bacht

Price is great, his reviews are fun to read also

aa5874

Well, jakejonesiv, based on your analysis of the Pauline Epistles so far, it is now time to dump "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus and "Against Marcion" by Tertullian.

When did Irenaeus and Tertullian really write all their fiction with respect to the Epistles of Paul? Who heard Irenaeus say that that all the Pauline letters were authentic?

Once your analysis is true, the whole history of the Church is rubbished.

The information coming from the church writers about the the name of the authors, the order of writing, and the date of writing of the Gospels appear to be bogus, and also the information from the very Church writers about the Pauline Epistles appear to be completely in error.

You have presented a most bizzarre scenario where the church writers, although claiming to be truthful, actually presented complete false information about the Pauline Epistles.

How was it possible for church writers to have used heavily interpolated writings of Paul while the original non-interpolated writings were still in circulation for about 100 years before until the time they were writing.

If Paul had already established a non-historical Jesus at least 100 years in advance and people attended his churches all over the Empire, for over 100 years, and knew that Paul preached a non-historical christ, then how can it be explained that all the converts, the converts who supposedly wrote the Gospels, made their Jesus to be a God/man who lived on earth?

Justin Martyr wrote about a God/man Jesus that lived on earth, he seemed not to have heard of Paul's spiritual Jesus at all, but he did write about Marcion's phantom Jesus.

According to Eusebius, there are two Epistles of Peter, but the 2nd Epistle does NOT belong to the Canon. But Esebius would claim that all the Pauline letters were authentic and that appears to be false.

This is incredible, the Roman Church was infiltrated and even the writings of the first bishop Peter was manipulated for close to three hundred years before it was detected.

It would appear some churches may not have even have existed in the first place.

It should be clear that the Pauline letters are not of any historical value but are mere propaganda fabricated precisely for the Roman Church in the 4th century and simply backdated.

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure that this is true. Paul seems to be heading off a church that may have heard of his dispute with Galatians. If they are "fully aware of the nuances of Pauline doctrine," his argument isn't going to work at all, because he seems to be reversing himself on some key points and reinventing himself on others.

"Pauline doctrine" in his epistle to the Romans isn't quite the same thing as "Pauline doctrine" elsewhere. Contrary to Van Manen (and by extension, you), his epistle to the Romans has no hope of working if they are deeply familiar with what Paul has written elsewhere. He only has an out if they've only received generalities, if what seems to be flatly contradicting is taken as clarification.

Romans is a church that has heard of Paul, not one that knows Paul's (pre-Romans) doctrines.

That the epistle is directed to a church that is not Pauline has pretty wide acceptance--so much so that even the introduction is generally seen as stolen.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

Quite right, Rick. I agree, and well said.

(I forget. Does the imprimatur go in the same corner as the nihil obstat?)

Ben.

jakejonesiv

In addition, the author of 2 Thessalonians dismisses 1 Thessalonians as a forgery.

2 Thessalonians NAB
1 We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,
2 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a "spirit," or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi Rick!

The Roman church of the second century was not founded by Pauline Christians. And it remained not Pauline despite trhe fact that it had allegedly received one of the great epistles. We only make the situation more puzzling by assuming that they had possession of Galatians also.

The Pauline doctrines of justication by grace and salvation by faith not by works, inspire a "love it" or "hate it" reaction. One thing it is not forgetable, as apparently Justin, Tatian, and Papias had done. Had ithe epistle to the Romans lain neglected in the Roman archives until Marcion appeared with the Apsotilcon?

You must discount the authenticity of Romans where Paul is supposed to be writing to a church he had never visited (Romans 1:10-11). A church of world wide fame (1:8) that had been established for many years (15:23). A gentile church (1:13). Hey, wasn't Paul supposed to be the Apostle to the Gentiles? And here he is a "Johnny come lately" to the gentile church in Rome? This would indicate a date of composition after the alleged life span of the first century apostle.

Despite the fact that Rome is a well established gentile church, that is of as great or greater renown than Paul's own efforts, Paul still wants to visit to preach his version of the gospel (1:11,15). This resonates with Marcion's coming to the Roman church.

Have you see my post on Romans chapter 15 and 16 here? The evidence points to the last two chapters of Romans (15 and 16) being late additions. These redactions are very late, became known first in a limited geographical area (Alexandria) and only slowly became known in the West. If the subject was any other than the "sacred cow" of Paul's authentic epistles, this would be taken as prima facie evidence of interpolation.
If parts of Romans 1 are seen as part of an inclusio with chapter 16, or is seen as other inauthentic (stolen in your words) then this tells against the traditional historical provenance of the document, not for it.

Romans chapters 9-11 are catholic redaction also.

Best,
Jake

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv The authorship of 1 Thessalonians is fictive. "I, Paul" (the pseudonymous formula) is far away battling Satan (2:18). The author is writing in the name of the dear departed Paul, who had been with them long before (3:4).

Hi Jake, I'm a little puzzled with your explanation of the verse .. where did you find "long before" ?

1 Thessalonians 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 1:6
And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord,
having received the word in much affliction,
with joy of the Holy Ghost:
So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.

1 Thessalonians 3:4
For verily, when we were with you,
we told you before that we should suffer tribulation;
even as it came to pass, and ye know.

Clearly in 1 Thessalonians, the author (Paul as asserted, imo) says he had laboured in Thessalonica, I am not sure how many years earlier, yet I see nothing about "long before" whatsoever. And if Paul had passed away, the author's first verses would not make a lot of sense to the recipients to the Thessalonians.

So if you can explain your view (preferably without resorting to redaction theories, if that is the idea I will pass and they should be noted with the floating of a theory) I would like to know your explanation for the verses.

Here are a couple of other real-time present-tense references about Paul and the specific men who worked with him.

1 Thessalonians 3:1-2
Wherefore when we could no longer forbear,
we thought it good to be left at Athens alone;
And sent Timotheus, our brother, and minister of God,
and our fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ,
to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith:

1 Thessalonians 3:4-5-6
For verily, when we were with you,
we told you before that we should suffer tribulation;
even as it came to pass, and ye know. 5
or this cause, when I could no longer forbear,
I sent to know your faith,
lest by some means the tempter have tempted you,
and our labour be in vain.
But now when Timotheus came from you unto us,
and brought us good tidings of your faith and charity,
and that ye have good remembrance of us always,
desiring greatly to see us, as we also to see you

1 Thessalonians 5:25-27
Brethren, pray for us.
Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.
I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

Plus there is a reference to the work in Philippi in 2:2.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS
And if I get a minute I'll also ask you about the 2 Thessalonians eschatology reference, and how it fits with 1 Thessalonians, and your understanding that 1 Thessalonians teaches that the day of the Lord is at hand. Which verse do you think says that ?

aa5874

Once you attempt to destroy the credibility of the Church writers then you cannot reject what they wrote about the Pauline letters and still accept what they wrote about Marcion.

Once the Church writers were not credible, then their incredibility must also apply to the information about Marcion and not Paul alone.

It must be obvious that the Roman Church fabricated propaganda in the 4th century using names like Philo, Josephus, Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Orogen and others that preceeded the 4th century Roman Church.

You must also discount what the Church writers claimed about Marcion and other characters.

Rick Sumner

Let's start off with a nice example, take a look at Romans 1.12. "Or rather. . ." Paul has just caught himself. His audience isn't as familiar with the "spiritual gift" he mentions in verse 11. He knows he hasn't preached to them before, and realizes they probably don't know exactly what he has in mind.

Paul is aware that his audience does not have the "full awareness" you suggest they must. And he's clarifying himself accordingly. Paul always thinks of sharing "spiritual gifts" in this sense as mutual (eg. Rom.12.4-5, 1Cor 12). He realizes that his audience might not. And so he elaborates.

You miss my point. They do not have Galatians. They can't have Galatians. They can only be familiar with Paul's general argument at Galatia. Whether they get that information from Galatia, from another church, or from another apostle makes no difference. They have vague familiarity.

If they have the text, if they are, as you put it "fully aware of Pauline doctrine," then Romans is a wash. The arguments made in it won't stand.

That it is not Pauline should be self-evident, even from the epistle itself.

What reason do you have to suppose that the simple act of receiving one of the "great epistles," would in and of itself win Paul the church? Are we to presume that Paul had a 100% track record of success? What are we to make of Paul's own concern that he was losing churches then?

But ultimately this isn't addressing the most important point. You suggested that the epistle to the Romans presumes deep familiarity with Pauline doctrine. I gave reasons why it demands only general familiarity with Pauline doctrine, specifically the form manifested in his epistle to the Galatians. I'd be interested in seeing counters to those, as well as arguments as to where the epistle presumes this deep familiarity.

I think this might have more to do with Martin Luther than Paul. There's a better than passing case to be made that solo fides was not actually Pauline. Certainly he promotes works, sometimes even unintentionally, such as repeatedly encouraging his churches to be "blameless."

Whatever Paul's particular stance, justification by grace, at least in some form, is not alien to Judaism, and wouldn't inspire a "love it or hate it" reaction. You never got into the covenant by works. You get there by virtue of God's promise to put you there.

I think you overestimate its importance. Firstly because it wasn't as revolutionary as Augustine or Luther made it sound. It's a Gentile understanding of Judaism, not a Jewish one (at least for the most part, there are arguable exceptions, eg 4QMMT, that are outside both the scope and necessity of this discussion. The point for our purposes here holds regardless of 4QMMT and "works of the Law.").

Secondly because you misunderstand the importance of Paul's context. What he is arguing and to whom is not as necessary later on. It's not enough just to say that "Justin, Tatian and Papias" ignore it. You need to show specific instances of where we should expect them to cite it.

For an argument from silence to work you need to have specific examples of where we should expect to hear a sound.

Why would I discount that?

You seem to assume that Paul was too simple minded to know when to employ skillfull rhetoric. While both these points my be true, one must look at, realistically, why Paul would point it out. 1:8 in particular is pretty standard Pauline rhetoric. Applaud the church's faith to win friends and influence people. Caregie would be proud.

Is Paul the only "apostle to the Gentiles"? 1Cor.1.12 seems to tell a different story. Seems to me that the occasion of the letter to the Romans demands a church founded by another "apostle to the Gentiles." Tough to count that as a point against authenticity, or as a point for dating. Nothing to see here.

Are you aware of a reason we should question v.13? That Paul had many times wished to go to Rome?

What do you think unnatural about his drive to see the Roman church, established or not? It was, for all intents and purposes, the center of the world for him and his contemporaries. You'd think it would be a magnet for him.

Yes. I was unpersuaded. But that's neither here nor there for the present purposes. I challenged a specific claim you made about the presumed familiarity of the Roman audience. You state that it must be very high. I counter, with reason, that it cannot be.

The only argument you've given in favour of this deep familiarity is Van Manen's say-so. I'm disinclined to take that on its own.

The only thing taken as prima facie evidence of interpolation is absence in manuscript tradition. Everything else is argued.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "stolen." I actually used "stolen" to avoid confusion with "interpolated." The "thief" is Paul himself.

It's not that the introduction is seen as being redacted on to the letter. It's that Paul is generally seen as quoting an existing formula.

On the contrary. Paul's argument throughout Romans demands that 9-11 be there.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jakejonesiv

I agree! On the subject of 1 Corinthians, R.Price stated on page 331 of The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), "The letter is fictively addressed to the Corinthians as a pun for those whose doctrines it seeks to refute, the Cerinthians...".