aa5874

We don't have enough extant sources or evidence of antiquity presently to discuss who wrote the Fake Epistles using the name Paul or who actually wrote "Against Marcion" under the name of Tertullian.

I can ONLY use sources of antiquity not my imagination.

It would appear that 4th century Church writings may have been Manipulated.

Duvduv

If Athanasius of Alexandria established his canon collection in 368 - if this is correct. - then it means at least the community in Alexandria knew about epistles and gospels after Nicaea, this means the texts had been written by different groups after Nicaea, where the creed did not explicitly make Jesus a physical being.
And since the texts contradict one another it stands to reason they were written in different places, though with a general Markian template and a Pauline template for the epistles.
So we can ask who did them, where and when?

Kent F

It's a weird theory to assume that everything was written in the 4th century or even later. The texts don't correspond to one another because they were not written at the same time and also because some of the texts, like the Pauline epistles, did not belong to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the first place.

I mean, how likely is this scenario: Some members of the RCC decided to create a new religion from scratch some time in the 4th century and they started with the four gospels, making them disagree with one another. Then they perhaps continued with the letters of Peter, James and John, closer to their hearts, and maybe also Acts.

Then they went totally maniac when creating the Pauline epistles. Not only did they make the epistles ridicule their own invented founder Peter, they let them contradict almost everything written in Acts. And why name this epistle writer Paul? Why not choose a name like John, the disciple whom Jesus loved? Why not within the epistles make sure that the writer was familiar with Jesus' mission on earth? Why not throw in a mention or two of the virgin Mary, Jesus miracles, Lazarus, the empty tomb? Why leave all of this out?

Or, if the RCC fabricated the Pauline epistles first, they then had to invent the Pastoral letters to show that their invention Paul was no gnostic in his invented epistles, and on top of that they invented Acts to show that their invented apostle Paul was merely a spokesperson for the likewise invented Peter?? I can't help but laugh at such a theory.

Isn't it obvious that the epistle writer didn't mention Jesus mission on earth because he was not familiar with that story? He wrote earlier.

And if Irenaeus is an invention, why make him the first one to quote the Pastoral letters and Acts? Why make him the first to name the four gospel writers? Why place him in the 2nd century? Why not place him earlier?

Justin didn't quote the Pauline epistles because they belonged to the Marcionites, and they were likely written by Marcion. Paul=Marcion. Marcion "preached another God", a higher one, and when one reads the Pauline epistles, it's clear that he preached another God. And his Jesus was a spiritual being. References like "born of woman" was not present in the Marcionite version of the epistles.

But I guess the heretic Marcion was another invention by the RCC? So they invented a gang of heretics with a set of beliefs contrary to their own and then invented a whole stack of books where the invented heretics were condemned by invented Church fathers??

How can anyone take such a theory seriously?

The Pauline epistles are interpolated, yes, and this in itself is proof that they were not originally part of the RCC. Why the need to interpolate what they had originally invented? Are there any scholars claiming that the truly catholic works Acts and the Pastorals are interpolated? If not, why not?

Duvduv

You make some very valid points, Kent. I would just like to point out again that it is unlikely that Ireneaus just happened to appear in the mid-2nd century equipped with the 4 gospels and the epistles whereas a mere 30-40 years earlier Justin, had none of them. And it is fishy that Justin, who lived at the same time as Marcion, would not mention a single thing coming from anything written by Marcion, including any epistles and gospels in his Apology.

I doubt that Ireneaus or Tertullian were writing at the end of the 2nd century, and I certainly don't see as likely the idea that Marcion "collected" the epistles, as I have written before.

On the OTHER hand, I cannot imagine that all these contrasting texts were the work of some Central Committee of the 4th century churchmen. Why would they write an epistle like Galatians and a gospel like Matthew, which have virtually nothing in common except the idea of a Christ savior?

Why does Acts not teach the idea that "Paul (The Small One)" emphasized salvation with the indwelling of the Christ and vice versa? Or why do the epistles not mention even once the Baptist?

Yet on the THIRD hand, even the Creed of Nicaea of 325 has nothing identifiable from the doctrines of the epistles or the gospels, and one would wonder why they starting appearing only a few decades later.

aa5874

How can anyone take your theory seriously?

Clement of Rome who was supposedly Bishop of Rome from sometime around 67-68 CE to 99 CE was a CONTEMPORARY of PAUL and KNEW Paul wrote Epistles to the Church of Corinth.

Explain why the RCC would claim Clement of Rome was aware of Pauline Epistles?

Epistle to the Corinthians" attributed to Clement 1 Corinthians1:12 - Well, if Marcion=Paul and Marcion lived up to the mid 2 century, about 100 years after the supposed Paul of the NT, then STOP Guessing...the RCC invented a Gang of Apologetic writers.

Duvduv

......you mean they also invented gospels of four different theologies, and epistles of several different groups and doctrines.........WHO WERE THE RCC who did the inventing and didn't bother to keep everything comparable to one another??

aa5874

If Marcion=Paul then the Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans attributed to Ignatius are inventions.

Epistle to the Romans ATTRIBUTED to Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians attributed to Ignatius So, if Marcion=Paul we NOW have 2 Apologetic sources that were INVENTED, wholly or in part, by the RCC.

1. Writings under the name of The Bishop of Rome called Clement.

2.Writings under the name of the The Bishop of Antioch called Ignatius.

The List will get longer if Marcion=Paul.

mountainman

How? By examining with some care another item of evidence - a manuscript and text of the "Historia Augusta" (History of the Caesars) that was manufactured in the 4th century and dedicated among others to Constantine. The "History of the Caesars" is described by most academic classical history scholars as a MOCKUMENTARY. It is characterised by:

1) invented sources
2) hundreds of forged documents
3) the novel appearance of other fabricated sources who argue and disagree with 1)

The "History of the Church" is of the same genre - a "mockumentary".

http://www.livius.org/hi-hn/ha/hist_aug.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustan_History
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...ia_Augusta.htm


You are forgetting the fact that someone in the early 4th century also blatantly forged the Pauline-Seneca letter exchanges. Julian called it a fabrication of wicked men.

The bottom line in all this enquiry by duvduv is that the bible writings were not introduced via peer review but by the sword. The appearance of the bible followed closely on the heels of a massive war between the west and eastern Roman Empire. It may have been produced as part of the war effort. One of the Nag Hammadi codices (dated mid 4th century) tells the following story:

mountainman

Additionally, to be explained, are the appearances of over 20 Gnostic Gospels, 30 Gnostic Acts, 6 Gnostic Epistles, and a dozen Gnostic Revelations/Apocalyses. For a complete list of the non canonical books see this index.

Duvduv

Good points, Mountainman. So the $50,000 question according to the scenario I was trying to (re)construct, is WHO were the authors of everything from Galatians to Matthew to the Gospel of Peter to the Infancy Gospel to the Gospel of Thomas from among which the sponsored "orthodox" were adopting the NT texts, especially seeing as how the official creeds progressively introduced new elements in the 4th century.
The most important being: Virgin -> Mary, Pilate, "according to the scriptures," though "Paul" and the sacred writ of the NT gospels surprisingly get very little attention.