FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-04-2009, 06:44 PM   #121
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
Your facts are your opinion... state them as such or people will think you are making factual statements.
It is virtually impossible for me to control other people's thoughts. I am not here to start a religion.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 04:52 AM   #122
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcdad View Post
Your facts are your opinion... state them as such or people will think you are making factual statements.
It is virtually impossible for me to control other people's thoughts. I am not here to start a religion.
hah ha ha
kcdad is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 07:36 PM   #123
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Coming late to this thread, but part of the thesis of my paper on the Gospel of Mark is that the writer of Mark was a Pauline Christian who used teh letters of Paul as a part of the basis for his story:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Some examples:

Quote:
The Purpose of the Parables

Mark 4:
10 When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, 'To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; 12 in order that
"they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven."'

13 And he said to them, 'Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word.

This again contains parallels with the Pauline works, and in an interesting way. Not only does this passage reflect the same ideas that are found in the Pauline works, but it also quotes the same passage that is quoted in Romans. Paul also referred to the kingdom of God, and Jesus, as a mystery.

Colossians 1:
25 I became its servant according to God's commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

There are many passages such as this one in the Pauline epistles that talk about secret revealed mysteries to a select group of people.

Mark 4:12 refers to Isaiah 6:9-10, which is also referenced by Paul in Romans 11.

Romans 11:
1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? 3 'Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars; I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.' 4 But what is the divine reply to him? 'I have kept for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.' 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,
'God gave them a sluggish spirit,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.'
9 And David says,
'Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling-block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and keep their backs for ever bent.'

Here both the Gospel of Mark and the works of Paul are in agreement, that Israel is condemned, but that a few select Jews, "the elect", were on the right track. Both Paul and Gospel of Mark here refer to Isaiah 6, which talks about destruction coming to those who do not understand.

Isaiah 6:
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?' And I said, 'Here am I; send me!' 9 And he said, 'Go and say to this people:
"Keep listening, but do not comprehend;
keep looking, but do not understand."
10 Make the mind of this people dull,
and stop their ears,
and shut their eyes,
so that they may not look with their eyes,
and listen with their ears,
and comprehend with their minds,
and turn and be healed.'
11 Then I said, 'How long, O Lord?' And he said:
'Until cities lie waste
without inhabitant,
and houses without people,
and the land is utterly desolate;

The discussion of parables in the Gospel of Mark is similar to the discussion of mysteries in the Pauline teachings, and serves the same basic function. In addition, this passage in Mark refers to the same passage in Isaiah that Paul refers to in Romans, where Paul calls Israel a failure. In Mark 4:13 the author goes on to insinuate that the apostles themselves don't understand his parables either, which would again be in line with the Pauline sect, which held that all of the other apostles, especially Peter, James, and John, failed to understand the "true" nature and meaning of Christ. So again, the author of Mark looks very much like a Pauline follower who is weaving Pauline themes into his narrative.

Quote:
Mark 7:
17 When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 He said to them, 'Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, 19 since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?' (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, 'It is what comes out of a person that defiles. 21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.'
Quote:
Galatians 5:
16 Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Quote:
Mark 8:
11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, 'Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.' 13 And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side.
Quote:
1 Corinthians 1:
20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Quote:
Jesus Foretells His Death and Resurrection

Mark 8:
31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, 'Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.'

This calls to mind Paul's account of his rebuking of Peter in Galatians.

Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; 12 for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction. 13 And the other Jews joined him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

It seems very much that the author of the Gospel of Mark presents Jesus' relationship with his disciples in the story as a parallel of Paul's relationships with the other apostles as reflected in his letters.
Quote:
Call to Take up the Cross and Follow Jesus

Mark 8:
34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, 'If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? 38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.'

Again we find many parallels with the letters of Paul. Paul frequently remarked in his letters that he was risking his life, giving up everything, and putting himself in danger in order to spread the gospel. He also gave a speech similar to this one in Philippians.

Philippians 1:
20 It is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be put to shame in any way, but that by my speaking with all boldness, Christ will be exalted now as always in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. 23 I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; 24 but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you. 25 Since I am convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with all of you for your progress and joy in faith, 26 so that I may share abundantly in your boasting in Christ Jesus when I come to you again.

Philippians 2:
14 Do all things without murmuring and arguing, 15 so that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, in which you shine like stars in the world. 16 It is by your holding fast to the word of life that I can boast on the day of Christ that I did not run in vain or labor in vain. 17 But even if I am being poured out as a libation over the sacrifice and the offering of your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you— 18 and in the same way you also must be glad and rejoice with me.

More importantly, perhaps, the condemnation of the "sinful generation" again produces a justification for retribution, which would have been very relevant during or shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Quote:

Mark 10:
41 When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 42 So Jesus called them and said to them, 'You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 43 But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.'

Here James and John are portrayed poorly and again depicted as though they do not really understand Jesus. Like others, this passage likely alludes to Paul and the conflicts between Paul and the other key apostles.

1 Corinthians 9:
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.

This could be the author of Mark indicating that he considered Paul greatest of the apostles.
Quote:
The Institution of the Lord's Supper

Mark 14:
22 While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.' 23 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. 24 He said to them, 'This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'

This passage is perhaps one of the most important passages of all the New Testament writings and one of the most complex to address. This is because this is the only passage that appears in both the Gospels and the Pauline letters and purports to represent words that Jesus spoke. The questions raised by this passage are many. Is the instance of this passage in the Pauline letters a later interpolation that was added after the writing of the Gospels? If Paul did originally write the version in his letters, then where did he get his information from? What exactly is the meaning of the Pauline version? If Paul wrote his version first did the author of the Gospel of Mark derive his version from the Pauline letters? Below is the Pauline version of the Eucharist description, from 1 Corinthians, as it appears in the NRSV:

1 Corinthians 11:
23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

A precise understanding of the wording here is critical. The first issue is the phrase "For I received from the Lord," which is an indicator of "revelation". That doesn't mean that Paul couldn't have received this information from some other oral tradition or from James or Peter, etc., and then here be passing it off as something that was known originally only to him, but the claim that he makes here is basically that this is information that is unique to him, which he received from "divine revelation", which would mean his imagination. That this would in fact be the case is uncertain, because this type of ritual is exactly what one would expect to be the basis of an emerging cult, and thus it would not be unusual for a ritual such as this to be one of the first emerging parts of a tradition, around which other religious elements and imagery would coalesce, meaning that it would not be surprising, even if Jesus never really existed, if something like this ritual were not one of the first and oldest elements of the cult, existing even before Paul.

Nevertheless, Paul does not claim here to be passing on a tradition or something that was told to him by others, but rather he claims to be passing on something that was "revealed" to him by "the Lord", which appears to mean God in the first instance.

The second issue here is the word "betrayed". The word "betrayed" ties in to the narrative that we find in the Gospels, but more importantly it would seem to indicate some type of interaction that makes little sense outside of the Gospel narrative. But, however, "betrayed" is not actually an accurate translation here. Most English translations use the word "betrayed" in line 23 because of the fact that this word ties the passage back to the Gospel narrative, but a more accurate translation would be "delivered up", and this point is important, because Paul used the phrase "delivered up" in another instance to describe the act of God sacrificing his own son in Romans 8.

Romans 8:
31 What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? 33 Who will bring any charge against God's elect?

In order to get a better understanding of this we can look at the Young's Literal Translation version of the passages in question.

YLT

Romans 8:
32 He who indeed His own Son did not spare, but for us all did deliver him up, how shall He not also with him the all things grant to us?

1 Corinthians 11:
23 For I -- I received from the Lord that which also I did deliver to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread,

As we can see, a more accurate reading of the passage from 1 Corinthians 11 does not actually imply a betrayal, but is rather talking about a more theological and abstract sacrificial concept. Again, if Paul were discussing a real event that took place during Passover it seems that he would have mentioned Passover here instead of simply saying "on the night".
Quote:
Jesus Prays in Gethsemane

Mark 14:
32 They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, 'Sit here while I pray.' 33 He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 And he said to them, 'I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.' 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, 'Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.' 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, 'Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.'

This passage again depicts the apostles as failures and may also be based on Romans 8, which reads:

Romans 8:
5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, 'Abba! Father!' 16 it is that very spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.

The scene in Mark 14 depicts Peter and the other apostles as giving in to the weaknesses of "the flesh", and failing to set their minds on "the things of the spirit". Again, the author of the Gospel of Mark held a negative view of the apostles and sought to portray them as failures, as he does here. Interestingly, the author of the Gospel of Mark also has Jesus say, "Abba, Father, " which is also found in Romans 8, but this is quite odd unless this is in fact an allusion to Romans 8, because "Abba" is simply the Aramaic word for father. When Paul uses the phrase "Abba! Father!" he does so as a clarification. It's not that people would have actually said "Abba, Father", what Paul is doing is translating an exclamation that Jews used. Jews would simply say "Abba!", which Paul then goes on to clarify for his Greek speaking audience as "Father!". As people often do, Paul simply uses the Aramaic first for emphasis because its an emotional statement that he states first in his native tongue, the way that he would really say it. He then repeats it in translation for his audience.

However, in Mark 14 the author has Jesus simply say "Abba, Father," in a prayer which would be like saying "Father, Father", but supposedly Jesus wouldn't have been speaking Greek anyway, so this whole business makes no sense. The entire use of "Abba, Father," makes no sense in the manner that it is used in the Gospel of Mark. The only reasonable explanations are either that this was a commonly used double phrase among Greek speaking Jews, thus the author, himself a Greek speaking Jew, used it out of familiarity, perhaps something like a Spanish speaking American saying "Ay! Oh!", (Ay being the Spanish for the English word Oh, as in "Oh my goodness"), or the author of Mark used the phrase here because this scene is based on Romans 8.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:23 PM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Coming late to this thread, but part of the thesis of my paper on the Gospel of Mark is that the writer of Mark was a Pauline Christian who used teh letters of Paul as a part of the basis for his story:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm
You have an interesting theory that the Book of Mark is an allegorical writing based upon the Pauline letters. As far as the dating of Mark your site lists the following dates;

Quote:
Most scholars today agree that the Gospel of Mark was written either during or after the destruction of Judea by the Romans, which occurred around 70 CE. The most widely accepted dates for the writing of Mark range from between 66 CE to 100 CE, with a fringe of scholars claiming times outside of this range on both sides.. . .Most scholars today agree that the Gospel of Mark was written either during or after the destruction of Judea by the Romans, which occurred around 70 CE. The most widely accepted dates for the writing of Mark range from between 66 CE to 100 CE, with a fringe of scholars claiming times outside of this range on both sides.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm
and in relation to Paul you state the following;

Quote:
The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
Which would suggest an earlier date of Paul's letter in the first century than the Gospel of Mark. While I don't agree that Mark was allegorical ( Although gMark has parables to underscore deeper spiritual truths) the dates of the writing in question in the late first century is possible.
arnoldo is offline  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:26 PM   #125
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Coming late to this thread, but part of the thesis of my paper on the Gospel of Mark is that the writer of Mark was a Pauline Christian who used teh letters of Paul as a part of the basis for his story..
I think your theory is completely flawed.

Your theory does not take into account that the entire NT may be all fiction and does not reflect any real historic events with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul.

Nothing in the NT can be assumed to be true.

A letter with the name Paul, Peter, James, John or Jude does not mean any of the named persons lived and wrote anything in the time zone allotted.

The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John do not signify that any of the named persons wrote anything in any century other that some-one must have witten them.

All the informaton given by viurtually all the church writers about Jesus, the disciples, Saul/Paul, the date of writing and chonology appears to be erroneous.

The church writers claim the author Mark was a disciple of Peter, this appears to be false. Peter was a witness of fiction and also participated in the very fictitious events. Peter was a fictious character, there was no character called Mark who wrote a gospel that was told to him by Peter.

The letters of Paul are backdated fiction, the writer did not exist in the 1st century.

The Gospels, as found today, show that the authors either copied from one another or from some similar sources, there are word for word copying in many instances, but no author of any gospel show any word for word copying from the Pauline letters which should have been in circulation many decades before and known in many churches throughout the Empire.

It would appear that no author of the gospels attended a Pauline church.

Even Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the 2nd century, appear not to know Paul or copied any passages word for word from any Pauline letter, yet Justin copied passages word for word from the memoirs of the apostles.

And further Justin Martyr did know about the Paul 500, the gospel of circumcision of Peter and the gospel of uncircumcision by Paul or the gifts of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.

The writer Paul is very late. He absolutely knew the gospel, the gospels, and fabricated his revelation of Jesus to mis-lead.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-09-2009, 06:56 AM   #126
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: illinois
Posts: 688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Coming late to this thread, but part of the thesis of my paper on the Gospel of Mark is that the writer of Mark was a Pauline Christian who used teh letters of Paul as a part of the basis for his story:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Some examples:
I think your ideas are good and very plausible. I would only also suggest that similarities might be more likely to be because of the shared source rather than any relationship between the two of them.

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/mark.html

I don't if and when Paul ever went to Egypt, or if and when those letters might have reached Egypt...
kcdad is offline  
Old 05-09-2009, 07:03 AM   #127
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Coming late to this thread, but part of the thesis of my paper on the Gospel of Mark is that the writer of Mark was a Pauline Christian who used teh letters of Paul as a part of the basis for his story..
I think your theory is completely flawed.

Your theory does not take into account that the entire NT may be all fiction and does not reflect any real historic events with respect to Jesus, the disciples and Saul/Paul.
Actually Malachi151 is arguing the Jesus is a myth and that Mark is an allegorical (or fictional if you will) , rather than a historical account. . . isn't that in agreement with your position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . <preaching excised>. .
The writer Paul is very late. He absolutely knew the gospel . .
Paleographic analysis disputes your opinion that Paul is "very" late.

Quote:
Much of the material here is indebted Harry Y. Gamble's Books and Readers in the Early Church A History of Early Christian Texts. In arguing for a rapid dissemination of early Christian texts the following items of interest should be noted:


[I] Fragments of Irenaeus's Against Heresies, written about 180 C.E. have been found in Egypt during the twentieth century. Gamble writes, "The fragments are paleographically dated to the late years of the second century. Thus, within 20 years of its composition, this work traversed the Mediterranean world to be read in Provincial Egypt." p. 82

[II] The Shepherd of Hermas, composed in Rome near the middle of the second century, was also available in a late 2d century manuscript from Egypt. Thus, this work rapidly traveled from Rome to Egypt.

[III] The Gospel of John was written towards the end of the first century. Wherever it was written, it certainly was not in Egypt. But we have an early papyrus fragment of John found in Egypt that dates to ca. 125 c.e. This is the earliest known New Testament fragment.

[IV] The Gospel of Thomas is also attested early in Egypt, a place that certainly does not seem to be where it was written. Though its provenance cannot be ascertained with complete confidence, most scholars place its origin in Syria. The oldest manuscript evidence for Thomas is POxy 1 and Greenfell and Hunt assigned it an approximate date of 200 AD on the basis of its script and the level it was discovered at Oxryhynchus. Stephen Patterson wrote, we may allow a generation for the growth in popularity of the book, such as would result in its wider dissemination, and yet another for the popularity to reach Egypt. This brings us to the middle of the second century. Grenfell and Hunt themselves placed the terminus ad quem at 140 C.E." The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. . .

Paul's letters were given special status early and show how fast and wide the dissemination of early Christian works could be. Before the end of the first century they had become mighty popular and enjoyed a broad geographical distribution. This means they were valued and imitated beyond their original recipients as attested as shown by their early use by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna.




[Conclusion] The value of this information is four-fold: 1) If for no other reason, historically it at least helps us in our reconstruction of ancient Christianity. 2) It has text-critical value to the student of the Bible wishing to defend the overall accuracy of the current edition of the New Testament. 3) Apologetically, it can be argued that some of these texts were meant to be circulated and compete against other texts and ideology and this would cause their respective authors to take greater care in what they wrote. Alternatively, this same pheonomenon could have lead to creation and redaction. But if informaton was transmitted far and fast, then the self-correcting notion of tradition (oral and written) would be the better off. 4) Theologically, it offers a springboard for viewing the "canonization process" of a very significant chunk (A third) of the New Testament as beginning in the later first century, namely, the Pauline corpus and this too helps in understanding the historical development of Christianity.

http://www.vincentsapone.com/writing...emination.html
arnoldo is offline  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:00 AM   #128
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

Paleographic analysis disputes your opinion that Paul is "very" late.
Papyrus 46 is dated between 175-225 CE by paleographic analysis, a full 110-160 years after the supposed writings of the Pauline writer.

Justin Martyr wrote, it is claimed wrote around the middle of the 2nd century at about 150 CE, so the paleographic analysis actually supports my position that the Pauline writer is after Justin Martyr.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:19 AM   #129
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
. . .
Even Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the 2nd century, appear not to know Paul or copied any passages word for word from any Pauline letter, yet Justin copied passages word for word from the memoirs of the apostles.

And further Justin Martyr did know about the Paul 500, the gospel of circumcision of Peter and the gospel of uncircumcision by Paul or the gifts of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues.

The writer Paul is very late. He absolutely knew the gospel, the gospels, and fabricated his revelation of Jesus to mis-lead.
Bascially you are presenting an argument from silence, i.e., Justin didn't write about Paul, therefore he wasn't aware of any of his writings, correct? Have you considered any alternate explanations why Justin wouldn't mention Paul such as Marcion's use of Pauline writings which Justin opposed?
Quote:
Doctrine of works. Justin never directly quotes or expressly mentions Paul in any of his extant works. Some scholars have suggested that this may be because of his opposition to Marcion, who used some of Paul's writing in his competing version of Christianity. Marcion (the subject of a later installment in this series) could not reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God who sent Christ to the world; hence, he created a "Bible" that excluded all of the New Testament and included only edited versions of Luke's gospel and seven of Paul's letters. Since Justin taught in Rome at about the same time Marcion did and was vehemently opposed to him, these scholars believe that Justin avoided Paul to prevent any association with Marcionites.

Whatever the reason, Justin seems to have missed or ignored Paul's strong message of the gospel of grace. Instead, his writings are full of salvation by works. For example:
"if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy" (1 Apology 10).
"...those only are deified (sic) who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue..." (1 Apology 21)
"...we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions" (1 Apology 43).
"...there shall be punishment in eternal fire inflicted upon those who do not live temperately and conformably to right reason" (2 Apology 2).

We might understand Justin's focus on behavior in his Apology, since he is trying to refute the charge that Christians are immoral, but when he mentions grace in the Dialogue with Trypho, it appears only to give people the ability to cleanse themselves: "...we have by the grace of our Jesus, according to His Father's will, stripped ourselves of all those filthy wickednesses with which we were imbued" (Diaglogue 116).
http://www.peculiarpress.com/ekklesi...Ekklesia73.htm
arnoldo is offline  
Old 05-09-2009, 08:22 AM   #130
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Latin America
Posts: 4,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnoldo View Post

Paleographic analysis disputes your opinion that Paul is "very" late.
Papyrus 46 is dated between 175-225 CE by paleographic analysis, a full 110-160 years after the supposed writings of the Pauline writer.

Justin Martyr wrote, it is claimed wrote around the middle of the 2nd century at about 150 CE, so the paleographic analysis actually supports my position that the Pauline writer is after Justin Martyr.
If I understand your position correctly at the very least we are in agreement that "Paul" was aware of the gospels whose dating must be earlier than Papyrus 46 (175-225 A.D.).
arnoldo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:30 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.