aa5874

The argument that the Pauline letters were extremely late is NOT based on the writings of Justin alone.

You should not give up your right to remain silent.

Being a monkey's uncle is NOT evidence of anything relating to the OP.

Essentially whether or not you are a "monkey's uncle" resolves NOTHING in the discussion before us.

Let us deal with the facts.

No supposed contemporary or acquaintance of Paul ever claimed he wrote Epistles to Seven Churches before the death of Nero.

Please read Acts of the Apostles, 2 Peter, The Ignatius Epistles and the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement.

Even if Justin Martyr's writings were NEVER known or were NOT written until the 20th century the FACTS still remain.

No supposed early or contemporary source of antiquity claimed the Pauline letters to Churches were composed before Nero was dead.

maryhelena

The Arch-Heretic Marcion, Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion (especially so from an ahistorical position on Marcion)

Tertullian: (Adv. Marc. I.19,2)

So? The whole dating of Marcion, that this figure is post Paul, is a numerical formula said to be from the Marcionites! And how does Tertullian work the numbers? From the 15th year of Tiberius to the year 145 c.e. in the rule of Antoninus Pius. What else could he do once Acts is telling him that Paul is prior to 70 c.e. and thus prior to Marcion? He has to use this Marcionite formula to date Marcion late.

But how did the Marcionites use this number formula that resolved around the 15th year of Tiberius? Tiberius can be dated from his co-regency in 12 c.e., or sole rule from 14 c.e. His 15th year can be any year between 27 and 29 c.e. Taking the middle number 28 c.e. and using the 115 years to go backwards, instead of forward (re Tertullian) and one gets to about the year 87 b.c.

Yes, the time of Alexander Jannaeus. A time period in which Antigonus would have been born. Executed in 37 b.c. (being about 50 years old). Antigonus, a Hasmonean King and High Priest, an anointed Christ/Messiah figure that was executed via Roman hands (Marc Antony).

115 years, from an 87 b.c. birth date for Antigonus - and one is at around 28 b.c., the 15th year of Tiberius - a year in which Marcus Julius Agrippa was born, Agrippa II.

That, Jake, is what the picture looks like when one runs the Marcionite 115 years backwards instead of forwards from the 15th year of Tiberius. From the Hasmonean Christ/Messiah figure of Antigonus to the birth of Marcus Julius Agrippa.

And, no, I don’t think Marcus Julius Agrippa was Marcion. Marcion is ahistorical and a composite figure (like the gospel JC). However, the buck, as they say, stops at the door of Marcus Julius Agrippa. That is the door that needs to be opened up - Hasmonean and Jewish history.

What this scenario does strongly suggest is that the figure of Marcion was pre the figure of Paul. The Marcion figure is tied to those 115 years formula. 115 years between the birth of the Hasmonean Christ/Messiah figure, Antigonus, and the birth of Marcus Julius Agrippa. This scenario, Jake, is dealing with historical figures. Marcion and Paul are ahistorical figures. Suggesting a beginning and an ending to the origin story of early Christianity. i.e. After Paul - the road to the wild west is open.....

Why all the cover up - opening up the whole conspiracy attack upon the early NT writers? Easy answer to that one. The new vision of the Pauline epistles, no Jew nor Greek, necessitated that the Hasmonean/Jewish origins of the NT story be sidelined. National and political issues could not be allowed to short-circuit the developing universal Christian philosophy.

Yes, Jake, once that onion is peeled back - one is face to face with history: Hasmonean and Jewish history.

jakejonesiv

If that is true, please lay out the evidence in detail that the works attributed to Justin were written 500 years ago. Were there strange occurances in the discovery of the manuscript? Was the chain of custody broken? As I said, I am open to a scholarly presentation.

However, if you are a monkey's uncle, I do not think you will be able to back up your assertions.

jakejonesiv

Dear Mary,

I think you have given enough detail here that other readers can decide for themselves how crediible your alternative is.



Jake

jakejonesiv

Dear AA,

You need to back up your own assetions. Name one ancient source that states that Marcion was dead before the appearance of Paul. And no WIKIPEDIA doesn't count. :tomato:

A number of NT scholars have found that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline epistles. John Knox, Joesph B. Tyson, William O. Walker, Heikki Leppä, Michael D. Goulder, Robert Price, Hermann Deterring, etc.

Your assertions are without merit unless you engage the relevant scholarship.

Your answers up until now have been bullshit. So I am not going to pollute the list any more by quoting you. Interested readers can click on the hidden button to see your post.


N/A

maryhelena

And do I take that to mean you find the Paul=Marcion theory more credible? Two figures in two stories; two figures that there is no chance whatsoever that historicity could be established for either one?

Duvduv

Jake, I don't understand your insistence for "evidence" here. That Justin texts were NOT written in the 2nd century is an ASSERTION based on an examination of the context and content of the texts. That Justin texts WERE written in the 2nd century is also an ASSERTION based on church claims about the manuscript regardless of an examination the context and content of the texts.

stephan huller

It's not just an assertion. It is plainly what the evidence says. Only a lunatic could claim something to the contrary. You just can't claim that 'it must have been fabricated at a later time' without assembling a massive amount of evidence to show that EVERYTHING that has survived is a forgery. This is a mountainman-style argument which is insane and cannot be supported by any reasonable person. It's like claiming that there never was a mission to the moon, or that JFK was never assassinated. It's crazy and has no part in this forum UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY DEVELOP A COHERENT ARGUMENT which you haven't done.

Duvduv

WHAT EVIDENCE?

Like the "magic bullet" evidence of the Warren Commission (speaking of Kennedy)?? Comparing it to a non-assassination of Kennedy is illogical because we all know that Kennedy is dead and some of us were around at the time. However, were YOU around when "Justin" wrote his texts in the second century?!

stephan huller

Evidence like the WRITINGS themselves. I have never met you but I am going by these WRITINGS that come from your hand or someone called 'duvduv.' One could claim that these posts are so idiotic that no human could have written them, that they must have been developed by a caricature of a human being developed from some laboratory by prankster university students. But for that I would need to develop a coherent argument to that effect which I haven't done, yet.