Sheshbazzar

I do thank you for being the one bringing this matter to my attention Horatio, as I doubt aa would have been near so tactful and kind.

Guess I'll have to concede that one, as it had just slipped my mind for the moment.

I can only plead here....that there are factors of daily life that allow such mistakes to take place. ...such as;

At the time I was composing that post, SHE WHO MUST BE OBEYED! was hot on my case, insistent that we MUST go grocery shopping IMMEDIATELY!

So there were several errors that went unoticed, and when we returned from shopping there was not enough time to do more than a bit of spelling corrections, as are noted at the bottom of the post.

No one is perfect all of the time, living life as a human gets in the way.
I believe most married men will understand.

I still don't see that Roman centurian standing there with his jaw hanging open in rapt amazment that he is looking at The Son of God.



Edited to add Now I see just where I got -led- into thinking of this Roman centurion as being the only Jew to recognise Jesuz as being the Son of God.

Here is aa in Post #223
In reading and reacting to aa's statements I got snookered (look it up in the Urban Dictionary )


.

semiopen

CelsusCelsus was 177 CE which is probably after the gospels and Toledot is much later, so this is still not clear to me.

Might Jesus have been executed for adultery? That joke was probably old in 417 CE.

aa5874

The supposed early sources for the Pauline writings are Ignatius and an Anonymous letter written by the Church of Rome and attributed to Clement of Rome.

It can be shown that ALL supposed early sources that mentioned Paul are sources of fiction and fraud.

Let us examine the Anonymous letter of the Roman Church attributed to Clement.

The very first thing that must never be forgotten is that the actual author is NOT included or known in the letter itself and it must not be forgotten that the letter was composed by some unknown person of the Church of Rome.

There is no evidence whatsoever from non-apologetic sources that there was a Jesus cult Church in Rome in the 1st century.

Now when was the Anonymous letter composed??

The Roman Church does NOT know.

How is it possible for the Roman Church to have lost track of an Epistle to the Church of Corinth written by Clement a Bishop of Rome whom they claim was known by Paul??

In order to expose the fraud we will examine "Against Heresies" supposedly composed in the 2nd century.

Against Heresies 3.3.3 This is extremely important.

The supposed very first writer about Clement claimed he was THIRD bishop after the Apostles and that he wrote a letter as the Bishop of Rome when there was a Great Dissension in Corinth.

The Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth was supposed to be the Historical Marker for the Bishopric of Clement.

What went wrong??

Why did NOT the supposed author called Tertullian know that Clement was Bishop when there was a Great Dissension in Corinth??

The supposed author called Tertullian claimed that ROMAN CHURCH records show that Clement was bishop of Rome about 30 years earlier than suggested in "Against Heresies".

This would mean the Great Dissension in Corinth, if it occurred, also happened about 30 years earlier.

Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics
When did the Great Dissension occur?? Was it c 66 CE or c 95 CE??
When???

The Church of Rome does NOT know.

Ireanaeus is the guy who did NOT know when Pilate was Governor or Claudius was Emperor and now he does NOT know when Clement was bishopo.

Examine Letter 53 of Augustine of Hippo. What a calamity!!! What a disaster!!!

Augustine of Hippo now claims that Clement was Second--NOT Third--Not First.

When Did the Great Dissension of Corinth occur??

Was it c 95 CE, c 66 CE, c 80 CE???

The Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth must have been known by the Church of Rome.

Did they NOT admit a letter was written by the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth when Clement was Bishop??

Rufinus does NOT appear to know about the Great Dissension of Corinth.

Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions Rufinus still claims that Clement was Bishop of Rome immediately AFTER Peter but was THIRD. Effectively, Clement of Rome was bishop 30 years earlier than it is claimed in "Against Heresies" 3.3.3.

When did the Great Dissension of Corinth occur when Rufinus claimed Clement was Bishop immediately AFTER Peter supposedly died c 66 CE???

There was NO Dissension of the Church of Corinth because if there was there would have NO mistake at all when the Anonymous letter was composed.

It also follows that there was NO letter to the Church of Corinth about a Dissension because the letter from the Church of Rome to Corinth was NOT used as an Historical Marker for the bishopric of Clement by Tertullian, Augustine, Rufinus, and the Liber Pontificalis.

All so-called early writings that mentioned Paul are fraudulent and historically bogus.

ALL The Pauline writings were fabricated sometime in the 2nd century or later specifically to create a fraudulent history of the Jesus cult.

jakejonesiv

Neither am I, although it would change nothing. I am arguing that all of the Pauline epistles are inauthentic, written long after the purported time of the alleged first century apostle.

It is acknowledged by all but the most conservative and institutionally invested scholars that the books of the New Testamant were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. The single exception are the seven "authentic" epistles of Paul. If the authenticity of these epistles are lost, then the assumed historicity of Christianity before 70 CE is severely compromised.

But there is no bright dividing line between the deutero or minor epistles and the so-called authentic epistles. The separation is purely arbitrary. They are all, without distinction, pseudepigrapha. The external and internal indicators of authenticity are just as weak in the favored seven as they are in the acknowledged pseudepigraphia.

As I shall now start to demonstrate.

Jake

jakejonesiv

I want to point out that the presumed provenance of the epistle to the Romans is out of sync with the evidence.

Supposedly, we have the Apostle Paul ca. 58 CE writing to the Church in Rome, a church that is already familiar and in agreement with Pauline doctrine. As Van Manen noted, the presumed Christians who are the recepients of that letter must be Pauline Christinas who are fully aware of the nuances of Pauline doctrine. (Else the arguments "Paul" makes are indecipherable). Yet, we find as late as the middle of the second century the Roman church has scarcely any familiarity with Paul or his doctrines. Justin, his student Tatian, Papais and others had no information on Paul. What had happened to the illustious epistle and all the friends and supporters of Paul? Had they disappeared and left scarcely a trace in next generations? Had the epistle lain buried in the archives of the Roman church for nearly a century until it emerged again to the light of day --- in the possession of Marcion!?? Marcion brought a large monetary gift to Rome (as Paul was said to do to Jerusalem, and Simon Magus to St. Peter!).

There is something very wrong with the traditional dating of the Epistle to the Romans.

"In Paul's day there was no church there, according to Acts. But in our epistle there is already an established congregation before Paul visits. The text seems confused: Paul is pictured as the pioneer missionary to the gentiles, so he wants to exercise his ministry in Rome (verses 13-15). That would seem to mean he wants to found a church in Rome as he does elsewhere--but then to whom is he addressing? Are we to imagine him writing to a Roman church that does not exist? If there is one for him to write to, then it is too late to found the church, isn't it? It all makes more sense as the announcemnet of Marcion to preach among them a version of the gospel they may not have heard. We know he did, in fact, "audition" his gospel in Rome, hoping to be acclaimed bishop there."
(R.Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle, page 256).

We find the historical context in the epistle to the Romans to be that of Marcion's time, not the mid-first century. Romans 1:8-17 reads perfectly as a portion of a letter from Marcion to the elders of the second century Roman church!

Let's see how well a Marcioite origin fits with chapter one of Romans. Very well indeed!

Marcion's Letter to the Church of Rome


Romans 1:8-17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)


8 First, I [MARCION] thank my God ["my God, i.e. not the god of the Jews] through Jesus Christ [or Chrestos, you can't tell because of the Nomina Sacra] for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. [This world famous church could hardly have existed in the mid first century. But in the mid second century, yes.]

9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, 10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established;

12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. [The Roman church had not been preached the correct, i.e. Marcion's gospel]

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith."


Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

All extant versions of Romans contain sixteen chapters. But none of these texts date before the third century. And there are no citations from chapters 15 or 16 before the mid-third century, even when one would expect it. About 250 CE, Cyprian in Test. 3.68, 78 wrote about avoiding heretics without
referring to Romans 16.17-19 - surely he would have done so if he had known known the text.

There is strong evidence that Romans existed in earlier times in shorter versions. Even in extant texts, the doxology, the natural ending to the
epistle, (found in modern versions at 16:25-27) occurs in various places; at the end of chapter 14 (L), the end of chapter 15 (p46), and the end of chapter 16. Some witnesses have the doxology twice; after chapter 14 and after chapter 16. Such variation in placement of a text indicates interpolation.

What is the evidence that a shorter version of Romans existed in the second century CE?

The _Concordia epistularum Pauli_, a guide to themes in the letters cross-referenced to the Amiatine chapters, has no themes in Romans after XLII, referring to Romans 14:17ff, and XLIII, cross-referenced to Amiatine Chapter LI. This indicates an underlying text that stopped after chapter 14. The same can be deduced from the chapter headings of Codex Fuldensis, the last heading describing chapter 14. Thus, before ever examining Marcion's version we have evidence for a short form of Romans. In the course of textual transmission, it is much more usual for texts to be expanded that cut down.

The Marcionite Prologue to Romans refers to the letter being written in Athens! This would be impossible to believe if Romans 15.25-7 or Romans 16.1 existed.

Origen wrote that the Marcion’s version of Romans did not contain chapters 15 and 16.
“Marcion, by whom the evangelical and apostolic writings were falsified, removed this section [16:25–27 the doxology] completely from the epistle,
and not only so, but deleted everything from that place where it is written, ‘whatsoever is not of faith is sin,’ [14:23] right to the end.” Origen,
Commentaria in epistolam ad Romanos, XIV, 1290 AB

While it cannot be doubted that Marcion’s text did not contain chapters 15 and 16, it would appear that Origen was wrong when he surmised that Marcion had deleted it. Tertullian, Against. Marcion 5.14, refers to Romans 14.10 as ‘at the end of the epistle’. (This even casts into doubt the last part of chapter 14. See *Note below).

But Tertullian made no comment on the lack of the last two chapters. Now Tertullian was careful to note not only where Marcion’s text differed from his own, but also where Marcion’s text was by comparison missing. For example, Tertullian wrote that the Marcionite epistle to the Romans did not contain parts of Romans chapter 2 and most of Romans chapters 9-11. Tertullian’s lack of comment concerning chapters 15 and 16 indicates that these chapters were not in either Marcion’s version or Tertullian’s version. Not
in either one.

The very much undercuts the dearly held belief in the literary unity of the book of Romans; that St. Paul was not the author of the so-called
authentic epistles in their entirety.

What knowledge do we lose if chapters 15 and 16 are the work of one or more redactors? There are personal notes in chapter 1 and in chapters 15-16, but virtually none in the central part of the epistle. (the destination of Rome is even in doubt; various manuscripts related to the alleged 14 chapter form do not contain the reference to Rome in 1:7,15).

I think that chapter 16 is a a completely separate document and isn't even allegedly by Paul, it is by Tertius. In fact, without these chapters, Romans begins to look less and less like a letter, and more and more like a document of generic dogmatics.

It would seem likely that the 14 chapter version of Romans is the Vorlage or the sixteen chapter version.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Let's stick with Romans for a bit now. The original version was the shorter, 14 chapter version. This is the earliest attested version length, that of Marcion and Tertullian. Meanwhile, textual redactions added chapter 15 and then chapter 16. The fact that the longer version was known to Origin and not to Tertullian is evidence that the redactions had not spread as far as Tertullian yet.

Marcion and Tertullian's versions end with chapter 14. Neither Irenaeus nor Cyprian quoted from chapters 15 or 16. This is not a big deal concerning Irenaeus, but considering Cyprian's subject matter, he likely only knew the original 14 chapter version.

Codex Amiatinus, Capitulum L specifically refers to 14:15,17 and could denote the line of thought through 14:23. Capitulum LI refers to the doxology, now found at 16:25-27. There is no capitula for chapters 15 and 16. The wide dispersion of the Amiatine system is decisive evidence against the apologetic that it refers to a mutilated archetype.

Additinally, in some manuscripts of the Marcionite prologue to Romans indictate the place of composition was in Athens. (John Wordsworth, Henry White, "Novum Testamentum Latine", ii. 1, 1913, pp. 41-42.) This is quite impossible if chapters 15 and 16 existed.

Then we have the evidence of the 'floating doxology."

Even Origen sees the doxology after 14:23 in his version! What an odd place to put the doxology if this was not indeed the original end of the epistle? Origen is agreement with this positioning with L 181 326 330 451 460 614 1241 1877 1881 1984 1985 2492 2495 Chrysostom Cyril Theodoret.

It is much easier to explain the movement of the doxology from its original ending after 14:23 to the new endings after 15 and 16 respectively than it is to explain moving it from the end of 16 back to the end of chapter 14. If it is properly assumed that the doxology is the end of the letter, wherever it may be, how does it get stuck back in between 14 and 15 in Origen's version? It does not make sense. That is why the doxology appears _twice_ in a number of manuscripts, both after chapters 14 and chapters 16. A P 5 17 33 104 109 arm. And do not forget, the floating doxology appears after chapter 15 in P46 Chester Beatty. This suggests that a intermediate 15 chapter version of Romans once existed. In any case the unity of the canonical epistle is destroyed.

The evidence, then, is that the epistle to the Romans was known in at least two and perhaps three versions, 14, 15, and 16 and the shorter versions have the earliest attestation. The canonized text we read now in our Bibles was not the original from which all others fragmented, and then stitched themselves back together into pristine unity! This is preposterous. Instead, the epistle grew by redaction as did most texts in antiquity including the gospels. And we have seen that this process extended well into the third century. The canonized text is the result of the great normalizing recensions of the fourth century and beyond.

What we should take away from this is that much of the "historical" information concerning Paul in Romans comes from the 15th and 16th chapters, which are now seen to be too late to contain reliable information.

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

Toto

outhouse digression has been split here

Bernard Muller

Jake,
Clement of Alexandria quoted from Romans 15 & 16.
Cordially, Bernard

outhouse

<removed>