Bernard Muller

Very interesting indeed, Andrew. See also the conclusions here.

My observations:

1 Corinthians:
... the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was delivered took bread: [11:23b]
And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, this is my body, [11:24a]
which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. [11:24b]
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, [11:25a]
this cup is the new testament in my blood; [11:25b]
this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [11:25c]

gMark:
And as they did eat, [14:22a]
[Jesus][He] took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take this is my body. [14:22b]
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. [14:23]
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the testament, [14:24a]
which is shed for many. [14:24b]
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, [14:25a]
until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. [14:25b]

gLuke (majority text):
And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: [22:17]
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, [22:18a]
until the kingdom of God shall come. [22:18b]
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body [22:19a]
which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. [22:19b]
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, [22:20a]
This cup is the new testament in my blood, [22:20b]
which is shed for you. [22:20c]

I think:
a) "Mark" knew about 1 Corinthians (here & about the Lord's command about divorce): see underlined italics text.
b) "Luke" knew about gMark (see purple color text), but made two major changes: reversed the order (from bread => cup to cup => bread) and skipped Mk 14:24.
c) Then 1 Cor 11: 24b-25 (see sienna color text) was added with Mk 14:24b (purple italics text).

One more reason for interpolation: why in gLuke, only the bread/body offering is associated with "in remembrance of me"? why not the cup?
However the passage in 1 Corinthians is a lot more logical in this regard: both the cup/blood and the bread/body offerings are "in remembrance of me".

Also, the interpolation introduced the idea of atoning death, which is not in evidence in 'Acts" and other parts of gLuke, but certainly is in the Pauline epistles.

Cordially, Bernard

aa5874

The author of the short gMark did NOT know of the Pauline writings. There are many many clues that clearly show the author of the short gMark had ZERO knowledge of Paul, Zero knowledge of the Pauline Post-Resurrection claims and ZERO knowledge of the Pauline teachings from the Resurrected Jesus.

1. The Pauline teachings are far advanced of the teachings of the Jesus character in gMark.

Paul preached man is not justified by the Law.
The Markan Jesus preached man first obey the Law to get eternal salvation.

Galatians 2:16 KJVMark 102. The Markan Jesus was NOT a universal Savior.

Mark 4 3. The early story of the short gMark claimed the Resurrection will happen AFTER THREE DAYS. It is the Later stories and the Pauline letter that claim Jesus was raised ON THE THIRD DAY.

Sinaiticus gMark 8Sinaiticus gMark 9Sinaiticus gMark 10 The Pauline writer wrote after the short gMark story.

1 Corinthians 15:4 KJVlong gMark 9:31 KJVlong gMark 10:34 KJV 4. The author of the short gMark did NOT know of the Pauline story that there was an Apostle named James who was the Lord's brother.

Sinaiticus gMark 3 None of the Gospels named an Apostle called James who was the brother of Jesus.

Galatians 1The Sinaiticus gMark has destroyed all claims that the Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE.

Remember:

1. Paul claimed he was a Persecutor of those who believed the Jesus story.

2. Paul claimed he got his revealed teachings from the Resurrected Jesus.

3. The short gMark ENDS exactly at the Resurrection.

4. The Pauline Revealed teachings begin some time AFTER the Resurrection.

The story of Jesus MUST predate Paul's Letters once he admits he was a Persecutor.

The very Canon shows without reasonable doubt that the author of earliest story of Jesus did NOT use and was NOT aware of the Pauline Jesus, the Pauline revealed Teachings from the resurrected Jesus, the Apostle James the Lord's brother, and that over 500 people was seen of Jesus.

The Post Resurrection visits of Jesus to the disciples, apostles and OVER Five hundred people in the Pauline writings is AFTER the short gMark story was already composed.

The Pauline letters are all after at least c 70 CE or after the short gMark story was composed.

tanya

I do not trust any "apologetic" source.

Part of my concern is found in the discrepancy between one text and another, on the same subject matter.

Part of the concern is an understanding, no matter how unsophisticated, of serious alteration of texts, for a variety of reasons, often political, so that the true intention of the original author is unknown.

Part of the concern is based upon my own ignorance.

Part of the concern is based on the hope that we will one day uncover a cache of hidden texts, two thousand years old, which will resolve some of the outstanding issues.

What I like about Justin Martyr's sole manuscript is this, Jake: I don't believe that the 14th century Roman church authorities would have necessarily agreed with the text of our only extant copy. That text fails to mention Paul, or his epistles, leading someone like me to imagine that Paul's epistles didn't exist in the mid second century, or, else, if they did exist, then, the epistles must have been regarded by mid second century nascent Christians, like Justin Martyr, as irrelevant. Surely, in the 14th century, the scribe rewriting Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, could have done a better job of forgery, had he been instructed to do so, based on this error of omission in the original Greek text. I think it is probably a fairly accurate copy, with only the usual scribal errors, unlike the scenario with Tacitus' Annals, where there has clearly been an attempt to forge the text. Maybe I give too much credit to the papacy, but I think that if they had wanted to forge Justin Martyr, they could have done a much better job in the 14th century. The fact that it is in Greek, not Latin, is a point in its favor, as far as I am concerned. We should recall, in my opinion, Jake, that the Muslims had attacked Constantinople for a good century before it finally fell, in 1455. Lots of Greeks fled to Italy, bearing manuscripts, and my guess is that this manuscript that ended up in an Italian monastery, had originally been copied by monks living in Constantiople, thus shielded from the papacy.

After the fifth century, i.e. Jerome, did anyone in Roman territory know of Justin's work? I suppose that his texts had disappeared, for a thousand years.

I am prejudiced against "Marcion", not only because we have nothing of his extant today, but also because Tertullian's work describing Marcion is in Latin, not Greek, though both Marcion and Tertullian would have written in Greek, in my opinion. That's a problem I observe, or sense, maybe improperly, with many extant works, like Pliny's letters and Tacitus' Annals. I have trouble imagining those guys writing in Latin, instead of Greek, just as we do not send messages back and forth in French, our common, ancestral language. English, not French, is the language of the empire, and therefore we use English. I think the same was true back then. Greek was the language, not Latin.

Scholars I trust: names: hmm. I trust Hermann Detering. I do not trust Bart Ehrman. I have lost faith in his mentor, Bruce Metzger. The palaeographers of the 20's and 30's are sympathetic folks, but I doubt very much their conclusions, using papyrus from Oxyrhynchus as a standard, to date the various styles of writing.

I am afraid Kenyon et al were insufficiently detached from the assessment process. I think that for that era, they did a decent job. I cannot write the same for Clark Hopkins. I find his excavation very sloppy, and missing the security which is so essential for those who follow him, to accept his findings. "Discovering" a fragment of the Diatessaron, on the soil, is just beyond my ability to comprehend, especially when Hopkins acknowledges finding huge caches of papyrus documents, which disintegrate right before his eyes, so, no, I don't buy the whole Dura Europos story.

I don't trust any apologetic source per se. I do accept that almost all of them, however, enjoy a skill with languages which I lack, so when one of them writes that he or she has discovered a new version of Mark, definitely dated to mid first century, based on analysis of the Greek text, it is very difficult for me to find a suitable method to refute their allegation. I am floundering, basing myself on prejudice and opinion, rather than data.

I deny your supposition, Jake, that we possess "better" manuscript evidence, for patristic authors, other than Justin. I doubt any manuscript dated post Constantine. Almost all of the extant gospels, created after Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, have been tampered with. I am reasonably confident that those two tomes are also filled with deliberate changes in the original text.

Why I dislike folks jumping on aa5874, is simple, I don't like disparaging remarks about any forum member. Please remind me of that, when I write something unkind, as I have been guilty of doing at times!!! aa5874 is one of the most creative and interesting members of this forum, in my opinion. So are you, Jake!!!!

Cheers,

stephan huller

Now that this thread has lasted for 873 posts can we get a summary of the arguments in favor of a second century dating for Paul other than:

1. the manuscripts are only that old (or younger)
2. there is no (reliable) evidence for a first century dating of Paul; 'reliable' = evidence which doesn't contradict the second century hypothesis.

Again, what is actually the evidence in favor of a second century dating for Paul (other than the reasons already given and the old fall back- 'Detering says its so').

aa5874

<snip>

No-one in the 873 posts has put forward any real evidence or source of antiquity that show the Pauline letters were composed before c 62 CE OR before the Jesus story was known. No-one.

Duvduv

The scribes and their bosses in the imperial scriptorium were evidently not all that sophisticated to begin with, considering the quality of their productions. But given the ongoing competition and wars with Persia and the need to stabilize the Byzantine regime, they did their best. Of course it all happened apparently stage by stage. They put together letters always presented by the "apologists" as a set which cannot even be shown to have been actually written or received by anyone in any so-called existing Christian community.

Duvduv

Tanya, I like your points. However, assuming something totally original because the 14th century monks ought to have included more information may also be a matter of high expectations, especially if what the monks were engaged in was a cut and paste process of a newly discovered text which may originally have had nothing to do with Christianity at all (not unlike those to Theophilus and Athenogoras, which AA loves so much!).

Toto

You can find most of the case for the second century origin of the Pauline letters if you read Robert M. Price's Evolution of the Pauline Canon. He surveys all of the variant opinions on dating the writing and collection of the epistles. He is working on publishing a translation of Van Manen's work.

Basically -

It isn't just the date of the manuscripts. There are no quotations from the Pauline epistles in the first or most of the second centuries. From Price's essay above "As just mentioned, E. J. Goodspeed and Walter Bauer (together with Hans von Campenhausen and others) have maintained that throughout the second century we meet a crashing silence as regards the Pauline Epistles. Justin Martyr, in his voluminous writings, never mentions Paul. When he is mentioned by various writers, Paul has nothing distinctive to say, is a pale shadow and obedient lackey of the Twelve, as in Acts. When Ignatius, Polycarp, and 1 Clement (all much too blithely taken for genuine early second-century writings, in my opinion) make reference to Pauline letters, as Bauer noted, they sound almost like an ill-prepared student trying to fake his way through a discussion of a book he neglected to read..."

The letters in general, and Galatians in particular, seem to be written in response to Acts, which can be dated to the second century.

There are Gnostic concepts in the Pauline letters; Gnosticism is usually dated to the second century.

aa5874

This is exactly what I have been posting for years right here on BC&H.

The Pauline letters were unknown in multiple supposed 2nd century writings.

I have hundreds of posts, perhaps thousands, where it is seen that all NT authors did NOT use or make references to the Pauline letters or quote a single ten word phase from any passage of the Pauline writer.

It was no surprise to me learn that Scholars have deduced that the Paul/Seneca letters were forgeries.

It was no surprise to learn to me that Scholars have deduce the Pauline letters are products of multiple editors.

The most devastating writing which has destroyed the entire history of Paul and Pauline letters forever is "Against Hersies" 2.22 which confirms that the author actually knew NOTHING at all of Paul, Nothing at all of the Pauline letters when it was argued Jesus was about 50 years at crucifixion being about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius.


"Against Heresies" 3.33 also Exposes the forgery called 1st Clement which was supposed to have been written sometime between c 92-101.

MULTIPLE writers including Augustine of Hippo, Rufinus, Optatus and Tertulian claimed Clement was bishop between c 68-80 CE.


They knew NOTHING of the Clement letter c 92-101 CE.

And even more devastating, an Apologetic claimed he had a LETTER from Clement himself to show that he was Ordained by Peter.

The Preface to the Recognitions It is all over for Paul and the Pauline letters.

Paul and the Pauline letters are part of a massive fraud carried out sometime after c 180 CE.

How could Clement be bishop of ROME c 92-101 but it was UNKNOWN by Augustine of Hippo and multiple Apologetics?

The chronology of the Bishops of ROME was NOT known to the Church of Rome for hundreds of years!!!

Marcion was long dead before the Pauline letters were invented.

jakejonesiv

Dear Toto,

This is a very good discussion. I have but one minor suggestion. Yes, Galatians and Acts grew in "conversation" with each other, but otherwise, the Marcionite Recension of the Pauline epistles preceded Acts of the Apostles.

A number of NT scholars have found that the author of Acts did know of the Pauline epistles. These include William O. Walker, Heikki Leppä, Michael D. Goulder, Richard I. Pervo, Hermann Detering and Robert Price. John Knox found that the author of Acts suppressed mention of the epistles to domesticate Paul—and through Paul, Marcion.

Non-mention of material does not equal to non-existence if it can reasonably be argued the material was purposefully suppressed.

The author of Acts knew that Pauline authority derived from the epistles written in his name, but he effectively took them away from Paul by never openly acknowledging them. The author of Acts knowingly suppresses the Paul of the Epistles and dilutes his uniqueness by taking away some the signature features assigning them to Peter. The line between Peter and Paul is smeared. The author of Acts put the Pauline teachings of the epistles and into the mouth of Peter (Acts 15:7-11), while Paul and Barnabas are reduced to telling miracle stories (15:12)! It is Peter (not Paul) who receives divine revelation to eat with Gentiles. Peter supplants Paul with the first conversion of a Gentile, Acts 10:1-11:8. The Paul of the epistles proclaimed the grace of God and the end of the Torah (law). But Acts portrays Paul as a Torah observant Jew, and Paul went along with some elements of Torah were required even of Gentile converts, Acts 15:19-21.



In the Pauline Epistles, Paul is an apostle because he received his authority directly from Jesus Christ in vision by direct revelation. Acts has three contradictory accounts of Paul's vision (Acts 9, 22 and 26), and never once does the author of Acts confer the title of apostle to Paul for visions. Instead he is a witness (martus), a self-witness is not sufficient.


In Acts, Apostleship is redefined (from a witness of the Risen Jesus) to exclude Paul. When discussing a replacement for Judas, the requirement is stated, "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" Acts 1:21. Thus "Matthias; ... was added to the eleven apostles. But please notice that by requiring that an Apostle had been a companion of the [alleged] earthly Jesus, Paul is excluded, and his title of Apostle denied.


The catholic author of Acts was out to neuter the fire breathing Apostle who thundered that anyone who opposed his gospel was to be accursed. Galatians 5:2 states "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Acts turns Paul into a milksop and a toady. He directly undercut Galatians 5:2 with Acts 16:3. "Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."


After Paul is torn down from his lofty position as the “Apostle of the heretics” and made subordinate to the Jerusalem apostles (who are the proxies of the Roman church), he is remade into a good catholic saint, a heroic figure indeed, but no longer a threat to the authority emerging catholic church. The “Acts of the Apostles” was written for this very purpose; to create the illusion of harmonious Christian origins.


We have identified the historical rational for Acts that fits very well with the results of a historical-critical study of the Christian sects of the middle second century CE. Marcion had appeared with the first canon consisting of ten Pauline epistles and an early version of the Gospel of Luke. Marcion challenged the authority of the Roman church (which appealed to Peter and the Twelve Apostles) and dismissed the validity of the Hebrew scriptures to Christianity. The Acts of the Apostles countered Marcion by subverting the epistles, demoting Paul to a lower position as a good catholic, and by insisting that Jesus and the apostles fulfilled prophecies, paved the way for the inclusion of the Hebrew scriptures in the Christian Bible as the Old Testament.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV