jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

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.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

maryhelena

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

Page 119

Where has Moll gone wrong? Dating Paul re the NT timeline. (don't have a reference handy for that - but Moll is going with the general NT interpretation that places Paul early - which results in dating Marcion post Paul)

Jake, once one moves away from the NT chronology for Paul - it is open season on what timeline this NT figure fits into. Thus, it's an open question of whether the Paul figure was first or whether the Marcion figure was first (i.e. stories about these figures...)

The written accounts of early christian writers indicate that it was the Marcion story that was running prior to the Paul story. Once Acts was written - the big problems would arise. Now there is a story about a Paul who is dated prior to 70 c.e. What to do? Difficult to resolve such a Paul story with the known story about a Marcion. One way out of the problem (for those who viewed this development as a problem...) would be to propose that the Marcion figure was a heretic - a breakaway from the real church. What would be the alternative? Marcion was early and Paul was late - so - turn the tables on Marcion - and go with an early Paul!!

That is just one scenario that would go some way to explain the problems with the Pauline epistles. The Marcion creator had in his possession, or recorded, the early epistles and an ur-Luke. But the new Acts dating is causing problems with its backdating Paul to pre 70 c.e., when it's known that figure is late - so claim Marcion mutilated the writings of an early Paul!

Jake, the Marcion and Paul ahistorical figures come from the same stable - the point of origin of the early christian history. They are not synonymous figures - although probably created via the same pen - for different time slots in the ongoing christian historical record.

Yes, with the passage of time, the stories about these two figures would grow, with 'truth' and 'error' riding side by side....And the sects or heretical groups that claimed some allegiance to these figures - would produce the heretics verse orthodox 'wars'. But that's all of 100 plus years down the line...

How early was the Marcion story? I'd put my money on the 1st century...

tanya

? How would possession of an image of aa5874 alter your perception that he is uneducated?

In sum, stephan huller asserts that aa5874 is both uneducated (does not comprehend the proper definition of "science"), and "crazy".

I object to this characterization, not simply because it is outside the normal understanding of the agreement among participants of this forum, but more objectively, because these are both false assertions.

I argue that aa5874 has explained, very competently, with adequate illustration from the ancient literature, his hypothesis that the writings attributed to "Paul", were most probably created in the latter half of the second century, some time after Justin Martyr's publications, which mention the epistles of "Paul", neither explicitly, nor by reference, though this second century author did mention Marcion.

With regard to these two points, offered by forum member Stephan Huller, I fervently disagree with his contention.

a. definition of science has NOTHING to do with religion.
The word, science, is derived from Latin, scio, a verb which means, "to know", but, which in turn, is derived from the Greek word σχίζω, meaning to cleave, as with a knife. The idea being, that one unlocks the mystery of what may be contained within, by cleaving the outside cover with a cutting instrument, revealing the truth resting in the interior. "Science" thus involves investigation, and empirical evidence derived from such investigation. "Science" does not employ, or accept, FAITH, as a basis for explanation. Religion, therefore, has NOTHING in common with science. The "church fathers", had a single goal, spread of the religion, NOT uncovering the origin of the religion. Stephan Huller's statement to the contrary is false.

b. value of tradition: "any tradition - is worthy of being respected."
This attitude, conveyed by stephan huller, is wrong. The best illustration of how and why it is wrong, is visible to every single person on the planet, every single day of the year: the relationship between the sun and the earth. Plato, and Aristotle, had argued that this relationship was based upon geocentrism: earth as center, with solar rotation about it. This argument found favor with Maimonides and with the Muslims, and to this current date, 2013, one can still find adherents, among Jews and Muslims, of the fixed, false belief (definition of delusion) in geocentrism. Christians murdered those who argued against their position, and the "much beloved" Pope John Paul II, argued a couple decades ago, that the Church and Galileo had suffered a "mutual misunderstanding".

So, no, I deny that one should respect ancient, false traditions, simply because they represent the status quo.

Duvduv

Tanya , how seriously can the whole Justin scenario even be taken given the fact that the writings come from merely one single manuscript from several hundred years ago? How can whole theories be based on this?

jakejonesiv

I completely agree with that statement. But that does not mean we can sweep the stage clean and substitute our own imaginations. All of these documents exist, and we must have a Sitz en Leben to explain them.

Traditional scholarship has put a tremendous amount of work into developing the vision of the first century Paul. In order to overturn that view, someone must put in the hard work to provide an alternative explanation that better explains the facts, that provides a Sitz en Leben of known sects to explain how it happened, and provide the "cost benefit" ratio as to why the effort was made.


We have to explain how the Pauline epistles came to exist in their current form. The Dutch Radical scholarship has done all that and peeled the onion back with painstaking scholarship to the second century Marcion.

Now, if the next step is to peel the onion back to an even later date, that is a good discussion to have, but it is going to take the same level of effort as all the previous steps.
You have proposed a scenerio that Marcion predated Paul. I would like to see that developed. I will not reject anything out of hand that is presented in serious and schloarly manner.

Jake

jakejonesiv

OK, I am ready to hear it. Give me the whole
who
when
where
why

that the Justin manuscripts were forged in the middle ages. I hope you aren't one of those who spout one-liners and then run away.

Jake

aa5874

That's BULLSHIT.

Wikipedia does NOT state anywhere that Marcion was Dead before all the Pauline letters were composed.

Again, jakejonesiv I USE THE DATA FROM APOLOGETIC SOURCES. I USE THE DATA FROM NON-APOLOGETIC SOURCES OF ANTIQUITY.

Again, jakejones, I had ALREADY named some of the sources that I use.

This is a PARTIAL list: Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Lucian of Samosata, The Recovered DATED NT manuscripts, The NT Canon, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, Arnobius, Ephrem the Syrian, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, Eusebius, Julian the Emperor, Chrysostom, the Muratorian Canon, the Liber Pontificalis, and the Donation of Constantine.


Now, You claimed Acts of the Apostles was most likely POST Marcion.

What do you mean by "POST Marcion"?? Please, don't be untruthful??

I argue that All the Pauline letters are POST Acts of the Apostles which is POST Marcion.

I argue that Marcion was DEAD before all the Pauline letters were composed.

By logical deductions and the available evidence I argue that ALL the Pauline letters were POST Marcion or that MARCION was DEAD before Acts of the Apostles and also before All the Pauline letters.

Did you not write the OP?? Did you not write that there were sources that did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Epistles up to c 190 CE?? Tell us where you got the dates that are highlighted in Red??

Did you get them from Wikipedia or did you INVENT them??

Where did you get your DATES from??

Don't be untruthful. Which sources of antiquity mentioned your dates of composition.

aa5874

You NEED to prove your assertions.

Name one ancient source that states Acts of the Apostles was composed c 180 CE.

Name one ancient source that states Acts of the Apostles was most likely POST Marcion.

Again, YOU claimed that Acts of the Apostles was most likely POST Marcion.

You mean that Marcion was most likely alive when Acts of the Apostles was composed????



YOU NEED TO PROVE YOUR ASSERTIONS that the author of Acts knew the Pauline Epistles.

It is NOT established or demonstrated at all that the author of Acts knew of the Pauline letters to Churches and the Pastorals.

We can go through Acts of the Apostles WORD by WORD and there will be ZERO reference to any Pauline letters to the Churches and the Pastorals.

The ACTIVITIES of Paul in Acts of the Apostles did NOT include writing letters to the Seven Churches or to Timothy, Titus and Philemon.

Please, provide the chapter and verse of Acts of the Apostles where the author demonstrated that he knew of the Pauline Epistles.

Duvduv

On the contrary. The is not merely the fact of the single manuscript (which no longer exists) from five hundred years ago, but all the internal illogical anomalies in terms of content and context that we have discussed here many times.

If the Justin texts were actually written in the second century then I am a monkey's uncle.

aa5874

I have presented MANY sources that support my argument Not only Justin.

I have used the writings of Aristides, Hippolytus, Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Origen, Julian the Emperor and Ephrem the Syrian.

I have also pointed out that supposed early writings that mentioned Paul are either highly questionable or a massive forgeries like the Ignatius Epistles, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement, the writings attributed to Irenaeus and Tertullian.

Based on my investigation and the present available evidence Marcion was DEAD long BEFORE the Pauline letters were composed.

The Pauline letters were PLANTED in the hands of Marcion.

My argument is extremely well supported and is FAR supperior to any one who argues for early Pauline letters.

In fact, there is NO argument being presented for early Pauline on this thread.

All the advocates for Early Pauline Epistles perhaps are either dead, sleeping, on vacation or have problems with the internent or a combiation of all four.

Where are the advocates of Early Pauline writings--their arguments are MISSING from the thread???

Which supposed early writer stated that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed BEFORE the death of Nero??

1. It was NOT the author of Acts

2. It was NOT Ignatius.

3. It was NOT the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement.

4. It was NOT Irenaeus.

Who INVENTED early Pauline letters before the death of Nero ???