aa5874

Why would the gospel writers need information from the inventor of Paul, when this inventor only mentioned one single brother for Jesus called James, not even mentioning his so-called mother Mary or supposed father, Joseph.

The gospel writers seemed to think that Jesus had several brothers and sisters and wrote the entire genealogy of Joseph upto the 1st man Adam. And they even thought Jesus was a carpenter or a carpenter's son.

I think Paul's inventor didn't realise the gospel writers also invented James, because if he knew James was fabricated, I don't think they would have written that Paul saw James and Peter.

And, the NT placed Peter and Paul preaching to the Jews and Gentiles when the Jewish Temple was still functioning and after someone was crucified for blasphemy.

Can you imagine under those circumstances that Peter or Paul could have preached the good news/gospel of Jesus to the Jews.

Galations 3.13
With the Jewish Temple still in place, before it's destruction, Galations 3.13 is not good news but perhaps more like blasphemy or lunacy.

Paul's revelations are only relevant after the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

neilgodfrey

Agreed. But if we bring the dates of Marcion and Clement / Ignatius into some sort of overlap, then don't we have another problem . . . .?

Justin surely knew of Paul. My point about Justin not mentioning his name is that it was not the done thing (and it's still not the done thing today in many quarters) to mention the names of the heretics -- Death to them by silence. If that was the status of Paul in the circles of Justin, then how do we explain his high esteem in Clement and Ignatius? --- If indeed they were around the same period as Marcion?

Why would Clement and Ignatius have thought highly of an apostle who was beloved "of the heretics"?

By speaking highly of Paul's correspondence (with no hint of defensiveness that a controversy would have required, and as we see even 2 Peter) would they not have been knowingly giving succor to their enemy?

Is it not strange that the only positive references we find to Paul's correspondence are in these sources which are questionable on other grounds as well.

What we would have, then, is a time when Paul was well known (around the mid-first century); a time when he disappears from the scene; then a time when he is known again (Clement and Ignatius); then disappears again except for Marcionite areas (Justin); then re-emerges with Irenaeus and Tertullian who are desperate to rescue him from the Marcionites et al.

Possible. But, simpler to see him has being coopted by the non-orthodox from the beginning. No?

aa5874

There is no information at all in Justin Martyr's extant writings to confirm or indicate that Justin surely knew "Paul".

Justin never mentioned the name Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, the letters to the seven Churches or epistles to Timothy, Titus or Philemon.

The notion that Justin would not mention the name of heretics is contradicted by Justin himself when he mentioned Marcion, probably the most notorious heretic.

And, based on the NT, it is extremely dubious to think that Paul who would have had over 100 years of continuous history with the Christian Church who preached Christ crucified, resurrected and the son of the God of the Jews could have been coopted by the non-orthodox.

Doug Shaver

As long as we're speaking in the broadest possible generalities, I would in general agree.

If someone shows me a more specific hypothesis about how and why the Paul character was invented, then I'll see how credible I think it is.

Roger Pearse

This grossly misrepresents Tertullian's views.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

It's a simplification of a complex issue. Jerome sees the high priests as little 'christs' in anticipation of Jesus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

I do not think Marcion can very well overlap the usual date given for 1 Clement; and what would be the problem exactly if Ignatius and Marcion flourish at roughly the same time? (Perhaps I am just not seeing it.) If Ignatius slightly precedes Marcion, there is no need to look for Marcion in Ignatius.

(I am not saying that the Ignatian epistles are absolutely certainly genuine, BTW; I am open to arguments of forgery.)

I think we are speculating by this point. We cannot know exactly what Justin thought of Paul if our extant texts do not mention Paul.

Furthermore, it is possible for one circle to hold a person to be a heretic while another circle does not. The same happened with Origen, for example.

Why would Irenaeus? The brute fact is: It happened. It still happens, even today.

Ben.

neilgodfrey

If Justin knew of Marcion so well then it is hard to avoid thinking he must have known of Paul, too.

As for the Paul being long known to have taught about Jesus, all the points you listed appear to have been taught also by Marcion --except for one: that Jesus was "the son of the God of the Jews". Jesus was the son of God in both Marcionism and Paul.

neilgodfrey

By itself, yes. But I was not discussing "Tertullian's views" -- only one of his statements that I thought had relevance to the discussion.

neilgodfrey

I won't argue here the merits of the dating of 1 Clement and Ignatius. Your argument is reasonable given your view of their dates and apparent nature.

In the case of Paul's letters, it appears they had to be sanitized and reinterpreted (even redacted) before they could be accepted -- hence the Pastorals and Acts (not that the letters are discussed here, but Paul himself is recast to provide an alternative frame of reference for interpreting his letters). So there was more to his writings than the fact that one group accepted them and another did not. The fight became not one over whether one should embrace Paul's writings, but over what Paul's teaching was.