spamandham

1 Clement does make mention of an epistle from Paul to Corinth, but Clement suffers the same issue as Paul in regard to works once attributed to him being shown to be later works, as does Ignatius. Polycarp is too late to be of much use if the proposition is that the letters attributed to Paul are early 2nd century in origin.

But even if we accept the existence of letters from Paul in the late 1st century/early 2nd, these sources tell us nothing of the content of those letters. We *know* the letters have been edited. What we don't know is how much.

stephan huller

But why would they have invented a heretical boogeyman with such specific textual disagreements with the Καθολικός διάκονος? It makes no sense. It would be enough to make some vague references to a 'Satanic sect.' But the reports are very specific about the textual disagreements between the two traditions. Indeed Tertullian even goes so far as to argue that Marcion took things out of the gospel of Luke for instance which were never in the Gospel of Luke in the first place. I think it is crazy to argue that the Church Fathers invented the Marcionite tradition.

By that logic we could argue for the invention of the Church Fathers themselves. Wait a minute. There are some people in this forum who hold just that position ...

Doug Shaver

Some people seem to have a hard time distinguishing skepticism from cynicism.

aa5874

But, once you are ADMITTING that Tertullian may have INVENTED passages for gLuke then it cannot be at all crazy for Tertullian to have INVENTED things about Marcion.

It was not at all necessary for the Church to have invented Marcion when the Church needed historical figures to HISTORICISE their invented history.

The Church historian claimed Saul/Paul of Acts wrote ALL 14 Pauline Epistles, including the Epistle to Hebrews, but it has been deduced that such a claim is likely to be False.

The Church historian claimed some character called Matthew wrote gMatthew, it has been deduced that such was not the case.

Every author of the Gospel appears to be in error.


In effect, the Church may have INVENTED all or part of the Pauline tradition or ALL or part of the NT Canon.

How in the world can it be ignored that parts of Marcion was invented by his opponents, the Church writers, to make him an agent of the Devil.

Wait a minute.

Who invented Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude and James as NT authors?

darstec

You are making some very bold assumptions especially since we really don't know what the Marcionites thought. We only know what orthodox Christianity said the Marcionites thought.. Besides that two of the sects of the hundreds that existed says some similar things (if they actually did) doesn't mean anything is authentic.

Who was Paul? Who were his descendants? What happened to his magical garments, house, furniture, belongings? Who actually knew about him and wrote about him contemporaneous to his supposed life except for the work of fiction called Acts? How do we know that writer who wrote about him existed?

When did Paul live and what evidence is there that he actually did? You know we have lots of fictitious works pretending to be detective stories by the detective writing them. That is merely a literary technique. There is no evidence that some anonymous group of authors is not writing under the pseudonym of Paul. In fact that is what every epistle looks like, a group effort.


The best you can say is that you know Paul wrote some authentic works based soley on your faith.

Kent F

Let me first say that I'm an atheist and have been for more than 3 decades. I'm no scholar or anything, just very interested in the origins of christianity and I have read a lot about it.

The Pauline Epistles have, for me, always had a sort of ”genuine feel” to them. Sure, they have been tampered with but they are at the core the voice of somebody, no matter what his name was. And they are not mere letters to different churches, they are a new law. This makes the letters as important as if they were the words of someone like Moses, a new Moses. If we are to believe the early Roman Catholic Church (RCC), this new Moses was a former persecutor of christians and a simple tent-maker named Paul. By what authority would a tent-maker make such preposterous claims as to have a new law for the Jews and the gentiles alike? No, the original author had to be someone with power and influence. More on that later.

Several in this forum claim that the Epistles are from the 2nd century and are fabrications by the early RCC. I don't believe that for one moment. The RCC are guilty of interpolations and verses added here and there but there's no way that they have written them.

If the RCC fabricated the epistles, tell me why the belief in a human Jesus, in the story of virgin Mary and the four gospels are not included in the Epistles, or at least some of it? Why didn't the RCC make Paul add ”as Jesus said” throughout the Epistles, just as Doug Shaver asked earlier? Why didn't the RCC add a couple of verses where Paul is said to have visited Jerusalem, met Peter and that Peter showed him where Jesus was crucified and the empty tomb? What better way could it possibly have been for the RCC to show that Paul believed in a human Jesus, that he was merely a subordinate of Peter, the first bishop on whom the RCC based their legacy? That none of it is part of the Pauline writings are proof that the RCC only was a later editor of them, not the originator.

In fact, when someone like Earl Doherty very convincingly can demonstrate that Paul only knew of a mythical Jesus is quite clear evidence that the RCC didn't write the Epistles. It's also proof that these letters had to be well-known at the time, because the RCC didn't dare to change them at free will to make them fully in line with their own thinking. They had to invent Acts to counter the epistles! Therefore the epistles must belong to the 1st century, when the RCC was not the dominating church. The core of the so called genuine Pauline epistles remained as is because they had a very powerful author.

Stephan Huller claims that the origins of christianity are to be found in Alexandria and that the king Marcus Julius Agrippa, not Jesus, was proclaimed to be the Messiah. It was there that the first christian church was established, whatever they called themselves, and therefore the church of Mark is the most powerful one in the 1st century. And ”Paul” was their founder. This was later to be known as the church of the ”heretic Marcion”. Why incorporate letters written by ”a heretic” into the canon of the RCC? The only reason I can think of is to lure the followers of Mark into their realm and make them stay there. "See, we accept his writings!" Those of the Marcion church who didn't want to adapt to the RCC doctrines were probably killed.

Stephan Huller wrote:"Maybe Paul wasn't the name of the original author. I don't know. But there is something 'authentic' within the Pauline corpus. This is indisputable."

This anwer really surprised me. Not that there's something authentic within the Pauline writings, I agree on that, but the hesitation regarding Paul's real name. Maybe I'm giving something away here which Mr Huller isn't prepared to say just yet in this forum, but here it is anyway: I was expecting a bold statement like ”The name of the original author was that of the king, Marcus Julius Agrippa!" Have you, Mr Huller, retreated from this position? Paul=Marcion=Marcus Julius Agrippa? I hope not because it makes perfect sense. A king, believed to be the Messiah, had every authority there is to write a new law and you don't mess too much with a king's letters, at least not while he's still alive! Later on, when the RCC became the dominating church, they changed the name of the writer into ”Paul” and changed the names of the churches he wrote to, from Alexandrians to Corinthians, and perhaps from Galileans to Galatians? There should have been one epistle entitled To the Samaritans as well.

All in all, I find this theory to be much more convincing than the one which claims that the RCC wrote the epistles.

spamandham

This seems reasonable, although we don't know that Paul *didn't* have power and influence. If we take him at his word (which I don't), he was a persecutor of the church prior to conversion, and in his words, the Jerusalem church recognized him as such. This implies he had some power and notoriety before conversion.

There may be some saying that, but the two ideas are really independent. We *know* the texts have been edited, what we don't know is by how much. It's just guessing to try to figure out what the original texts said, or even when they were penned. The ancestors of what we have could have been penned anytime between the ~2nd century BCE and the mid 2nd century CE.

The RCC as we know it didn't exist until several hundred years later. The 2nd century was the wild west of Christian theology. The catholicizing movement of the 2nd/3rd centiries was as plastic as silly putty. The theology evolved as necessary to suck in as many competing sects as possible.

stephan huller

God no. I haven't retreated from my 'position.' But all scholars have to learn to wear two hats (at least if they are going to appear to have objectivity although for many it is enough to shout their 'position' or belief every chance they get).

It also becomes a distraction. I want to learn, I want to hear what other people have to say. I have my blog to speak my mind and tell the world what I think.

When the time is right. If and when we discover the stuff I hope to find in Alexandria. For everything there is a season.

I am impressed that you know my positions on most stuff related to the Pauline Epistles. I will start a thread soon with regards to the arguments for identifying 1 Corinthians as to the Alexandrians.

Besides I am Canadian. You know we like understatement ...

Thanks for the kind words

aa5874

Claiming to be an atheist is not EVIDENCE from a source of antiquity.

A "genuine feel" is irrelevant. Please state what source of antiquity supports your "genuine feel".

But now you have admitted that they were tampered with please state what you know has a "genuine feel".

Well, the Pauline letters may have been written AFTER Jesus believers became POWERFUL. Check your History. Jesus believers became POWERFUL in the 4th century when Constantine made Jesus the NEW GOD of the Roman Empire to whom EVERY KNEE SHOULD BOW and was given a NAME ABOVE every other name in the Roman Empire.

Please give the evidence that can show "there is no way the RCC could have written any of the Pauline Epistles".

Everyone possibly understands what you believe. The NEXT STEP is to provide the EVIDENCE from sources of antiquity to SUPPORT your belief.

The Pauline Jesus story BEGAN AFTER Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

There were ALREADY four gospels on the supposed LIFE of Jesus but ONLY "PAUL" wrote about the AFTERLIFE of Jesus.

Paul was the APOSTLE of and got his gospel from the FIRSTBORN of the DEAD.

Col 1:18 - In Galatians 1, a Pauline writer claimed he was not interested in flesh and blood, he was interested in the resurrected dead, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Why did a Pauline writer say Jesus was the Creator of heaven and earth, equal to God and that he was RAISED from the dead when it was FALSE?



The Pauline letters are about the GOSPEL of the RESURRECTED DEAD.

Well, it is more likely that Jesus believers or the Jesus cults initially had very very little power or influence. A cult usually starts very small and then slowly expands.

Something is wrong with the chronology of the Pauline writings because the first time we hear from "Paul", he had ALREADY traveled ALL over the Roman Empire and was POWERFUL.

POWER normally comes LATER in a CULT. Examine Mormonism. When did the cult gain POWER early or LATE?

An apologetic source, Hippolytus, claimed Marcion did not use the Pauline writings. And this seems to be the case since the doctrine of Marcion, DUALISM, cannot be found in ANY of the Pauline writings.

What is that "something authentic" within in the Pauline corpus?

Are you implying that you can FEEL authenticity?

maryhelena

Hi, Kent, welcome to the forum....

Yes, methinks, for those who don't know, Stephen should be laying his cards on the table re Paul=Marcion=Marcus Julius Agrippa. Being here to learn, as he says he is, is good - but since he does have a published book and a website, his views are not secret anyway....so no need to pussyfoot re his positions...

I've not read his book - just browsed his blog. And yes, he does have an interesting take on early christian origins. Something that perhaps is missing from Doherty' work. However, his position regarding Marcus Julius Agrippa is not without serious question. Having a half-Jewish messiah figure is very questionable - especially so since this makes his Marcus Julius Agrippa the son of a man who was responsible for a very bloody siege of Jerusalem that resulted in the deaths of innocent old people and children. Carrying the blood of Herod the Great is surely a stigma that no son of his would ever be able, in Jewish eyes, to overcome - and for a Jew to view a son of such a man as a messiah figure - well, it just boggles the mind. If its not being too upsetting - consider any son of Hitler in a Jewish messiah context - even if Hitler, for the sake of the argument, were to take a Jewish wartime bride and beget a son....(Hitler of course wanted to eliminate the Jewish bloodline - Herod wanted to use that bloodline in order to establish his own legitimacy - but the principle remains...)

Additionally, of course, Stephen, in order to give his theory some legs re Marcus Julius Agrippa, has to reject Josephus in favor of rabbinic literature. No historical scholars do this - nothing wrong with going against scholars - but simply rejecting Josephus wholesale is order to support ones own theory - is questionable.

That said - I do think Stephen is on the right track re early christian origins and Alexandria.

added later:

Now, if Stephen would just consider Agrippa II - the Agrippa that lived at the time of the temple' destruction in 70 ce - (Agrippa I dying around 44 ce )then maybe his connection with 'Paul' might well be relevant - and then, of course, one can add on that nemeses of Stephen' - his arch rival - Josephus! Agrippa II, carrying the Herodian (as well as the Hasmonean bloodline) would never be considered a Jewish messiah figure - ah, but as a christian messiah figure, as a 'spiritua'l messiah figure - that's an entirely different ball of wax. As 'Paul', that christian apocalyptic prophet, Marcus Agrippa II, could well be considered the 'founder' figure of christianity - ie viewed as not a historical messiah figure but viewed, interpreted, within a spiritual framework....

So, lets lay out a different line of early Jewish/Christian characters - 'Josephus', 'Paul', 'Marcion' - all pseudonyms of Marcus Julius Agrippa II.

Which leaves King Agrippa the Great, Agrippa I, the last Hasmonean King of the Jews.....(aka Philip the Tetrarch)