Vorkosigan

If A quotes a text that is unique to B, but does not mention B, there are two logical possibilities -- A depends on B, or B depends on A.

Assuming your claim is true, of course.

The notion is not silly because Justin has no problem mentioning other names, for example, those which he got from the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Vorkosigan

DCHindley

Actually there is a third: That both A & B have a common source C.

DCH

aa5874

Your claim is erroneous and unsubstantiated.

Who ever prepared the epistles knew of a Jesus story.

1. In Galatians 1 Paul claimed he persecuted the FAITH that he NOW preached found Only in Acts of the Apostles.

2. In Galatians 1 Paul claimed there were apostles before him and went to Jerusalem to see them.

3. In Galatians 1 and 2 Paul claimed he met apostle named Peter, James and John who are mentioned in the Jesus stories.

4. In Galatians 2 Paul claimed he traveled with Barnabas who is mentioned Only in Acts of the Apostles.

5. In Galatians 2 Paul claimed Peter was committed to preach the Gospel to the Jews. Peter is a character in the Jesus stories.

6. In Galatians 4 Paul claimed Jesus God's Son made of a woman which is found in the Jesus story. In gMatthew and gLuke Jesus was made of a woman.

7. In 1 Cor. 15. it is claimed Paul's Gospel was that Jesus DIED for Our Sins, was buried and rose again on the THIRD day according to the Scriptures.

8. In 1 Cor. 15. Paul wrote of Post-resurrection visits to FAR MORE people (over 500) than any of the Gospel.

9. In 1 Cor 12. Paul was aware of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and claimed he talked in TONGUES.

10. In Galatians 2 Paul claimed Jesus loved him and gave himself for him which is found in gJohn 3

11. In 1 Thesalonians, Paul has far more details about the second coming than any of the gospels.

12. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul claimed he RECEIVED from the Lord details about the LAST Supper. Paul MOST LIKELY either read about the Lord's Supper or was told of the Last Supper by some HUMAN being.

13. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of the Jesus story and commended gLuke. See Church History 3.4.8, 6.25 and "Commentary on Matthew" 1.

14. NONE of the ENHANCED DETAILS of Jesus stories in the Pauline writings are found in the EARLIEST Gospel, gMark.

15. In Galatians 1, Paul claimed he PERESECUTED the FAITH that he NOW preached.



The abundance of evidence show that the Pauline writers were aware of the Jesus stories and even attempted to ENHANCE them.

mountainman

The Emperor Hadrian apparently gathered up the letters of Apollonius of Tyana after his death. The name of Apollonius is explicitly mentioned in Codex Bazae, in place of the "Apollos" who was also teaching at the time of the Apostles Incorporated. Many comparisons between Paul and Apollonius, and Jesus and Apollonius have been made, the first one waiting until the 4th century. Why the wait?

mountainman

The TRUTH

"It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can;
it is perhaps because they can be useful to Him in this respect
that He tolerates their existence."

~ Samuel Butler (1835-1902) Erewhon Revisited

:rolling:

Maklelan

Not necessarily. Both could be dependent on another source. As it stands, however, there is no evidence to support the notion that Paul is dependent upon Martyr, who elsewhere quotes from the LXX proper. There is plenty of evidence that indicates Martyr came well after Paul, not least of which the development of their respective christologies.

stephan huller

For what its worth some people have put forward the idea that Irenaeus's reference to “those who do not accept Paul as an apostle” (AH 3.15 or 16 I forgot which) might be a reference to the Encratites who can be connected to Justin by Tatian.

aa5874

Your claim is totally errroneous. There is ZERO, NONE, NIL corroboration from any credible non-apologetic sources of antiquity for Paul, the Pauline writings and the Pauline Churches.

There is ZERO evidence that the authors of the EARLIEST gMark, and gMatthew ever heard of the Pauline post-resurrection visit by Jesus to over 500 people.

Maklelan

"Credible non-apologetic sources" is quite an intentional bracketing, aa. There is plenty of internal evidence that supports a first century date for the accepted Paulines. What there is little of is reasons to reject that provenance, outside of the naked presupposition that he couldn't have written anything in the first century, of course. Can you provide any evidence besides that presupposition?

Do you interpret this to mean it was written later than the gospels, that the gospels authors didn't know about Paul, or that Paul was making it up?

aa5874

Your logic is extremely limited. I have told you that there is ZERO, NONE, NIL corroboration from non-apologetic sources of antiquity for Paul, the Pauline writings, and Pauline Churches so I really don't what evidence you want.

There is ZERO.

You can call it whatever you like but you will surely not be able to provide any non-apologetic source of antiquity to CONTRADICT my statement. NEVER!!!

ALL the writings attributed to Paul whether assumed to be authentic or inauthentic, were COMPOSED after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Pauline writer claimed he was a persecutor of the Christian Faith and there is NO evidence of such Christians until the 2nd century by non-apologetic sources