Duvduv

The bottom line will be to ask who were the "Pauline " preachers writing letters in the second and third centuries, and assuming there were men other than the fellow named Paul, why were the letters all attributed to him rather than anyone else, and what difference would it have made had some been attributed to others?
Was a founder of the Indwelling Celestial Christ sect a guy named Paul, perhaps thought to have had an associate named Saul, who is never mentioned in a single epistle?

Duvduv

The claim that the nativity was a later addition to Matthew and Luke also cannot be true because Justin had the storyline before the gospels came out. And if the epistles and Acts were around before the gospels but after Justin, then the canonical gospels would have been later. I.e. in the third century.
Could the lack of a nativity in a final Mark mean that on the contrary, the nativity references in Justin were simply later interpolations into his writings? Could it be that the dispute with Trypho was not even from Justin?

Toto

Ah, but he is.

The Hebrew name Saul is generally held to be the equivalent of the Aramaic Silas and the Roman Silvanus. (See discussion here.)

There is also a Saulus in Josephus who was noted for being hotheaded. Robert Eisenman tried to make something of this, but I tend to doubt it.

There is also a Teachings of Silvanus in the Nag Hammadi library, but nothing there seems to fit in with Paul's letters.

Sheshbazzar

Once it was established that 'Paul' was THE absolute authority on the 'New' Testament, what would attributing any writing that was deemed to be of any importance to some lesser figure have accomplished?
Doing so would have simply marginalized any such document and rendered it as non-authoritative, in not originating with, and not having received that necessary tradition of Pauline endorsement.
Best bet always was to simply slap the name 'Paul' upon anything that any substantial effort at all had been expended upon.
(OR not do so, but simply lead, influence, and encourage -others- to do so, to otherwise anonymous writings, thus 'innocently' 'keeping ones own hands clean' of the matter.
Clever, and allowing for maintaining an 'I didn't do it' excuse. )

I think I have contributed more than enough to this thread at present, and thus am going to refrain, and leave it to others here to present or to argue such skeptical views as we most commonly share.

aa5874

In order to get a semblance of the chronology of the 2nd century one must first try to establish the chronology of the 1st century.

One of the very first thing one try to unravel is the time period when the books of the Canon were written.

The NT Canon is fundamentally about a Messiah called Jesus claimed to be God and the Creator who was RAISED from the dead.

A Messiah is the Most significant Jew and is EXPECTED to be a RULER and it is also claimed in the PAULINE writings and Acts that some character called Paul was ALL over the Roman Empire in Major Cities preaching about a crucified and resurrected Messiah.

But there is ONE Major problem, NO non-apologetic writer accounted for a Messianic Ruler called Jesus that wrote about events BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius did NOT write about any MESSIANIC ruler called Jesus up to the early 2nd century.

I have therefore placed ALL the writings of the NT AFTER the Fall of the Temple. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

By moving ALL the writings of the NT AFTER the Fall of the Temple I have DISTURBED writings attributed to Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius.

All claims about Gospels, PAUL, THE pauline writings, Acts of the Apostles in any writings are Fiction where it is claimed Jesus, the disciples and Paul did exist BEFORE the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

All claims in any writings that Marcion used the Pauline writings are FALSE--Paul did NOT exist as stated in the NT Canon and there were NO Pauline Churches under the name of a Messianic ruler named Jesus Christ.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius cannot account for a MESSIANIC ruler called Jesus up to the early 2nd century.

Vespasian was considered the EXPECTED MESSIANIC ruler in the 1st century based on Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

There is a writer whose writings are hardly disturbed when all the books of the NT are placed AFTER the Fall of the Temple and that writer is Justin Martyr.

The writings of Justin Martyr appears to be the most credible source to determine the history of the early Jesus cult.

Justin Martyr made NO claims that he knew any person that was associated with any disciple of Jesus or made any claims that he knew any family or associate of any disciple.

Justin Martyr merely Believed the Jesus story and did NOT have any history of the Church BEFORE and AFTER his conversion.

Justin Martyr did NOT account for about 110 years AFTER Jesus was ascended to heaven.

Duvduv

Who told Justin that the Christ was a historical person from a century before?

aa5874

Based on "First Apology" Justin had a Jesus story in the "Memoirs of the Apostles" where it was claimed Jesus was crucified during the time of Pilate.

"Dialogue with Trypho" "Dialogue with Trypho" By the way, Justin did not claim Jesus was an ordinary man. Justin's Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

"First Apology"

Huon

Jean Hardouin was not a free thinker, but a Jesuit, in conflict with the University of Paris, which defended its old copyists of the XIIIth and XIVth century.

However, our present texts of Justin are dated 1364, 12 centuries after the official date of composition.
Here, C14 is of no use, BTW.

aa5874

It is NOT really difficult to deduce the likely chronology of the 2nd century.

We have NON-apologetic writings and any apologetic sources which tend to be in harmony with those external sources most likely reflect the chronology of the Jesus movement.

Justin Martyr's writings CANNOT account for any Specific History of the Disciples AFTER Jesus ascended to heaven.

Justin Martyr ONLY used the "Memoirs of the Apostles" to PROVE Jesus did exist even when arguing with TRYPHO the Jew.

If Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were KNOWN and were Historically Accurate then Justin Martyr should have used them in his arguments to show that there were THOUSANDS of Jews who BELIEVED in Jesus in Jerusalem WITHIN 50 days of the Passover when Jesus was crucified and that these Jews WITH the Power of the Holy Ghost were ALSO performing fantastic miracles and were RAISING the dead and INSTANTLY healing incurable diseases.

Justin Marty's writing's REFLECT that the Memoirs of the Apostles was just a story that ENDED at Ascension and NOTHING else was KNOWN AFTER the story came to an end.

When Justin Martyr attempted to RETRACE the Jesus story he FOUND Simon Magus, and Menander who were called Christians SINCE the time of CLAUDIUS.

He did NOT find the disciples and Paul.

Justin found people called CHRISTIANS who were followers of Simon Magus SINCE the time of Claudius BEFORE it was claimed that NERO persecuted Christians.

Justin Martyr covered about 100 years of post ascension characters and cults from Simon Magus to Marcion and did NOT mention Paul at all, the Pauline Churches that were supposedly ALL over in Major Cities of the Roman Empire and Acts of the Apostles .

Justin Martyr had ONE source to prove Jesus did exist and that was the "Memoirs of the Apostles" that is all AFTER 100 years since it was claimed Jesus ascended to heaven.

Justin Martyr did NOT mention a SINGLE well- known CHRISTIAN or any Christian as a follower of Jesus, independent of the so-called disciples, from the supposed Ascension of Jesus to the mid 2nd century.

There is A BIG BLACK HOLE for the Jesus movement in Justin Martyr's writings of 100 years.

The writings of Justin Martyr suggest that the Jesus movement really started in the 2nd century based on a story that people BELIEVED.

Duvduv

aa5874, with all due respect, I believe that the reason Justin in Rome did not even allude to a great preacher named Paul (who taught the indwelling of the Christ, which the other sects knew nothing about) years after Marcion *supposedly* produced them in Rome is because the epistles did not exist and "Paul" did not exist.

Explain to me how the recipients of the epistles (say in the 1st century) knew to retain them for posterity but kept them hidden for almost 100 years. Alternatively, explain to me why Justin knew nothing at all about them or EVEN about anyone else teaching the indwelling salvation of the Christ.

The most that I can say is that there were stories circulating, floating around, mainly referring to the maxims that found their way into the gospels after Justin.
I also now believe that the writings about heresies of Irenaeus were NOT written at all in the 2nd century, but only after the canonical texts were settled upon by the clergy. However, I still wonder why such people would have even written such texts since the audience would have been a very tiny number of literate people who believed in the Christ.

Note that Justin *proves* the historical existence of the Christ from BIBLICAL VERSES. In other words, how do we know he as born to a virgin? Because it says so in Isaiah. How do we know that he was born (LITERALLY BORN) in Bethlehem? Because in Micha it says so. Since we *know* he was the messiah promised by the Hebrew Scriptures, then everything hinting at the Messiah in the Scriptures refers to HIM.

By contrast, the single reference to the "Acts of Pontius Pilate" must be an interpolation, because if Justin were writing to the emperor and lying to him about his archives, he would face the music for that alone. It would appear that the reason there are no interpolations referring to the named canonical gospels or Paul is that there was a limit to which interpolations were allowed. In all likelihood interpolations were not intentional forgeries but scribal insertions of marginal glosses and comments that he thought were part of the text.

I do not believe there were two sets of epistles as suggested by Tertullian either. The Book of Acts was appended to the canonical gospel of Luke for convenience sake. But we can see that the author of Acts did not know the same "Paul" as the Paul of epistles (although I hasten to suggest that there were several Pauls in the epistles, rendering none of the epistles "authentic"). The Paul of the epistles never heard of the Baptist, and the Paul of Acts did know of him, though ironically his baptism of Jesus would have been unknown to Paul of Acts because the Baptist's baptism was invalid, rendering his baptism in the gospel of Jesus invalid.....!! The Paul of Acts also knows nothing of the indwelling of the Christ.

But all these things were floating around from the mid 2nd century to late into the 3rd century, when the orthodox started talking about their heretics.