stephan huller

<edit>

Why do you insist on saying the same thing a thousand ways? We all know your position on Irenaeus <edit>. It doesn't matter whether or not Irenaeus was telling the truth. I don't get why you can't get your mind around that. What matters is that Irenaeus thought it worthwhile to his purpose to claim that he was part of Justin's tradition - a tradition which didn't use Paul.

<edit> the question now becomes - how do we reconcile (a) Irenaeus championing a tradition which didn't use Paul with (b) Irenaeus championing Paul?

aa5874

No, No, No!!! You made statements in your OP that are completely wrong and don't want me to expose them.

Your mode of arguing appears highly defective, completely illogical and irrelevant.

You don't seem to understand the writings attributed to Irenaeus and is irate because others do.

This is BC&H. This is a public forum where it must be expected that not everyone will accept your blatant erroneous statements.

I have gone through writings atrributed to Irenaeus and they do NOT show any Loyalty to Justin at every turn as you stated.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus are NOT compatible with the recovered dated NT manuscripts. None of the writings that Irenaeus claimed were composed in the 1st century have found and dated to that time period.

What is also remarkable is that Eusebius in Church History and Irenaeus used the writings of Justin Martyr fundamentally to corroborate or identify Heretics.

The claims made by Justin about the Memoirs of the Apostles were NOT addressed by either Irenaeus or Eusebius.

tanya

Yes. Thanks for pointing out my error. Should all be P46.



Apart from this confusion, is the question clear?

Here it is again:

How can we claim that P46 represents an accurate and complete (second or third century) compendium of "Paul's" epistles, knowing that, included among the bona fide documents, is one epistle, Hebrews, which has been falsely attributed to Paul? To my way of thinking, this suggests a later date for P46, 4th century most typically.

MrMacSon

I have recently seen mention somewhere that a lot of parchments were re-used so radio-isotope dating such as C¹⁴ gives a false sense of documents being dated earlier than the 'current' text that has been put on them
.

tanya

Quite possibly accurate information, on the other hand, my question does not address the issue of dating per se.

I am inquiring, regardless of the date of copying, how a fake letter could have been inserted into this collection of Paul's epistles.

I am suggesting that one consider not simply palaeography, or 14C dating, but rather, the contents, with a letter generally acknowledged to be unauthentic, included among the genuine epistles. Why would someone do that in the second or third century? That conduct seems more appropriate to a fourth century machination.

We need a pair of quotes here, both from Irenaeus, one praising Justin, with respect to some theological point;
then a second identifying the specific reference in Paul's letter, which had not been addressed by Justin--do we know for sure that Irenaeus is not "Paul"?

aa5874

What is significant to me is that none of the dated NT manuscripts corroborate the writings attributed to Irenaeus.

In "Against Heresies" it is claimed or implied that the Four Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and all the Pauline letters to Churches were known and composed before c 70 CE yet no dated manuscripts from the 1st century mentions any characters or events of the Jesus cult.

On the other hand, we have writings attributed to Justin who mentions STORIES about Jesus but have NO history of the disciples except that they wrote the Memoirs of the Apostles.

There is NOTHING about the day of Pentecost, the most significant day for the Jesus cult after the Ascension. Without the day of Pentecost when they were filled with a Holy Ghost promised by Jesus, based on Acts, the disciples would have NO power to preach the Gospel.

There is NOTHING about the conversion of Saul/Paul and that Saul/Paul was the most prolific and influential in the spreading of the Gospel.

Justin also failed to mention that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome.

It is clear that in Justin's time that there was NOTHING at all composed called Acts of the Apostles and Pauline letters to Churches.

The actual data we have collected so far corroborates the writings attributed to Justin and completely denies historical accuracy to writings attributed to Irenaeus which was used by the very Church of the 4th century.

stephan huller

What does any of this have to do with reconciling the relationship of Irenaeus as champion of Justin, who did not use the Pauline canon and Irenaeus the champion of the Pauline canon? Do you mind doing your mental masturbation in closet rather than in a thread that has nothing to do with P46?

stephan huller

Come on. I can't believe this relevant. The question is like finding out that your priest is gay but that he gives fiery sermons for the sacredness of marriage and against homosexuality. The major difference though is that I am trying to ask whether the portrait of Paul trying to gain approval of the 'Jewish Church' is really masking Irenaeus's efforts to get Paul approved by Justin's church.

aa5874

What is most startling about the writings attributed to Irenaeus is that virtually everything he wrote about the history of the Church has been REJECTED by Scholars today.

The very first writer that gave us the supposed history of the Jesus cult gave us bogus information.

The argument by Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age confirm that he was NOT really aware of many books of the NT.

1. Irenaeus did NOT know that Pilate was NOT a governor of Judea under Cladius.

2. Irenaeus did NOT know that Paul and Peter could NOT have preached Christ Crucified since the Day of Pentecost and under King Aretas if Jesus was crucified under Claudius.

3. Irenaeus did NOT know that in the Gospels it is claimed Jesus was crucified when Herod was tetrarch, Pilate was Governor, Caiaphas was High Priest around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

4. Irenaeus did NOT know that the Gospels were NOT composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

5. Irenaeus did NOT know the chronology of the authorship of the Gospels.

6. Irenaeus did NOT know that the Gospels were composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE

7. Irenaeus did NOT know that the Pauline Epistles were composed by Multiple authors.

8. Irenaeus did NOT know that Pauline letters were composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

9. Irenaeus did NOT know that Paul claimed he was a PERSECUTOR of those who preached Christ Crucified BEFORE the reign of Claudius.

Essentially, writings attributed to Irenaeus are practically useless as historical sources for the Pauline writers.

In the writings attributed to Irenaeus there is NO indication that he championed Justin and did NOT claim to have personally known or seen Justin.

Irenaeus appear to champion Polycarp of whom he claimed to be an eyewitness.

stephan huller

Please just go away. Having the world's most rabid proponent of Paul claiming to perpetuate a tradition that rejected Paul (cf AH 3.16.1) is like having a cattle farmer head the SPCA