Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thentian · 04-13-2012, 07:03 PM

There seems to be an assumption that the Pauline letters were widely copied and distributed quite early on - before the gospels were written. Do we know that?

aa5874 · 04-13-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

There seems to be an assumption that the Pauline letters were widely copied and distributed quite early on - before the gospels were written. Do we know that?

The Existing Codices show otherwise. It was gMark that was widely copied. In the existing Codices we have:

1. The Short-ending gMark which ends at the 8th verse of the 16th chapter.

2. The Long-Ending gMark which is fundamentally the same as the Short-Ending gMark except for 12 additional verse.

3. gMatthew is also virtually a copy of all of gMark except more supposed details were added including a birth narrative and a post-resurrection visit by Jesus in Galilee.

4. gLuke also used material found in gMark or gMatthew [ a copy of gMark].

Remarkably, the Gospel authors, the Non-Pauline Epistles and the author of Revelation did not emulate the gospel of the Pauline writer.

The author of gMark is unknown and wrote the Shortest Jesus story yet gMark's story was copied by multiple authors in Existing Codices but the supposed well known Paul, who Documented his gospel in letters, personally preached to Gentiles in multiple regions of the Roman Empire and started churches was NOT copied or emulated.

The Pauline writings seem to exist in a vacuum quite unlike gMark.

It would appear that not one author of the Canon ever attended a Pauline church.

The authors of the Long-Ending gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and Revelation may have attended the same Church as the author of Short-Ending gMark.

The Synoptic authors appear to have EMULATED the author of the Short Ending gMark.

thentian · 04-13-2012, 09:26 PM

What about other non-canonized scriptures, such as the Didache? Do we see reflections of the gospels in that, or vice-versa? Or can we see similarities between it and the epistles, and if so, can we tell which is reflecting which?

Grog · 04-13-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

aa, couldn't the author of gMark's goal here, in regard to Jesus being the secret messiah, be to provide an explanation for why no one has heard the story to this point? Couldn't this explanation live side by side with widespread knowledge of Paul's Christ?...

Your suggestion is hopelessly Contradictory, and cannot be shown to be logical.

It makes very little sense even from a chronological point of view that Paul supposedly preached Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected in at least SEVEN Regions of the Roman Empire for OVER 17 years since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE and claimed that there were others who PREACHED the Faith before him in Jerusalem and Judea and that an author of gMark would write AFTER c 70 CE that UP TO the time he was writing his story NO-ONE was told Jesus was resurrected.

Please, please, please, do NOT forget at all that the author of gMark, writing AFTER c 70 CE, is IMPLYING that NO-ONE has heard of the Resurrection of Jesus BEFORE he wrote his story.

You MUST try and understand the Short-Ending gMark.

Please look at the Last verses of Sinaiticus gMark

Sinaiticus Mark

Up to sometime AFTER c 70 CE, After the Fall of the Temple, NO-ONE heard of the Resurrection of Jesus based on Sinaiticus gMark.

But, in the Pauline writings, since 37-41 CE, since the time of King Aretas, a character called Paul supposedly DID TELL People Jesus was indeed resurrected..

Sinaiticus gMark and the Pauline writings are in direct conflict.

Now, examine non-apologetic sources.

The short-ending gMark is COMPATIBLE with non-apologetic sources where there is NO documented evidence of a character called Jesus, a supposed Jew, whose RESURRECTION was for the Remission of Sins and that Jesus the RESURRECTED Jew was the End of the Law.

The Pauline writer was EXPECTED to have caused UNPRECEDENTED controversy in the Roman Empire by OFFERING a RESURRECTED Jew as a UNIVERSAL SAVIOR of ALL Mankind.

The Pauline writer, claimed to be a JEW, MADE the name of the RESURRECTED Jesus ABOVE the name of the ROMAN EMPERORS and claimed EVERY-ONE on EARTH, HEAVEN and BELOW the EARTH should BOW to the name of his RESURRECTED Jesus but NOT ONE Roman Writer mentioned the Pharisee, the Jew, called Paul and his RESURRECTED Jesus the Messiah.

Paul, the JEW and Pharisee claimed the Resurrected Jesus, the Son of God, BORN of the seed of DAVID was LORD.

Paul, the Jew, supposedly had churches in at least SEVEN regions of the Roman Empire where he had PERSONALLY preached Jesus Resurrected.

No Roman or Jewish writer claimed they ATTENDED a Pauline Church and there is absolutely no arguments for or against the Pauline resurrected Jesus.

WE HAVE A BIG BLACK-HOLE for PAUL and the PAULINE Resurrected Jesus.

But, the BIG-BLACK HOLE for PAUL is NOT only MISSING in non-apologetic sources, the very same PAUL and the Pauline letters are MISSING in Apologetic sources.

Up to the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr and Aristides did NOT recognise Paul as the one who EVANGELISED the Gentiles of the Roman Empire.

But, Justin Martyr UTTERLY destroys PAUL and the Pauline letters.

Justin Martyr claimed it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that was read in the Churches, did NOT say a single word about the Pauline letters and did NOT ever state that Remission of Sins was obtained by the Resurrection of Jesus..

"U]First Apology[/u]"

Justin Martyr SHOWS that the Pauline letters were NOT known and read even in Churches which he was aware of.

It is clear that the Evidence from antiquity, even Apologetic sources, shows that the Jesus story was KNOWN and READ in the Churches as Scripture BEFORE the Pauline letters based on Justin's First Apology.

You are SPECULATING and PRESUMING what you should have attempted to show. I do NOT presume the Pauline writings are EARLIER than gMark so you are wasting my time with YOUR SPECULATION and PRESUMPTIONS.

If you are arguing that Paul wrote BEFORE gMark then you MUST present YOUR CASE with SUPPORTING evidence and sources--Evidence and sources are NOT required by those who SPECULATE and PRESUME--you just say what you IMAGINE is history.

I NO LONGER ACCEPT SPECULATION and PRESUMPTIONS by those who argue against my theories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

.... gMark historicized those, cast them back into pre-resurrection in his attempt to historicize Jesus.

Please, it seems like you don't understand the term "historical Jesus". You may have been mis-led. The NT Canon is a source for a Non-historical Jesus and that is PRECISELY why SCHOLARS themselves are ON an QUEST, A SEARCH, an INVESTIGATION for an historical Jesus for OVER 250 years.

The author of gMark and the other authors of the Canon did NOT attempt to historicize Jesus they actually WROTE that Jesus was DIVINE, the Son of God.

The Gospels Made Sure Jesus was Mythologised.

Whoever told you that the Gospels historicized Jesus made a MASSIVE error and seem to have completely forgotten that there is an ON GOING QUEST for a human Jesus of history and seems to have forgotten that NO author of the NT claimed Jesus had a human father and could NOT have been Fathered by a Holy Ghost, could NOT have been God the Creator, could NOT have walked on water, could NOT have transfigured, could NOT have Resurrected and Ascended.

The NT authors MADE SURE their Jesus was DIVINE and acted as DIVINE.

By historicized, I meant that the author of gMark placed the mythical Jesus, the divine, mythical Jesus, in an historical context with a back story NOT that he was creating an "historical Jesus."

aa5874 · 04-13-2012, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

By historicized, I meant that the author of gMark placed the mythical Jesus, the divine, mythical Jesus, in an historical context with a back story NOT that he was creating an "historical Jesus."

I don't understand what you mean!!

Please observe the strict meaning of "Historical" in the Quest for an Historical Jesus.

The authors of the Canon in Existing Codices did NOT humanize Jesus they made sure that they claimed Jesus was the Son of God and did NOT mention anywhere that Jesus had a human father.

andrewcriddle · 04-14-2012, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

There seems to be an assumption that the Pauline letters were widely copied and distributed quite early on - before the gospels were written. Do we know that?

Our earliest direct evidence for knowledge of Paul's letters is the letter of Clement to the Corinthians probably written 95-100 CE.

The probablity that the Gospel writers knew of Paul's letters partly depends on when the Gospels were written.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 04-14-2012, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why would that be the case? The women may have kept quiet, but the others who "saw" the "risen Christ" didn't.

If the women kept quiet, the logical deduction is that the disciples did not get the euangellion......(think about it

)......until the euangelion was written up. The disciples would not get the gospel of Jesus' rising until if was preached by Paul and allegorized by Mark.

"Jesus crucified" was not proclaimed by the James' missions and Galatians (6:12) is the proof of that.

Best,
Jiri

Solo · 04-14-2012, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thentian

There seems to be an assumption that the Pauline letters were widely copied and distributed quite early on - before the gospels were written. Do we know that?

ALthough as Andrew says, direct evidence comes later, I would venture that the assumption that the letters were copied and distributed widely among the Pauline churches is a safe one. Paul's death (disappearance ?) combined with the delay of parousia would have sent shock waves through the communities, and they would have relied on the letters as 'scripture' to guide them through in the uncertain tame-table of Christ's return. The emergence of deutero-Paulines is the best argument of the importance that the churches placed on the authority of Paul's written word.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 04-14-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Our earliest direct evidence for knowledge of Paul's letters is the letter of Clement to the Corinthians probably written 95-100 CE.

The probablity that the Gospel writers knew of Paul's letters partly depends on when the Gospels were written.

Andrew Criddle

Your claim is utterly erroneous. We have NO direct evidence for the knowledge of the so-called Pauline letters. We have Confusion.

Please Andrew we can't be going over the same confusion and apparent invention of the bishop of Rome called Clement.

1. The letter to the Corinthians is actually anonymous [the author is not named in the letter]

2. There is NO letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement that has been dated by Paleography to the 1st century.

3. Apologetic sources do NOT know when the supposed Clement was bishop of Rome.

4. An Apologetic source under the name of Tertullian using the records of the Church claimed Clement was bishop around c 67 CE at the supposed death of Peter.

Prescription Against the Herestics

Quote:

...For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers....... the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

5. An Apologetic source, the Recognitions, claimed Clement was ordained by Peter some time before his death.

Recognitions

Quote:

For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter?

Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have been the case at Cæsarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zacchæus, ordained by himself, as bishop.

And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter.

6. An Apologetic source under the name of Augustine of Hippo claimed Clement was SECOND not first or third bishop which contradicts Irenaeus.

Letter 53

Quote:

The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius...

Quite remarkably we have multiple apologetic sources that CONTRADICT Andrews's claim of direct evidence for the time the anonymous letter was written and attributed to Clement.

Apologetic sources claimed Clement was bishop sometime around c 67 CE.

As I have pointed out before ALL Sources that mention the name Paul as a first century character who wrote letters to Churches before the Fall of the Temple are either fiction, or forgeries.

I find it rather disturbing that people who should have knowledge of the severe problems with the chronology of the succession of the Bishops of Rome, especially Clement, would claim there is direct evidence for the Pauline letters.

This is BC&H--we deserve better. We are engaged in a SERIOUS probe into the chronology of the Pauline letters with respect to the Short-Ending gMark.

The fact is that the Pauline letters are extremely problematic both from a theological and historical point of view.

No author of the Canon appears to have been influenced by the Pauline letters where it is claimed Universal Salvation was obtained by the Resurrection of Jesus.

Romans 10:9 KJV

Quote:

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

The Pauline Gospel is DEAD LAST in the Entire Canon and AFTER the Short-Ending gMark.

thentian · 04-14-2012, 08:00 PM

Whoever wrote "Clement's" letter isn't really important if what it says can be taken at face value...

It does appear to have been written shortly after the deaths of Peter and Paul, informing the recipient about this. So perhaps it is fairly safe to say that it was written by whoever replaced Peter in Rome?

It also seems to be paraphrazing Romans in a couple of places, and Hebrews in another, but has many more references to old testament books. Perhaps Paul's letters were not yet seen as "holy scripture"?

Maybe the writer had simply been listening to Paul's sermons and gotten the same teachings as he also wrote in Romans and Hebrews? Though I would have expected him to know Romans, at least, being in Rome!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2012, 07:03 PM	#61
thentian Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 694	There seems to be an assumption that the Pauline letters were widely copied and distributed quite early on - before the gospels were written. Do we know that?

04-13-2012, 09:26 PM	#63
thentian Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 694	What about other non-canonized scriptures, such as the Didache? Do we see reflections of the gospels in that, or vice-versa? Or can we see similarities between it and the epistles, and if so, can we tell which is reflecting which?

04-14-2012, 08:00 PM	#70
thentian Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 694	Whoever wrote "Clement's" letter isn't really important if what it says can be taken at face value... It does appear to have been written shortly after the deaths of Peter and Paul, informing the recipient about this. So perhaps it is fairly safe to say that it was written by whoever replaced Peter in Rome? It also seems to be paraphrazing Romans in a couple of places, and Hebrews in another, but has many more references to old testament books. Perhaps Paul's letters were not yet seen as "holy scripture"? Maybe the writer had simply been listening to Paul's sermons and gotten the same teachings as he also wrote in Romans and Hebrews? Though I would have expected him to know Romans, at least, being in Rome!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.