outhouse

They attributed them as to who they suspected.

They didnt know, we dont know.

There were many copies in different states in different places. Only a fraction of early text survived to our time.

even in Pauls time we know there were other types of scripture floating around.

stephan huller

What kind of a stupid answer is that? We know that the Catholic tradition says they are/he was early. I am asking for some compelling evidence or any evidence at all that they were late .

outhouse

Lack of evidence would apply better if there wasnt so much multiple attestation from the first century ignored by the OP.

jakejonesiv

If you are inclined to follow the trail back to Simon Magus, you may be right. H.Detering (The Falsified Paul) and R.Price (The Amazing Colossal Apostle) both explore this possibility.

But the Dutch Radical aproach to the Pauline epistles doesn't require that conclusion. The real point is that none of the Pauline Epistles are authentic. Every one is pseudepigraphic.

Paul seems to be the last remaiing "sacred cow" of the traditional Christian origins! The figure of the Historical Jesus is more and more diminished by liberal cholars to the point where one can scarcely speak with any assurance of him at all. But in its place, we find a retreat to the Historical Paul. There is a great reluctance to bring to bear the same higher criticism of Paul. Why? Because without the traditional view of Paul there is no historical anchor of Christianity before the very late first century or second century.

But as we know, when we examine the Pauline episltes, even the so-called "authentic" epistles we find the very same problems of the HJ replicated in the Historical Paul (HP). The redactional seams are apparent as in the gospels and OT. Differing authors with differing religous agendas writing in the name of the Great Apostle.

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

In Galatians, we read of Paul's alleged trip to Damascus.

We should not imagaine that a historical Paul ever did such a thing. Paul's alleged trip to Damscus is midrash on Elijah's attempts to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18). The "Arabia" and "Damascus" details explain what has puzzled scholars who look for history in Galatians.

Even N.T. Wright sees the Elijah model (1 Kings) employed in the life of Paul, but shrinks away from the implications of his insight. PAUL, ARABIA, AND ELIJAH

Paul and Elijah both set out to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal for Elijah (1 Kings 18) and the church for Paul (Gal 1:13,23).

Elijah is turned aside (1 Kings 19:3) as is Paul when he encounters the risen Christ (Acts 9). Now here is the key part; Elijah immediately goes to Horeb, the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8). Likewise, Paul turns aside into Arabia (Gal 1:17), where Mount Sinai is supposed to be located (Gal 4:25). It is on the Mount that Paul would naturally receive his alleged divine revelation, Gal. 1:12.

After that, both Elijah (1 Kings 19:15) and Paul (Gal. 1:17) go to Damascus. That is the source of Paul's alleged association with Damascus, "midrash" (loosely defined). It is very much of the same thing that was used to create the fictional life of Jesus.

It is evident that Galatians 1 was written after Acts 9 because Gal 1:17 states Paul returned to Damascus. Returned? Galatians doesn't mention Damascus before this. It was mentioned in Acts 9:3. These texts evolved "in conversation" with each other. This is supported by the fact that the so-called biographical details of Acts 9 and Galatians 1 in conjunction were derived from Elijah in 1 Kings 18 and 19.

2 Cor. 11:32 contains the story of Paul escaping from Damascus. The "lowering in a basket" has all the elements of a folk tale based on the motif of the hero being lowered to escape his enemies.

I have trouble with the idea that Damascus was under control of Aretas in 38/39 CE. And that is explicitly what 2 Corinthians 11:32 states."At Damascus, the ethnarch under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus, in order to seize me." This is the nonsense that the governor of Damascus reported to King Aretas, something the Romans would never have allowed, and is reported nowhere except in this single text in the "inerrant" Bible.

There are indications in the text that 2 Cor. 11:32 is an interpolation. 2 Cor. 11:31 contains the famous "lying oath." The redactor is adding new material, and the readers need the extra assurance that the never before seen material is true. "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus knows, he who is blessed forever, that I do not lie." He protests too much! And thus vanishes the melodramtic spectacle of Paul's escape by being let down in a basket.

Nabataean control of Damascus by Aretas IV has never been established from any external sources. Instead, defenders of the biblical text twist all historical facts to try to save the accuracy of this, one of the very few historical anchors in the Pauline Corpus.

The only King Aretas who was documented to have had such authority in Damascus was Aretas III. In 84 BCE he conquered Damascus (BJ 1.4.8) and in 65 BCE besieged Jerusalem. But he broke off when the Romans appeared (BJ 1.6.3). The redactor of 2 Corinthinas has conflated Aretas III and Aretas IV from Josephus. It wouldn't be the first time a New Testament writer misread Josephus. In any case, another one of the key anchors to date Paul is yet shown unreliable.



Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Paul's alleged conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts chapter 9) cannot be found in the Pauline epistles. But we can find a precursor Euripides, Bacchae

In the opening scene, Dionysus appears and identifies himself as the son of the the god Zeus. Dionysus is a new god who is spreading his mystery religion through the wild dances of his followers, the maenads.

Just as Paul was reputed to oppose the followers of Jesus, Pentheus was opposed to the new god Dionysus, and was determined to wipe out his followers. Pentheus is convinced to dress as a woman, a maenad, one of Dionysus worshippers. As Robert Price has noted, Pentheus is thus ironically converted to the faith of Dionysus by a personal epiphany of that god. http://tinyurl.com/5d6y4

“Luke's account seems to me plainly to derive from both Euripides' play The Bacchae (where the persecutor Pentheus is ironically converted despite himself to the faith of Dionysus by an unwelcome personal epiphany of that god) and 2 Maccabees 3 (where Heliodorus, agent of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, is prevented from robbing the Jerusalem temple by a vision of angels, whereupon he is blinded, miraculously cured, and converts to the true faith).” RMP Reviews

Indeed, Dionysus has told Pentheus that it is better to serve the god "rather than kick against his spurs in anger, a mortal against a god."

Jesus reputedly said to Paul on the road to Damascus, "I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the goads." Acts 26:14.

Jake Jones IV

Bernard Muller

Jake wrote:
Or, from someone whose theology & christology were evolving, writing to different Christian communities regarding place and time and character and relationship with Paul. All of that through letters which, for some, had been combined, therefore looking to have "seams" (such as different Paul's moods, travel plans, issues of the day and degrees of loyalty to Paul from his audience). Then you add to the mix a few strategic interpolations. And you would have the same results.

I addressed the short and long version of 'Romans' here

Cordially, Bernard

Toto

I guess people have outhouse on ignore.

The source of this course outline is Kathryn Valdivia, who teaches at the Department of Theology & Religious Studies, University of San Diego. Of course she will reject German Protestant scholarship and claim that no one follows that any more. No need to worry your pretty little head about that.

As to the particular points that she makes, you seem to have missed the previous discussion questioning the date of 1 Clement, and the other items are not from the first century. Of those items, one is the late second century commentator Irenaeus, the Acts of Paul and Thecla is outright fiction, Acts of the Apostles is mostly fiction, and 2 Peter is widely assumed to be a blatant forgery. All these sources depend on the written letters of Paul, not from any eyewitnesses to Paul. Where is the multiple attestation?

aa5874

Again, we see that those who spout that the Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE have not presented any corroborative evidence from the Canon or any non-apologetic source.

The apologetic sources supposedly in the 1st and 2nd century that mention Paul are all sources of fiction, forgeries, fraudulent or questionable.

In an Anonymous letter supposedly written by the Church of Rome when there was a Dissension of the Church of Corinth the name Paul is mentioned but as usual there is NO DATE supplied for the Pauline letter to the Corinthians.

This Anonymous letter attributed to Clement is fraudulent like the Donation of Constantine.

The supposed Clement letter was written HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER the 1st century.

Effectively, the Clement letter does NOT corroborate the Pauline letter but confirms Fraud.

If there was a Great Dissension in the Corinth Church and the Church of Rome under Clement did write a Letter sent by Messengers named Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Bito and Fortunatus then it would be virtually impossible that up to the END of the 4th century the very Church cannot tell when Clement was bishop of Rome.


If the Great Dissension did actually happen c 95 CE then Clement was NOT bishop of Rome c 68-80 CE as claimed by Augustine, Rufinus, Optatus, Tertullian and

If the Great Dissension did actually happen c 68-80 CE then Clement was NOT Bishop of Rome c 95 CE implied by Irenaeus and Eusebius.

Up to the End of the 4th century many Church writers did NOT know of a Clement letter written c 95 CE.

1. Augustine--Clement c 68-80 CE

2. Rufinus--Clement c 68-80 CE

3. Tertullian--Clement c 68-80 CE

4. Optatus--Clement c 68-80 CE

5. The Chronography of 354 --Clement c 68-80 CE

In the Chronography of 354 it is specifically stated that Clement was bishop during the reign of Galba and Vespasian.

See http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ch...ps_of_rome.htm

The Anonymous letter attributed to Clement was UNKNOWN up to the END of the 4th century and that is precisely why Five Apologetic writers CONTRADICT Irenaeus in "Against Heresies".

There was NO Dissension of the Church of Corinth as stated by Irenaeus.

All supposed early writings that mention Paul and the Pauline letters are products of fraud, and forgery.

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

Wha is your "evidence" :hitsthefan: that "short gMark" (sic) was the earliest New Testament text? Sez who?

Jake