Bernard Muller

to aa,
Are you a lawyer or prosecutor? And what about this business of dealing with hostile witness? You should patent your method if you can interrogate, 1900 years afterwards, a hostile witness who was a liar impersonating somebody else.
You are taking that totally out of context. This is only propaganda, not honest historical research. I already wrote about that. Here is a repeat:
So what is left: in AH 2.22, Irenaeus, fighting against heretics who gave an one year ministry to Jesus,
Because he favored Jesus preaching at different phases of his life,
Because he hated heretics,
Employed gJohn for two things:
a) Through the three passovers, determined that Jesus preached for more than two years (which will be accepted by future Christians using the same "evidence", against what the Synoptics suggest)
b) Through another verse from gJohn dubiously extrapolated a 20 years ministry.
To make "sure" of his assertion, Irenaeus claimed John, way back around 4 generations before, and other apostles at that time, preached Jesus had a 20 years ministry. That proved to be a big lie. Probably the most obvious lie perpetrated by a father of the Church. A great weapon against any Christians who venerate those fathers.
In the process, Irenaeus either forgot or did not know about the length of Pilate's rule in Judea. Also, he did not consider Acts then.
He knew also about what "Luke" used from the OT to strongly suggest an one year ministry. The problem: the heretics were using the same OT verse to "prove" their one year, which Irenaeus opposed (furthermore the one year from gLuke was clashing with the more than two years from gJohn, and it is what Irenaeus exploited for his cause).
And before Irenaeus, no orthodox Christians we know of, not even Justin Martyr, proposed a duration for Jesus' ministry.
That pretty well says it all.
I put AH 2.22 in my website at:
http://historical-jesus.info/AH2.22.html

aa5874

So, how is it you use the WRITTEN words of the Pauline writer as EVIDENCE for his existence???

How is it you use the WRITTEN words of Paul to claim he was a Witness of events Before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE???

You use Paul as a WITNESS and then cannot understand how I can use Paul as a Hostile Witness.
That is a blatant double standard.

Irenaeus did NOT have gLuke and did NOT know of gLuke so could NOT have agreed that Jesus was thirty years old at baptism.

Justin Martyr wrote before Irenaeus and did NOT claim Jesus was baptized at 30 years of age.

gLuke could NOT have been know to the author who argued Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old because the author claimed the Gospel, John and the Other disciples did CONVEY that same information to the Elders.

gLuke does NOT state anywhere that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

Duvduv

Has anyone ever written about the role, if any, of John Chrystosom in the forgery industry?
He is identified as writing about the epistles early in the fifth century.

aa5874

I don't know if John Chrysostom had any role in the forgery industry but in a "Homily of Acts of the Apostles" John Chrysostom made a most startling statement.

Chrysostom claimed the book of Acts and its author were hardly known, that some did NOT even know that the book existed and that Acts of the Apostles was somehow "hidden" which implies that Acts of the Apostles could NOT have been Canonised or used in the churches.

The History of the supposed early church, Acts of the Apostles, was UNKNOWN by MANY in the Church

Homily 1 on Acts of the Apostles John Chrysostom has IMPLODED the history of the supposed early Church. Acts of the Apostles could NOT have been Canonised or was KNOWN to be in a Canon.

Only in Acts of the Apostles we hear of SAUL of TARSUS.

Now, if MANY did NOT know that there was a book called Acts of the Apostles then it can be logically deduced that MANY did NOT know of Saul of TARSUS in Acts even up to the end of the 4th century.

Duvduv

Which means that the Epistola Apostolorum was written in the fourth or fifth century.
It would be interesting to know whether John's homilies show that the epistles he discussed are the officially canonized paulines and whether there is any question of forgery.
If people didn't know about Acts, then there is plenty about Paul that they didn't know as this major apostle. In fact one should wonder what Paul even meant to someone like john without Acts and merely from some questionable letters which he bothered to write homilies about. And if no one knew about Acts then Irenaeus certainly wasn't from the second or third century.

Duvduv

Interestingly enough, in his commentary to Romans 1, John Chrystosom makes the assertion that God changed his name from Saul to Paul (akin to what happened to Abraham and Jacob). This does not even appear where it should, i.e. in Acts or Galatians (surely "Paul" would want to inform everyone that somehow God had changed his name to Paul!).

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. Why did God change his name, and call him Paul who was Saul? It was, that he might not even in this respect come short of the Apostles, but that that preëminence which the chief of the Disciples had, he might also acquire (Mark iii. 16); and have whereon to ground a closer union with them. And he calls himself, the servant of Christ, yet not merely this; [2] for there be many sorts of servitude.

Looking over the commentaries to the epistles it seems to appear that John had some kind of a task to SELL Paul as the blessed apostle to all those who as aa5874 pointed out, didn't know about him.

Duvduv

Here's what Chrystosom has to say about Paul's reference to "the gospel" in Galatians.......You see also that he believes that Paul knew about the canonical gospels.
Whence it is clear that the four Gospels are one Gospel; for, as the four say the same thing, its oneness is preserved by the harmony of the contents, and not impaired by the difference of persons. And Paul is not now speaking of the number but of the discrepancy of the things spoken. With justice might they lay hold of this expression, if the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differed in the signification of their contents, and in their doctrinal accuracy; but as they are one and the same, let them cease being senseless and pretending to be ignorant of these things which are plain to the very children.

And as a true salesman he asserts things about Paul that were never said or hinted by the Jesus figure himself or any other apologist concerning a single follower, i.e that Paul had the exclusive truth.... and overall he integrates the epistles with Acts as a matter of course. Indeed even in homilies having nothing directly to do with the epistles, such as the homilies on the Jews, Paul plays a prominent role. Where would Paul be without the efforts of this fellow John Chrystosom, or whoever wrote in his name?:

And Christ introduces Abraham thus speaking, to show that He would have the Scriptures accounted more worthy of credence, even than one raised from the dead: Paul too, (and when I say Paul, I mean Christ, who directed his mind,)prefers them before an angel come down from heaven.

Duvduv

The story of John Chrysostom seems to be clouded in mystery because sources don't seem to explain clearly how they knew about him, except for another source called Palladius who writes about him in his own Dialogues, but the true origins of Palladius himself seem to be shrowded in mystery.

Bernard Muller

Late 2nd to early 3rd cent. "fathers" who quoted and named 'acts of the apostles':
Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian & Hyppolytus.
Bits of 'acts of apostles' are found in earlier texts (97-150) (mostly paraphrased and distorted/added): John's gospel, Barnabas' epistle, Papias' writings, Ignatian letters & Epistola Apostolorum
Outside of 'Acts' and all Pauline epistles, in early texts (81-160), 'Paul' is mentioned in:
1Clement*, 2Peter*, Ignatian letters*, Marcion*, Epistola Apostolorum and Ptolemy*.
Note: * indicates mention of writing by Paul.

Duvduv

Bernard, isn't it interesting that a text attributed to Chrysostom would indicate that Acts was hardly known anywhere, the claims of "Irenaeus" some 150 years earlier to the contrary notwithstanding?

Haven't we already seen the serious problems with dating Irenaeus to the 2nd century?

Not to mention Clement and Tertullian. And while we're at it, throw in Origen.

Then we have to remind ourselves that there is not a single shred of text identified as written by Marcion, so it is impossible to know what he knew unless we accept with faith the statements of a fellow, a propagandist named Eusebius.

Finally, Chrysostom also did us the favor of complaining about how many Christians were observing Jewish practices, long, long after the so-called canon was identified by "Irenaeus" for "the Church",yet his life seems to be shrouded in mystery of sources as is the life of the writer who first mentioned him, Palladius.

Ultimately Chrysostom, IF he existed, serves merely as a salesman to sell the idea that the main teacher named Paul, whose mind was controlled by Christ...the mind of Peter or any others was not controlled by Christ, only this one fellow, who lo and behold had his name changed by God to Paul from Saul.

I think the proverbial description of this situation is called "Give me a break....."