Sheshbazzar

'Paul' had already achieved the church's favored official talking head sock-puppet status.
Those who favored and employed the 'Paul' pen name didn't care to share or to allow that popular 'Paul' limelight to become confused with any other 'authority'.
Why would they? They already had a well contained 'Paul' that would 'say' or 'write' anything that they wished.
Introducing any new ideas, views, or 'authoritative' dialog under the name of any other character would only detract from their 'Paul's' exclusive status and accepted authority.
Any other early writer or witness was only of value in whatever fashion they could be used to prop up the one man band of these pseudo-'Pauline' writings and claims.
All other 'witnesses' must always remain obscure bit-players who must be constrained not to introduce any new or novel views of their own, but must always agree with, and remain subordinate to whatever ideas were invented and propagated through the 'Pauline' mouthpiece.
It was essential to maintain the facade of a heaven sent and exclusive 'Gospel according to Saint Paul' or 'Paul's Gospel' for the church to be able to 'speak' (through 'him') and for 'his' doctrine to remain authoritative.
There was no room nor allowance for any other writer or apostle to speak as 'Paul's' equal.

Don't give the early church or its writers more respect than what they deserve.

Duvduv

Right, it would have been something of competition. It's rather ironic that the canonists didn't want to give more room to epistles from "Peter" who could have written all kinds of stuff in epistles about what it was like to talk and walk with his Savior.
On the other hand I assume that these other epistles were produced as supporting material after the canon texts were more or less set in stone.

aa5874

When did those thing happen??

1. The author of gMatthew used virtually 100% of gMark and ZERO of Paul's revealed teachings.

2. The author of gLuke used gMatthew and gMark and ZERO of Paul's revealed teachings.

3. The author of gJohn used re-modeled the Synoptics and used ZERO of the Pau'sl revealed teachings.

4. The author of Acts, although claiming to travel and pray with Paul, did NOT mention his revealed teachings in any letter.

5. The authors of the Epistles of Peter, James, John, and Hebrews did NOT use Paul's revealed teachings.

6. The author of Revelation did NOT at all use a single revealed teachings from Paul.

Paul MUST have been UNKNOWN to the authors of the NT Canon---Not one of them quoted a Pauline verse word-for-word--Not one one them was influenced by the Pauline revealed teachings.

The Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus.

It was gMark that was KNOWN to the authors of the NT Canon and they were ALL deeply influenced by his Jesus story.

Even Paul was influenced by gMark.

Sheshbazzar

Somewhat agreed.

I must question what you meant by;
It has been my understanding that the NT Canon has always included most of the Pauline writings.
It is hard to even imagine how any functional or organized 'Christian' religion could have existed without them.
The gospels evidently were composed and circulated first, but for the church to function, Acts and the Pauline epistles must have followed relatively quickly, and their contents were being quoted and employed long before any 'official' church Canon became established.
Thus it seems, to speak of a NT Canon, one would need accept that these writings were an integral part of that NT Canon, one which was finally 'officially' set by the Orthodox Church as containing the 27 Canonical NT books and 'closed'.

Am I incorrect in thinking that you intended "Paul MUST have been UNKNOWN to the authors of the NT Gospels"?
(at least -at the time- they were doing their composing of said 'gospels') That I can readily agree with.


And to be fully honest, I must add that I believe that portions of the 'Christian' 'Pauline' writings were much older pre-Christian Jewish writings of a real Pharisaic Jew, one whose works were co-opted by the early church and reworked to invent the Christian version of 'Paul'.
Thus there never was any actual Christian missionary 'Paul of Tarsus', That character and his doings being a purely literary invention and convention of the church writers.
But there once, many years before, was a real life Jewish Saul who wrote in opposition of the practice of circumcising those Gentile believers that then attended Jewish synagogues.

But this had little to do with the extravagant claims of latter Christianity, or how the latter church writers edited, modified, and manipulated these old Jewish writings and turned this old Jewish writer into their talking head puppet, for their own ends.




.