter.

Real simply:

1. The fragment author clearly thought Paul lived in the mid-1st century, clearly implying that he also would have thought Paul wrote during his missions described in Acts.

2. IF he ALSO thought Paul wrote after Revelation was written, then he must have thought Revelation was written before around 60AD.

3. Therefore, your point about Paul writing after Revelation is meaningless.

It doesn't help your case. To use it is misleading. You should stop using it.

TedM

I'm not claiming that Paul wrote in the 1st century. My quotes from the fragment are in my long post from last night--go back 5-6 posts..

I'm claiming that the author of the Muratorian fragment thought Paul lived and wrote in the mid 1st century. This is because he accepted Acts as authentic, and written by a living eyewitness (Luke) to some of the events (remember the 'we' passages with Paul?). Since Acts includes great detail of the missions of Paul, and with enough timeline information to put him in the mid 1st century, the author accepted Paul too as authentic and living and writing in the 1st century. Now, I admit that he may have had a perverted version of Acts which in no way place Paul during that time, but that seems quite unlikely.

tanya

I don't claim to know beans about what the author of any fragments, or whole texts, for that matter, thought, or, whether or not what they thought had been accurately transmitted in the written text in our possession today.

No. My claim is that Acts of the Apostles exists in three different versions: Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. Whether Western type, or Alexandrian type came first, is anyone's guess. My guess: Alexandrian (shorter) came first, and text was added later (third century) to create Western version. Byzantine version came after the fourth century, and offers still another version of the text.

My point, then, Ted, is that Acts of the Apostles is LATE, first referenced by Irenaeus, late second century.

For what little I know, Irenaeus may have been the composer of the earliest version of Acts. Certainly I have encountered zero evidence, to date, to support a first century date of composition for Acts, and therefore, the notion, oft expressed, that Acts was Luke's composition, and that Luke was a companion of Paul, and that both of them traveled about, during the first century, before the fall of the temple in 70 CE, strikes me, at least, as a fairy tale.

I have a very hard time imagining the Roman army allowing anyone to travel on the Roads from Jerusalem, during the interval from 70-135 CE. I see the entire Christian myth evolving, starting from dispersal of all Jews from Jerusalem, following the third Jewish uprising, against the Romans, ending in 135CE.

I picture the gospels, Paul's works, Justin Martyr, all created in the twenty years following the evacuation from Jerusalem. Created in that cacophonic turmoil, it is reasonable to appreciate that some of the Syrians had one set of documents, while another group, had some different set of documents, hence, the silence regarding each others' texts.

One reason for claiming a first century epoch for Jesus, could well have been as a mechanism to avoid censorship by the Roman army. I think we tend to underestimate the diligence of the Romans in controlling access to papyrus, and ink, in the second century.

I suspect that Roman governors would have been exceptionally quick to execute any would be agitators, or trouble makers. By insisting on a process occurring well before 70 CE, the authors may have avoided detention, and subsequent crucifixion. This could also explain the overt repudiation of orthodox Judaism, by insisting on the Christian notion of sharing meals with unclean persons, and ignoring the insistence on the essential nature of circumcision to preservation of orthodoxy. Massive starvation in that era, could also explain the idea of ignoring strictures against eating pork.

TedM

I haven't put forth my own opinion on Acts in this thread. I'm trying to get aa to see his error in referencing the Muratorian fragment as support for his theory. That's it.

I will now say that I am very interested in Acts and would like to learn more someday. I believe it contains much authentic material, dated to the 1st century, because of my 'intuition' when reading it, and I know that 1st century authorship is largely accepted by scholars who have spent years studying it, but I can't comment on the things you have learned that suggest otherwise.

If it can be shown that Acts was written in the 1st century by someone who knew Paul, that would go a long ways toward proving Jesus' existence IMO, as it would take the wind out of the sails of those who claim Paul's silences on the issue are a strong reason to reject Jesus' historicity.

aa5874

No!!! You statement is illogical and hopelessy unreasonably. You don't make much sense.

How in the world can one do something in the same way BEFORE such a way was known???

How can one follow an example without that same example was known???

Please, take your BS somewhere else.

TedM

I've been very polite to you so far on this aa. What exactly is wrong with what I wrote here? I think you know very well that you have no good response and that is why you can only respond in the meaningless way you have here.

I'm done responding to the issue of whether a chronology is necessary when comparing two things. It isn't relevant.

aa5874

That is you pathological problem. Whenever you make illogical and absurd statements you quickly threatening to stop responding.

I will always expose and destroy your logical fallacies.

Now, a chronology is EXTREMELY significant when one is attempting to Re-construct the past--Chronology is the ESSENCE of History--how can you be so illogical???

Please, you don't know what "History" means.