maryhelena

Do you find Paul=Marcion credible as a theory?

maryhelena

Jake

This thread is now hitting 20 pages...

Dating Paul - what date have you decided upon?

Bernard Muller

From aa,
That sounds like a faith based statement.

To Stephan,
For a) Why do you exclude Josephus' Antiquities, a Jewish source? What about the Mandeans, who acknowledged favorably that John, even if they disliked the Jesus' character.
For other Jewish sources, if, as I found out, JB was a flash in the pan and a loose cannon and not a Pharisee/rabbi, that would explain the silences (more so when, early on, JB was utilized by gospelers for the benefit of Christianity). The same can also be said about Josephus who was ignored from Jewish sources (because he was a traitor?). Another example would be Paul, ignored by many Christian writers in the 2nd century, likely because the Gnostics made a lot of use of him and his epistles.
For b) The Marcionites (or/and Marcion) erased a lot. Agreed. Why would they/he preserved JB? Also, JB is not introduced that suddenly in the gospels. In gLuke, he appears only in Chapter 3.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

I must let it be known that NO NT manuscripts have been found and dated to the 1st century by any accepted method of dating therefore I cannot accept the Anonymous writing attributed to Clement of Rome as an early source.

I regard the anonymous letter coming from the Church of Rome attributed to Clement as a forgery or manipulated.

In fact, there are many Apologetic sources that mentioned Clement and were completely unaware of the Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth supposedly c 95 CE.

Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, Tertullian, Rufinus and the author of the Chronograph of 354 could NOT have forgotten that Clement was bishop of Rome for about 10 YEARS at the time of the Great Dissension c 95 CE.

The Anonymous letter of the Roman Church attributed to Clement was NOT fabricated until AFTER Augustine of Hippo or at least the START of the 5th century.

Effectively, there are NO credible or actual dated sources for early Pauline writings.

aa5874

You very well know that NO NT manuscripts have been found and dated to 75 CE.

You MUST have FAITH the Gospels and Acts were composed in the 1st century.

I no longer accept BELIEF as evidence for dating the NT in the 1st century.

The Entire NT Canon was fabricated in the 2nd century or later based on the ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts which is EXACTLY what I expected.

At c75 CE , There was NO Jesus STORY, No Pauline story, No Pauline Churches, and No Pauline Epistles with Revealed Teachings to Churches from the resurrected Jesus as the ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED NT manuscripts suggest with the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Julian the Emperor, Minucius Felix, Arnobius and Pliny the younger.

I cannot go OUTSIDE the DATED EVIDENCE. I cannot accept speculation that is earlier than the actual dated sources for the NT.

jakejonesiv

Mary,

My position is that all of the Pauline epistles are inauthentic.

Jake

Bernard Muller

to aa,

Argument from silence. In most cases, the earliest known copy of any manuscript from antiquity dates centuries after the original was written.

Not at all. But a look at the internal evidence is sufficient. For example, "Mark" had Jesus prophecy the fall of Jerusalem and very soon after the advent of the Kingdom of God with power. Conclusion: the gospel was written soon after 70. Written after would not make any sense: just that Jesus was a false prophet and Christianity is bunk!
And gMatthew, which copied a lot of gMark, also, through both kind of evidence, is also 1st century.

I accept the internal and external evidence.

If you apply this to almost all other writings from antiquity, you would have to declare them as forgeries, sometimes made a whole millenium after.

Based on what? The original epistles of Paul have not been found?
Why do you mention 75 CE, and then named authors who, for most, did not exist yet at that time?
Furthermore, Josephus did mention a James, brother of Jesus called Christ (rejected by mythicists of course), Tacitus a certain Christ executed by Pilate (rejected again by same), etc.
That's for Jesus
As for Paul, you do not show positive evidence about Paul and his epistles, such as 1 Clement (which is dated 1st century through the internal and external evidence), 2 Peter, Ignatian 'to the Ephesians' (which, for all, are pushed back in time by an anonymous list which you declared being evidence).

Cordially, Bernard

maryhelena

Fine - but that does not answer the questions I asked....

1) What dating are you using for Paul?
2) Do you find the Paul=Marcion theory credible?

Jake, put your cards on the table. This 20 page discussion is going around the houses. What are you wanting to propose re Paul and Marcion

How does "all the Pauline epistles are inauthentic" relate to the two questions I have asked?

Bernard Muller

to aa,

Argument from silence again.

The author of the letter did not say he was Clement, nor the bishop of Rome.

Eusebius mentioned 1 Clement, as a letter of Clement written to the Corinthians.

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller

Because it's not. The synergoi transformed the text from a Jewish hypomnema to something unrecognizable - and ultimately something Greek.

The Mandaeans only mention a 'John' who lived to see the destruction of the temple. John was a common name as the gospel evidences. The question isn't whether there was a John at the time of Jesus but the exact nature of the 'John' who preceded Jesus. There are many clues in the surviving Patristic testimonies but no clear answer.

The basic story of Josephus's rescue by Vespasian is told in Tractate Gittin. I forget the name of the rabbi but from memory its the Hebrew equivalent of 'Justus' (= Zaddik I think).

Don't get me started on Paul. Paul was understood by the Marcionites, Valentinians and the Osrhoene community that produced the original Acts of Archelaus to have been the Paraclete (= the one who Jesus announced would be greater than he) and as such the silence is not accidental. Paul was ignored but the knowledge of who he was systematically blotted out and replaced with the false story in Acts.

That's an uncritical assessment of the evidence. There is a consistent augmentation of primary texts in the Catholic tradition (the threefold expansion of the Ignatian corpus). IMO it is more likely the Marcionites were close to the original Pauline tradition, though what is meant by 'Marcion' and 'Marcionite' is up for debate.

In the Marcionite text it seems to have been the equivalent of chapter 5 of Luke (from memory). What is meant by this is anyone's guess. There seems to be some sense in Origen of a primitive understanding of a resurrecting John the Baptist in the gospel. Again how this all fits together is anyone's guess.

Whatever the truth is about earliest Christianity the evidence is difficult to pry from the surviving sources and requires the seeker of truth not to give up and settle for the easy answer merely because it is convenient and comfortable. Though since most marriages were established in exactly this manner I can't expect people to try harder to understand the gospel than they did the choice of life partner. Hercules would have given up trying to woo my wife.