Maklelan

The question of which epistles existed was not a concern then. The fact that these people don't quote those epistles certainly doesn't mean they didn't exist. It suggests that they were not known to the authors or were not considered important or authoritative. What it does not suggest is that the epistles were all composed together as a fraudulent package deal. I don't believe there exists any evidence whatsoever that such is the case.

Has any of it actually been published in peer reviewed forums within the last, say, 25 years?

That's quite a silly website.

Vorkosigan

The epistles were packaged together because they constituted an epistolary novel. In the fashion of ancient novels and epistolary collections, other writers then added to the bunch. The Ignatia are of course another good example of an epistolary novel; Ignatius may or may not be a fiction but his adventures certainly are.

A good start on understanding this is Rosenmeyer's Ancient Epistolary Fictions (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

The Pauline writings themselves do show that they were NOT written at the time claimed by the author or apologetic sources.

The author of Galatians implied he wrote the Epistle around 17 years after his conversion, perhaps around 50 CE.

It can be shown that Galatians was likely written, AFTER gLuke, AFTER gMatthew, AFTER the Interpolated gMark, or AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

It is extremely significant that Apologetic sources place Paul AFTER gLuke was written and gLuke is deduced to have been written AFTER the Fall of the Temple, after gMatthew and after gMark. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25. and the "Commentary on Matthew" 1.

Now, the Epistle to the Galatians contain information that is found in the INTERPOLATED gMark.

The Commission to preach the Gospel by Jesus cannot be found in the EARLIEST gMark nor can it be found that the Church would be built on Peter the rock, but the Galatians writer claimed he was COMMITTED to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles like Peter who was Committed by Jesus to preach to the Jews.

In the EARLIEST gMark, the very last act of Peter was to DENY knowing Jesus and there is NO further interaction of Jesus and Peter.

It is in gMatthew 16.18 that Jesus told Peter that he was the rock of "his church".

In Galatians 1.17 and 2.1 the Pauline writer claimed the apostles were in Jerusalem but neither gMark nor gMatthew made such a claim. In gMark and gMatthew, the disciples were supposed to meet the Resurrected Jesus in Galilee.

ONLY in gLuke, the meeting place was CHANGED to Jerusalem. Only in gLuke, Jesus told the disciples to preach the Gospel starting in Jerusalem.

Luke 24.47-49
Matthew 26:32 - Matthew 28:7 -
Mark 14:28 - Mark 16:7 - The authors of gMark and gMatthew claimed the resurrected Jesus was to meet the disciples Galillee but the author of gLuke claimed Jesus met the disciples in Jerusalem and that Jesus asked them to REMAIN there until they receive the Promise of the Holy Ghost.

The Epistle to Galatians was written AFTER gLuke, After gMatthew, After gMark and After the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

All the so-called authentic Pauline Epistles were COMPOSED AFTER the Fall of the Temple and most likely AFTER the writings of Justin Martyr c 150 CE.

There is ZERO non-apologetic evidence that any Pauline Epistle was written, received, known or circulated before the Fall of the Temple.

Duvduv

Why would a Roman hear about Jesus from any believer who would never tell someone that he was a man crucified for introducing new things?
At the very least he would be given some spiritual or theological explanation. A holy man sent by God.
The description from the citation from Lucian sounds rather fishy.

Duvduv

Sorry, I don't find it a silly website at all.

Maklelan

I can see that. You and several other posters here seem to be quite smitten with several of these ideas. There's a reason that you have to go to the very fringes of the academy or back a hundred years to find any professionals to cite, though, and it's not because everyone else is too afraid of the truth.

aa5874

It is quite illogical to use the numbers game when arguing with people who hold the fringe that position that Gods do NOT exist.

Using the word "fringe" is horribly irrelevant when dealing with WRITTEN EVIDENCE from antiquity.

People here want EVIDENCE from sources of antiquity not popular opinion.

The PAULINE writings can be shown to be historically and chronologically bogus using the ABUNDANCE of written statements in the very Pauline writings and Apologetic sources.

An Apologetic source claimed Paul preached Jesus Christ to the Gentiles all over the Roman Empire but Justin Martyr wrote of NO such thing.

Justin Martyr claimed it was 12 illiterate men from Jerusalem that preached the gospel to every RACE of men.

"First Apology" Justin Martyr did NOT write that PAUL was preaching to the Gentiles while the disciples were in Jerusalem.

The Pauline writings were UNKNOWN to the Justin Martyr and had ZERO influence of his writings up to the mid 2nd century.

DCHindley

Duv,

According to experts, it was a marketing ploy similar to that employed by bakers. Add a 13th book, Hebrews, to an even dozen, and viola, a baker's dozen, which gave it the edge over Marcion's plain ol' 10. Nobody buys 10 donuts!

DCH

Vorkosigan

ROFL.... I was waiting for this comment.

Maklelan

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not playing a numbers game and the position that "Gods do NOT exist" is not at all a fringe position in biblical scholarship.

I haven't seen much evidence from antiquity. I've seen selective quotes and naive and undisciplined assumptions imposed upon them in order to draw out certain conclusions, but I see no real objectivity or awareness of the primary texts at work in that process. Take the "Chrestos" nonsense, for instance. I've shown how the texts have been misunderstood, misrepresented, and manipulated, but I know that it's not going to change anyone's mind. It doesn't appear to be so much about what the texts say as what they can be made to say.

So the thousands of people out there in academia with a decade of formal training under their belts who make their living out of coming up with something new and original to say about these topics are just ignoring the evidence and making stuff up? The people who really understand are the people without the training who make a hobby out of this and are quite invested in a particular broad position?

This all sounds an awful lot like this post. Are you the author of that post? Whether you are or are not, it rides on the rather ridiculous notion that if Justin Martyr didn't write about it, then it didn't happen. Additionally, there's quite a bit of evidence that Justin did know Paul. He not infrequnetly drew scriptural quotations and interpretations from him. For instance, in the text cited above, Dialogue 39, Justin draws an almost verbatim quote from Rom 11:3–4, which quotes two non-consecutive verses from 1 Kgs 19, and he uses Paul's non-Septuagintal version. In Dialogue 95 Justin quotes Paul's non-Septuagintal version of Deut 27:26 from Gal 3:10 and borrows his interpretation of it in reference to Christ. In the next chapter he then quotes Paul's version of Deut 21:23b from Gal 3:13. A couple good discussions of Martyr's use of Paul are Oskar Skarsaune, The Proof from Prophecy (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 92–100, and Andreas Lindemann, Paulus im ältesten Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979), 363–67.