Vinnie

Hello Toto, I'll list the evidence as I see it for a rapid dissemination and I am cutting them from something else I am working on so ignore the numbering. Also, there are definitely different orders to the letters in antiquity.

[L5] Several pseudonymous writings forged in Paul’s name attest to the rapid dissemination of Christian works. I referenced an article by E.P. Sanders above showing direct dependence of Colossians on the Pauline corpus. The author appears to have been aware of several of Paul’s letters.

[L6] Many scholars think that Ephesians used Colossians and possibly other works.

[T2] There is compelling evidence some of Paul's letters circulated to communities other than they were intended very early. Gamble writes, "The textual tradition of Romans and 1 Corinthians preserve clear indications that these letters circulated at one time in generalized or catholicized forms from which their local address (Rom. 1:7, 15; 1 Cor. 1:2), and perhaps other particulars (ROM 16), had been eliminated in favor of broad designations of their recipients ("Those who are beloved by God" [ROM 1:7]; and "those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus" [1 Cor. 1:2b])."

[T3] Ephesians presents us with a related case. The oldest and best manuscripts lack the address "in Ephesius" (1:1), but contain only the general and grammatically peculiar "to the saints who are also faithful." Ephesians is widely thought to be pseudonymous and addressed to specific historical, but not a local situation. Gamble writes, "The textual variants in 1:1 make sense only if originally there was no single address but different addresses inserted in different copies. If this is so, Ephesians was intended for broad dissemination from the outset and, like Colossians, offers indirect early evidence that other (authentic) letters of Paul were circulating outside the communities to which they were first addressed."

[T4] Many scholars are under the impression that several of Paul’s letters are composites, consisting of two or more letters. Paul’s letter to the Romans is a good example. That two letters of Paul were put together early indicates the possibility of them being collected. Though an isolated example is difficult to argue from for it is possible the same community that received both letters put them together.

[T5] The general state of the NT text ca. 200 C.E., indicated by papyrus evidence, is indicative of widespread use and copying. Gamble writes, “The number of corruptions in the earliest manuscripts indicates that during the first several centuries these texts were widely circulated and frequently copied and that Christian books were not reproduced under highly controlled conditions. This conclusion is born out by the fact that the great majority of textual variants in these documents that were ultimately included in the New Testament appear to have arisen by about 200 C.E. The relatively free transmission of early Christian texts, which resulted in a proliferation of individual variants and diverse textual variants, may indicate a greater interest in making these texts available than in the strict

[E1] There is evident a collection of Ignatius’s letters in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians as will be discussed later.

[E2] There is evident someone within the Pauline school appears to have imitated the structure of 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians and even referred to the “letters” of Paul which may provide evidence for the first collection (see previous discussion).

[E3] At the very least Paul envisioned the circulation of some of his letters. Galatians is addressed to the churches of Galatia. How Paul intended his letter to be circulated in several churches is not known for certain. He could have sent copies to each, he could have had the letter carrier proceed from one congregation to the next with the letter or have each congregation make their own copy. That the congregations made copies seems likely, since like us modern exegetes, they were probably not capable of digesting it all in one reading and would wish to retain a copy for further study and aid.
[E4] The Letter to the Romans is addressed to "all God's beloved in Rome" (1:7). The letter was addressed to different house churches in the city (see 16:5, 10, 11, 14, 15). Paul expected it to be circulated at least on a locale scale.

[E5] Colossians 4:16 urges a letter exchange between the Laodiceans, whereby, each group reads one another's letter. As noted above Colossians is widely thought to not be a genuine Pauline epistle but this does show that either the author knew Paul's letters were circulating or wanted to encourage this practice by offering a Pauline warrant. Gamble writes, "An exchange of letters between the neighboring churches of Colossae and Laodicia would be only a short step beyond the circumstances that obtained for the Roman letter and the Galatian letter. The author of Colossians obviously did not think that such an exchange would be considered extraordinary."

[E6] It might simply save time to point out the widespread use of several of Paul’s letters. Here is a listing of several works or authors that make use of several of the genuine Pauline letters: Ephesians, Revelation, Hebrews, 1 Clem, 1 Peter, John (not the gospel), Ignatius, Polycarp, James, Marcion, the Pastorals 2 Peter, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians. These are all texts or authors dating from the later first century to the middle of the second century. Paul’s letters were widely circulated in the church. What might be very interesting from all this is the possibility of dating Acts on this basis, but more on that later.

[S1] Marcion's edition in the mid second century contained ten letters of Paul arranged in this order: Galatians, 1-2 Corinthians, Romans, 1-2 Thessalonians, Ephesians (= Loadiceans), Colossians, Philippians and Philemon.

[S2] P46 is the earliest extant manuscript of Paul’s collected letters and is dated to ca. 200 C.E. It lists the letters in a different order from Marcion and one that goes by decreasing length. Romans, Corinthians (1-2), Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (1-2). This pushes the date of collection back to the middle of the second century as well since the collection comes from Egypt and the Pauline corpus includes Hebrews, both of which require sufficient time for development.

[S3] The Muratorian Fragment, if from the late second century lists the writings of Paul now found in the New Testament. It does so in an odd, order, however.

[S4] The evidence from E6 above can be cited. It shows how widespread the use of the Pauline corpus actually was.

[S5] Some scholars think a Seven-Letters of Seven Churches edition of Paul can be adduced by a number of indirect evidences. This is an old theory that suggests that Paul wrote to seven churches, seven being the number symbolic of totality or universality, meaning that Paul wrote to the entire Christian church. This is said to account for the problem of Paul’s particularity which did lead to textual corruptions and it matches the seven letters of Ignatius and that found in the Apocalypse of John. It also explains the origin of the codex. Gamble argues that whenever lists of Pauline epistles on the basis of increasing length are found, we find evidence of such a list—which includes p46 and most erly Greek manuscripts. He combs Marcion’s list and finds vestiges of such an order still present. Not all scholars have been convinced by this. Against this contention is the fact that it makes several assumptions, Galatians is first in Marcion and several other sources have different lists (Murtonian Fragment, Tertullian, Origen, etc.). If we place Marcion’s list in this category we have four of them. It is worth examining these arguments in full, especially since vestiges of the list in Marcion is only one of the indirect evidences. It must be noted that without Marcion a date earlier than the mid-2nd century is difficult to establish, however.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Its a fair point, but I am under the impression, since Christianity did not exist in any documented form before this, the individual in Paul must be recent. Do other purely mythical figures have historical details accrete 20 years from when they had actually lived? I ask that question out of a genuine desire to know the answer to it because I don't?

Vinnie

I don't think Paul "insisted" any HJ details. There is a clear paucity of them. I do think it obvious some of the other works were arguing against docetism which apparently had arisen by ca 100 C.E.

What Ehrman writes of the scribes is obviously true. What we also have to realize is that there is less motivation to alter Pauline texts before they became authoritative. I, as I mentioned above, am not saying they are perfect or even close to it. Just that the evidence makes them usable. And if spin wants to argue x, y and z passages are interpolations that is fine. I merely pointed out that if every potential reference to an HJ in Paul becomes an "interpolation" there are ulterior motives in arguing for interpolation. History has become the vehicle for anti-Jeseology. The arguments still have to be answered of course.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I would argue on the grounds of parsimony that some of the potential references to an historical Jesus go back to the historical Jesus. That is where I was going to take that. Sort of a meta-argument.

Personally he issue is not a big deal to me. I see two different media where overlap is not to be expected and only a paucity of HJ details. I was just trying a different route.

Vinnie

Vinnie

It would be illogical in my mind to push Christianity past Paul by too much. There is simply no indication Christianity existed prior to him. Unless you want to argue a house full of 6 people, or a family carried it on for a hundred years and then it just exploded. The HJ model or mythical model originating in the beginning of the first century fits Christian growth and a complete silence on it better. Not to mention all the other sources which do locate Christianity in this time period (connection with JBap, Pilate, urgent eschatology, ahistorical birth narratives etc etc. etc.).

Vinnie

Vinnie

Or he rejected them as unPauline. I think the pastorals are late (at least ca 100) but I have no preference in how late (possibly contemporaneous with Marcion). I think 2 Peter may be ca 130 but again slightly earlier is possible.

Colossians and Ephesians show signs of literary dependence on the Pauline corpus and 2 Thessalonians mirrored the structure of 1 Thessalonians and referenced Paul's letters. That Paul was used psedonymously indicates authority and spread of his letters. See all, all the things I listed in response to Toto above.

Vinnie

Toto

It was actually Walker who made the pont about the Pauline collections

Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles

How does this contract the idea that the letter were written as a collection of essays, not as letters?

This is only compelling to Christians

See Walker's comments in the thread linked to above. In fact, there is not a lot of variation, which might be explained by church control.

But we don't actually have Marcion's version...

This hypothetical "sufficient time for development" comes in handy.

I'm running out of time before the server comes down - more later, perhaps, but check out Walker.

Vinnie

P46 but you are probably right on this. Romans 16 is probably authentic.

Paul's letters would have accretions with or without the later authors writing in his name.

I am convinced the gospel of Mark is enough to infer the historicity of an individual behind it. Paul certainly helps.

Yes but authors can change their mind, write in stages, contradict themselves etc. arguments from "this represents a later time" can be supplemental but they are highly speculative and of themselve incapapble of sustaining an argument.

The best arguments are the ones to vocabulary and word statistics, a lack of a chronological fit and direct literary dependence and imitation. All of these "presuppose" in some small way the integrity of the authentic Pauline corpus. Do you see that?


Yes, lots of discourse issues...



I have not yet seen any evidence that these passages are interpolations. If you would like to present some I always enjoy learning something new.

Vinnie

bacht

I would dispute this, but I don't think anyone claims anymore that Hebrews was written by Paul. The whole letter is based on the heavenly status and actions of Christ as a new high priest in the spiritual temple. The few references to his suffering and execution do seem to imply a location on earth, but I can't read the Greek to see if the English translators have slanted the original.

aa5874

All the writers of the NT propagated a God/man Jesus who was betrayed, crucified, resurrected and ascended to heaven. Such a God/man is mythical by description and can only be deemed historical by references to external sources.

The Pauline letters contain unsubstantiated claims about Jesus the God/man and are in effect no different to Marcion claiming that Jesus the son of a God was in Capernaum or anywhere in Judaea.

There is simply no external source that mentioned a God/man Jesus as a Messiah, or son of the God of the Jews. Philo and Josephus made no references to any character called the God/man Jesus the Messiah, Christ, Lord and Saviour.

And it is actually irrelevant to claim that the Pauline letters preceeded any written Gospel when it was claimed that that the Apostles preached about Jesus the God/man before Paul was converted after he was blinded by a bright light.