andrewcriddle

Allusions and or citations by Clement of Rome Ignatius and Polycarp.

I agree that the Pastorals (first alluded to by Polycarp) are more weakly supported than most of the other Paulines; but a/ I accept on internal evidence that the Pastorals (certainly Titus and 1 Timothy probably 2 Timothy) are non-Pauline, b/ Without this internal evidence against authenticity, I think the evidence from Polycarp onwards, (Polycarp was writing 60 to 70 years after the putative date of the Pastorals), would incline me to authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver

I've read the article before, but missed the part where Price says, "given his [Paul's] Roman citizenship . . . ."

That surprises me. Our only source for Paul's citizenship is Acts, and Price, if I remember correctly, does not trust Acts any farther than he could throw it.

maryhelena

The "period covered by the Gospels" could mean two things. It could mean just the historical time period in which the gospel storyline is set. Or it could mean that the gospel storyline, that is set within the historical time period, is viewed as being historical. Option two leads to the assumption that the gospel storyline, historically, preceded Paul. While it could be a bit of a chicken and egg scenario, the early documents at hand suggest that it was the writing of Paul that was first. No written gospel story before Paul - no reading that gospel story into the writing of Paul - then, what remains is option one, the historical time period in which that storyline is set.

Paul says others preceded him - not the 'others' in the gospel storyline. The 'others' would be historical people from the historical time period in which the gospel story is set down. Paul is late to the party - not the gospel storyline party. Paul is late to whatever were the pre-Paul origins of early christianity.

Step 1) the pre-Paul historical environment from which other people developed certain 'salvation' ideas. Probably involving a literal Jewish Messiah figure.
Step 2) the writing of Paul re a spiritual 'salvation' messianic figure.
Step 3) the gospel Jesus storyline, a storyline recreating in symbolic form the origin story of what became christianity.
Step 4) Acts.

The issue is not whether or not Paul knows the gospel storyline re Jesus - to suggest that he did not is unrealistic - it's the game plan that is relevant. A developing storyline. Not just new insights over time but a plan regarding how the insights that were known were going to be re-told. Not all the apples and oranges in one basket. Different ideas needed to be told within different contexts. The pseudo-historical gospel story and the more spiritually focused writings of Paul - are - the 'body' and 'spirit' of the new christian theology.

Is Paul' writing authentic? Is 'Paul' himself authentic, was he historical or is the name 'Paul' simply a pseudonym? I doubt that answers to these questions will be found within the writings of 'Paul'. At this stage with no answers to these questions - all one can do is to try and get a clearer picture of what are the historical roots of early christianity. With that picture in hand then questions re 'Paul' might get answered. Step 1) has not been established - so attempting to climb up onto Step 2) without a sure foothold on Step 1) could lead to a sprained ankle or two from its very slippery surface...

aa5874

Once a person questions the authenticity of any text then the very text under scrutiny cannot itself be the evidence of its own authenticity.

Internal evidence is generally accepted as the weakest type of evidence and the weakness of the internal evidence of the Pauline writings is further compounded once it is ADMITTED that more than one person used the name Paul and that the letters show signs of tampering or redaction.

The Pauline character, the Pauline resurrected Jesus and Messiah, Creator, Equal to God, who was resurrected for the REMISSION of the sins of Jews, simply cannot be found anywhere before the Fall of the Temple.

And to further weaken the internal evidence an apologetic source claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

It is extremely significant to understand that it was the Church historian himself who claimed there was a tradition that "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke.

This can be found in the "Church History" 3.4.8 Now, gLuke has been deduced to have been written AFTER the Church historian claimed "Paul" died.

According to the Church historian, Paul died under Nero BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and gLuke has been deduced to have been written AFTER the death of Nero, the Fall of the Temple, AFTER gMark, gMatthew and possibly AFTER the writings of Josephus.

But, now look at this statement from the Church historian.

"Church History" 3.3.5 The authenticity of the Pauline writings are without doubt highly questionable. It is evident that NOT even the Church historian corroborated "Paul".

So, according to the Church historian Paul wrote 14 UNDISPUTED epistles and was ALIVE after gLuke and the Epistle to the Hebrews were ALREADY written.

The authenticity of the Pauline writings are without doubt highly questionable. It is evident that NOT even the Church historian corroborated "Paul".

Not even the Church itself knows what "Paul" wrote, when he wrote and when he actually lived and died.

The authenticity of the Pauline writings are in SHAMBLES.

Doug Shaver

His real name could have been anything. But unless we're going to constantly use the locution "the author of the letters attributed by scholarly consensus to Paul," we might as well call him what he called himself. Then we can argue about his true identity, i.e. was he actually a Christian missionary of the mid-first century etc. etc.

Yes, I'm aware of that. In general, though, the figure of authority was someone who actually existed, or in any case was widely believed prior to the writing of the text to have actually existed. I am aware of no other instance in which the figure of authority was invented ad hoc coincident with the writing. If, in so saying, I am revealing nothing but my own ignorance, I await enlightenment from any knowledgeable source.


Well, we know that at least half of them were not -- six entire epistles apparently were forged, and we're not sure how much of the others are interpolations.

Of course it's possible that not a word in any of them is authentic, but we dare not ape the apologists' habit of inferring must-have-happened from could-have-happened. To support a thesis of total forgery, we need some facts that are inconsistent with the present consensus. I have yet to see any such fact.

I don't recall suggesting that we would not. I simply note that the writer, whoever he was, claimed to have contacts in Jerusalem. I also suggest that, considering it is not exactly an extraordinary claim, we should take his word for it that he had such contacts absent good evidence to the contrary. One example of good evidence to the contrary would of course be positive evidence of second-century authorship.

What does Paul say about Jerusalem that we know was not true in the mid-first century?

I have never argued against heavy editing or any other kind of editing. All I'm arguing against is the inference from some forgery to total forgery. We justifiably believe there was some forgery because we have evidence for some forgery. We do not have evidence for total forgery.

Neither would we expect a Valentinian document to have been canonized.

If the author was already powerful, why would he not have been able to push his own agenda unchallenged?

And if you're saying he was powerful but not that powerful, what would have made him think that he could impress his adversaries by quoting someone they'd never heard of (which is, in effect, what he would have been doing)? If his own authority was not sufficient for promoting his doctrines, why would anyone take his word for it, if his say-so was all they had, that there was this first-century apostle, of a stature equal to the 12 original apostles appointed by Jesus himself, who promoted those same doctrines?

The way I recall the story, only one of the books attributed to Moses (Deuteronomy) was found under suspicious circumstances. The other four already existed, though not yet in their present form.

To your point, though . . . from everything I have read about the history of ancient Israel, Moses was indeed more or less a household name by the time Deuteronomy was allegedly discovered. Whether anybody had heard of him before J, E, and P started producing their documents, I have no idea.

Please understand, I don't think for a second that Moses was a real person. For your analogy to work, though, the earliest document in which he is mentioned would have to have been known to exist within one or two centuries after the Israelites' alleged escape from Egypt.

I think the evidence suggests that that is just what happened. Since we agree on that much, the question becomes: What is it about the evidence that makes it likelier that the extant Pauline writings are entirely forged than that some of them contain some material that is authentically Pauline?

That is not very different from how I would describe what I think did happen. So, apparently it's safe to assume that it could have happened in either case of (1) the extant Pauline corpus is entirely inauthentic or (2) some of the epistles contain some material that Paul actually wrote.

I think (2) is the more parsimonious case, but I'm not sure how I could prove that. Would you like to take a shot at proving that (1) is more parsimonious?

aa5874

Well, you have shown by YOUR own words that the AUTHENTICITY any Pauline writings cannot be assumed.

You simply do NOT KNOW or is NOT SURE who wrote anything in the Pauline letters.

All the information to date the Pauline writings before the Fall of the Temple may have been added by an interpolator.

But, it is ABSURD to assume authenticity when you admit to forgeries and possible redactions. It is not at all necessary to show total forgery of the Pauline writings to doubt the authenticity of the Pauline writings.

It has been deduced that:

1. More than one person wrote Epistles under the name of Paul.

2. The Church itself did not know or appeared not to know what "Paul" wrote or when he wrote.

3 There are signs of interpolations.

4. There are no external corroborative sources for the existence of "Paul".

5. There are no external corroborative sources for the Pauline resurrected Jesus Messiah, Creator who was equal to God.

6. Justin Martyr cannot account for anything Pauline up to the middle of the century.

7. The Pauline writers made claims that appear to be non-historical.

There is no need to show total forgery just to show that even apologetic sources, the Church itself, cannot properly account for "Paul" nor explain how his writings were manipulated without their knowledge.

Once it cannot be shown that the historical data in the Pauline epistles are credible then authenticity cannot be assumed.

stephan huller

But because the Marcionites and the Catholics agree on SOMETHING being authentic within the Pauline collection, it is impossible to argue that IT IS ALL FAKE. That's just ridiculous and utterly implausible.

We can argue over what 'authenticity' means exactly. Maybe Paul wasn't the name of the original author. I don't know. But there is something 'authentic' within the Pauline corpus. This is indisputable.

aa5874

Please state what Marcion himself said about any one of the Pauline writers.

Was it not the very Church or agents of the Church who were making claims about Marcion?

And was it not the very Church or agents of the Church who did not know or appeared not to know what or when their OWN "Paul" wrote?

Was it not the Church or agents of the Church who did not know or appeared not to know the chronology, dating and authorship of of their own Gospels?

There is no need to argue that all the Pauline writings are fake just to show that there are historically unreliable and that authorship is questionable.

"Tertullian" claimed Marcion mutilated the Epistles to Timothy and Titus when both "Paul" and Marcion may have DIED before they were written.

What something do you ASSUME is 'authentic' in the Pauline corpus?

No-one needs to argue about the meaning of 'authenticity', just find an external corroborative source of antiquity for any one of the Pauline writers. You should be able to find something for at least ONE. There were many.

stephan huller

I don't know how to answer this question. I guess I think some/most of the Pauline corpus is authentic because I assume that in its original form it was a marvelous declaration of the essential nature of Christianity. I have problems of course with the Catholic interpretation of the identity of the Apostle and his ultimate subordination (see Knox). But at the core I accept the Marcionite notion that this Apostle wrote the original gospel. In other words when he says 'according to my gospel' he means a written text written by him.

As such this 'commentary' really marks the beginning of Christianity.

This isn't the interpretation you'll get from real scholars. But my interest has always been to make sense of Marcionitism.

Again, the fact that the Marcionites and the Catholics agree on something (in spite of their differences) argues for the authenticity of some/most of the material. At least according to my way of seeing things.

aa5874

May I remind you that "Tertullian" in "Against Marcion" ADMITTED that the document which he attributed to Marcion really had NO AUTHOR .

May I remind you that "Tertullian" did not even know or appeared not to know who wrote All the Pauline Epistles or when they were written.

The Church writers who told us what they think Marcion wrote gave us bogus information about the authorship of their OWN Canon.

Again, it was the Church writers who told us about Marcion. The Church writers have credibility problems.

Please identify statements from Marcion himself that he was in agreement with the Church.