Littlejohn

Although the real character who has been hiding behind the 'nickname' 'Paul of Tarsus', has also written even more letters of those that are commonly assigned him, none of those called 'Pauline Epistles' was written by this character: ergo, you deal with merely 'pseudepigraphic' documents. However, into some of them there is certainly material (few) that once belonged to one or more letters actually written by 'Paul of Tarsus'

The same, identic speech can be applied to the Epistles of Clement of Rome. Neither of these letters was written by him, since he had nothing to do with the 'catholic-christianity' (almost certainly, he had converted to Judaism), even considering the fact that when he died (96-97 ) there was not even the 'smell' of the catholic-christianity! (it will come founded in Rome in the 140-150 years). Nevertheless, in the First Epistle of Clement is content of the material once belonged, most likely, to letters (at least one) really written by that character.

Ditto, again, for First Epistle of Peter. It is a clearly pseudepigraphic document. Nevertheless, into it there is a bit of material that once belonged to a letter written NOT by Peter, but by Jesus of Nazareth itself! .. The Babylon which you spoken in the Epistle, was TRULY a city of the Mesopotamia, and NOT the city of Rome, as fraudulently catholic apologists still try to make us believe!

Furthermore, the 'elect' cited in the letter, was NOT the church of Babylon or Rome, according to the misinterpretation of clerical mold, but Mary Salome of Magdala, lawful wife of Jesus of Nazareth! .. 'Elect' because belonging to the gnostic sect founded by Jesus himself, whose adherents, like those belonging to the sect of John the Baptist, were called 'elects', according to a precise gnostic concept .

There is nothing, at least in the Vulgate of Jerome, which may suggest that the term 'elect' was referred to a church! .. The specious counterfeiter interpretation, according to which even in the Apocalypse of John, written AFTER the Epistle of 'Peter', Rome was appealed 'Babylon', let it the time it found...

Finally, the 'Mark' that forgers have made they appear in the letter as the son of 'Peter', was actually John 'Marco' (see Acts of the Apostles), the secondborn of Jesus and Mary Salome! (the firstborn was Joseph called 'Barnabas')

With regard to the identity of truth 'Paul of Tarsus', or rather the real 'composition' of such a character of the New Testament, I already covered the subject on several occasions. However, I think to come back again on this subject, with a special thread dedicated just to this 'receding' character.


NOTE: although I am absolutely convinced that what I expose it is perfectly 'adherent' to historical facts, nevertheless I do not feel in any way binding what I write, because, as I have repeatedly explained, the main reason why I write it is not to convince others to 'my' truth [task reserved for the 'missionaries' :-))], but to offer suggestions for alternative search, even considering the fact that 'classical' research, absurdly outstretched on the confessional one, traditionally regarded as' fraudulent', it has not led to any concrete results also, although honestly you must give act to various researchers and scholars, who have undertaken the difficult task of exegesis, to have they produced much material, which today it is very useful for a wider searches' spectrum.


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

Roger Pearse

All of which reminds me of the claims of the chap -- was his name Hardouin? -- who claimed that every text from antiquity was a medieval forgery.

All these claims, from the top of the post down, look very suspect to me. Evidence of authorship is one thing. But modern speculation is quite another. By and large we have to accept the authorship of ancient texts which is transmitted to us, unless there are compelling reasons not to. Those who try to tell us how the letters of Paul were "really" written, and "really" by other people, from guesswork, almost certainly do nothing useful. If there was real evidence, there would be rather fewer appeals to authority. IMHO, of course.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Littlejohn

Hi Roger!

"..All of which reminds me....that every text from antiquity was a medieval forgery..."

This is not my thinking! ... I am convinced, even better I am sure, that almost all the material that currently constitutes the New Testament, was composed in the period from 140 to 150 AD, ie the period when, in Rome (and NOT in Palestine!), was founded the 'catholic-christianity': practically on the ashes of the 'judeo-christianity', born in Antioch between 85-90 years, and became extinct, virtually, in 135, following the final defeat of the Jewish world, which forced the Jews to a long diaspora, lasted until to the century just spent.

"..Evidence of authorship is one thing. But modern speculation is quite another...."

It's thanks to science and modern technology that is today possible to do exegesis and historical research very close to the real facts. In the past this was not absolutly possible, and this largely explains the reason why the catholic institution, although based on a shocking cumulus of lies and deceptions, which led to profoundly distort historical facts and profiles of real people (see, firstly, Jesus of Nazareth), has resisted for about 19 centuries!

"..By and large we have to accept the authorship of ancient texts which is transmitted to us, unless there are compelling reasons not to.."

I assure you that reasons for do that exist for sure, otherwise I would have never made the statements I have made just until now! ..

For example, regarding the 'genuineness' about the authorship of 'Pauline Epistles', there is a document of the catholic sector, held true by the same catholic apologists, whom makes us guess that 'Paul of Tarsus', who died in the 60 - 70 years, according to the same apologetic statements, it can not ABSOLUTLY be the author of these epistles! ...

As regards instead the First Epistle of Peter, whose contents, as I imagine you've read, I attribute to a letter written by Jesus of Nazareth itself (or, more accurately, a small part of the content), I would like do you present an aspect that the world of modern exegetical seems to ignore.

In fact, up to around the closure of eighteenth century, it was known that the First Epistle of John (the other two, as I imagine you know, were attributed by the same 'gelasianum' canon to John the 'presbyter': in practice, an acquired uncle by the same John the Evangelist) was also called 'LETTER TO THE PARTHIANS'!... Keep in mind that, in Jesus' time, Babylon was under the dominion of the empire of the Parthians! .. I believe that all this must also say something, or not? ..

Just in doing emerge out the REAL historical profiles of the characters involved in the Gospel story, starting from the same Jesus of Nazareth, you can understand all the implications that today appear, at the neutral critical, 'mysterious' and incomprehensibles.

I think you know that the undersigned has already affirmed more times that the character that still today is called 'Paul of Tarsus,' is not at all a 'univocal' character, at least as it has always been presented by the catholic teaching, but rather the result of a syncretic MERGING by TWO different historical characters, the first of which (referred to in the first part of Acts of Apostles) was Paul/Saul, a 'fior fiore' (a 'flower of flowers': satirical expression) by Herodian scoundrel, author, inter alia, of the murder of James the Just, because sent from high priest Ananias (see Josephus and Recognitiones). The second character was the real 'Paul of Tarsus', a character quite different from the first, which is discussed in the second part of the Acts of the Apostles.

Returning back to the 'Pauline Epistles', there is one, in particular, which contains material (a little) that once belonged to a letter written by Paul/Saul, between 35-40 years. To understand that, it is need read the works of Josephus with much attention.


Greetings

Littlejohn


PS: A vivid thanks for your work in Net, which allowed me to conduct useful research on various topics. I could tell you that if you analyze it with far more acuity and attention your own work, perhaps you may find by youself that the notorious Pauline Epistles are nothing more than mere pseudo-epigraphic documents.

.