aa5874

Ancient sources is the logical step but you have gone the other way--modern opinion.

If we all depend upon our favorite expert then we are functioning as cults.

We must find credible "witnesses of antiquity" or even "hostile witnesses" to resolve the dating of the Pauline letters--not modern opinion.

1. We have copies of Apologetic writings from Contemporaries of Marcion who wrote NOTHING of Paul, the Pauline teachings and the Pauline letters to Seven Churches--See Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Minucius Felix.

2. We have an Apologetic who wrote about Marcion and admitted he did NOT use the Pauline letters but those of Empedocles--See Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies 7.

3. We have an Apologetic source which claimed the Pauline letters were composed After the Apocalypse of John--See the Muratorian Canon.

4. We have an Apologetic writer who claimed Celsus wrote Nothing about Paul--See Origen's Against Celsus.

5. We have an Apologetic writer who claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age under Claudius. Such a statement suggest that Paul's letters were unknown at the time--See Against Heresies.

6. Justin was a contemporary of Marcion and claimed it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets that were read in the Churches in the time of Marcion--See First Apology.

7. Ephrem the Syrian wrote Against Marcion and did NOT claim that Marcion used or mutilated the Pauline letters--See Ephrem's Against Marcion.

The mid-2nd century Churches did NOT need the Pauline teachings.

The conversion of Justin and Caecillius did NOT require the Pauline teachings.

The logical step is to argue that the Pauline letters were unknown by Marcion just as it was unknown to his Contemporaries up to at least 180 CE.

maryhelena

If this is the step you want to take: quote from your link.

Then, Jake, I don't find that a logical step at all!!

If one is upholding the idea of a historical flesh and blood NT Paul (of whatever dating) then perhaps one can lay this sort of charge against the Pauline epistles. i.e. after the death of Paul some people decided to write letters in his name - hence these letters are not authentic letters written by the NT figure of Paul.

But Jake, that scenario depends upon a historical flesh and blood figure of the NT Paul. The historical existence of this figure cannot be established. Therefore, this proposed scenario has no relevance whatsoever.

What we have are what is called the Pauline epistles. Somebody, or some people, wrote them. Regardless of when these epistles are dated - the material is what it is; theological/philosophical ideas. Naming these writings Pauline, serves only to name them, nothing else.

These writings are not inauthentic, they are what they are. All we can do with them is try and figure out what the theology/philosophy that they are promoting is. And yes, that theology/philosophy will be conditioned by the time frame from which it arose. That is not to say that there is no value in it. If value can be drawn from the Pauline epistles it would need to be expressed, demonstrated, in concepts that have meaning for our own 21 st century understanding of our human nature and our place in the world that we inhabit.

Jake, to label the Pauline epistles as inauthentic writings is illogical. That position requires a flesh and blood historical NT Paul - and there is no evidence to support the historicity of this figure.

The logical step to take regarding the NT figure of Paul - is that we are dealing with a "Paper Apostle", an apostle that exists only on the printed page.

aa5874

Of course, the Canonised Pauline letters are inauthentic--that is precisely what they are.

Agents of the Church claimed that all the letters under the name of Paul are well known and undisputed but that is NOT the case at all.

The Pauline letters to Seven Chuches were Unknown at least up to c 62 CE based in Acts and were Unknown by Apologetics up to 180 CE.

The existence of Paul does NOT even determine when writings under the name of Paul were actually fabricated.

stephan huller

That there were many, many gospels with different orderings of narrative is evident if we compare the Persian sage Aphrahat with the Epistula:

Harris demonstrates that Aphrahat's order agrees with the Arabic Diatessaron throughout http://books.google.com/books?id=Hft...ion%22&f=false The point is that we can begin to see by this perspective that Irenaeus's reference to a 'centonized-gospel' in the hands of heretics (AH Book 1) is clearly confirmed by reality. The order of the existing Diatessaron follows the canonical gospels especially Matthew and Mark. But this other Epistula gospel does not. It would appear 'centonized' to a Catholic.

stephan huller

From Harris:

Aphraates.*Diatessaron.

1. Sermon on the Mount: (= Diatessaron Ch. viii, ix, x.)
2. First case of healing (= Diatessaron the Centurion's son:Ch. xi.)
3. Stilling of the Storm, and expulsion of the legion of devils (= Diatessaron Ch.*xii.
4. Healing of Jairus's daughter, and of the woman with the issue: (= Diatessaron Ch. xii).
5. Healing of two blind men: (= Diatessaron Ch. xii)
6. Sending out of the Apostles: (= Diatessaron Ch.Xii.)
7. The woman who was a sinner: (= Diatessaron Ch. xv.)
8. Of the cost of building a tower: (= Diatessaron Ch. xv*fin.)
9. Expulsion of the devils and purifying of the house: (= Diatessaron Ch. xvi.*into.)
10. Parables of the Sower and the treasure hid in the field: (= Diatessaron Ch. xvi.)
11. Attempt to throw Jesus headlong: (= Diatessaron Ch. Xvii.)
12. Feeding of the 5,000: (= Diatessaron Ch. xviii.)
13. The Canaanite woman: (= Diatessaron Ch. xx.)
14. Healing of the man with an impediment in his speech: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxi.)
15. Healing of blind men: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxiii.)
16. Transfiguration: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxiv.)
17. Healing of the lunatic lad: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxiv.)
18. Warning not to despise these little ones: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxiv.)
19. The man with an infirmity of 38 years' standing: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxil.)
20. The rich young man receives counsel as to perfection: (= Diatessaron Ch.*xxviii.)
21. The rich man and Lazarus: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxix.)
22. The workers sent into the Vineyard: (= Diatessaron Ch. xxix.*fin.)

aa5874

The Diatessaron is irrelevant to the dating of Paul. It does NOT mention Paul or the Pauline teachings.

The Jesus story was known BEFORE the Pauline letters were fabricated.

An examination of Justin's Memoirs of the Apostles suggests that it contains passages found in the Four Gospels which indicate that the Memoirs of the Apostles is an early version of the Diatessaron.

1. Only in gMark and also the Memoirs of the Apostles

Mark 3:17 KJV Quote: And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder [u]Dialogue with Trypho] Quote: ......He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder..

2. Only in gMatthew and Also the Memoirs of the Apostles

Matthew 2:13 KJV Quote: ..... the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying , Arise , and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word : for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho Quote: .....Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Jud a.

3. Only in gLuke and ALSO in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Luke 2:2 KJV Quote: (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.).. Dialogue with Trypho Quote: on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth...

4. ONLY in gJohn and ALSO in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

John 1 KJV Quote: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....and the Word was made flesh First Apology Quote: ....(the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ...

stephan huller

but it is central to the tradition of the Encratites and they have a murky relationship with the apostle. it might also argue for a tradition of accepting Acts but not Luke

aa5874

But, which apostle are you referring to?? If the letters under the name of Paul had multiple authors then we cannot assume the Encratites had a murky relationship with the apostle.

Anyone could have written letters at any time claiming to be Paul.

The Pauline corpus have been corrupted supposedly without the knowledge of the Church when it should have been in their hands after delivery from the Pauline writers.

aa5874

Acts of the Apostles is an extremely significant book in the Canon.

Acts of the Apostles shows that neither Jesus, or the Pauline letters were in existence at the time when the Jesus cult of Christians began.

Effectively, the Jesus cult originated and developed WITHOUT Paul and the Pauline letters.

In fact, in Acts, the supposed actual Holy Ghost was the Power that caused the start of the Jesus cult.

Examine the supposed words of Jesus.

Whatever Jesus did in the past, whether or not he did miracles, his words and deeds became obsolete in Acts of the Apostles. The Holy Ghost must come on the day of Pentecost for the Jesus cult to begin.

There was NO Jesus and NO Pauline letters when the Jesus cult began in Acts.

It was the Holy Ghost that was Required.

Acts 1 The Baptism in the Holy Ghost Predated Paul and the Pauline letters.

The supposed early Jesus cult Never needed Paul and the Pauline letters in Acts.

The supposed early Jesus cult needed the Holy Ghost.

All the letters under the name of Paul were fabricated after Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles was first mentioned by name in "Against Heresies" composed c 180 CE or later.

Acts of the Apostles composed by an author called Luke is unknown by many Apolgetic and Christian writers of the 2nd century like Aristides, Justin Marty, Minucius Felix, Celsus in "Against Celsus", Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Arnobius, and Tatian.

The early Jesus cult was developed directly by the Holy Ghost--Not Jesus, Not Paul, Not the Pauline letters.

Without the Holy Ghost there would be NO Jesus cult based on Acts.

The Pauline letters are the LATE and Last invention in the Canon--no earlier than c 180 CE.

When Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50 years neither Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters were fabricated at that time.

stephan huller

Another observation about the gospel of the Epistula:

While the Epistula does not identify the same person as being 'raised from the dead,' healed from paralysis and having a withered hand, there is an underlying context to the Gospel of Truth's citation of the healing on the Sabbath which might fit here:

The identification of the man with the withered hand as a 'sheep' appears in Matthew.

But if the metaphor of the 'lost sheep' applies to the man with the withered hand, why does Valentinus (or whom ever wrote this treatise) reference his interaction with Jesus in terms of 'saving his life'? viz - "He saved the life of that sheep, bringing it up from the pit in order that you may understand fully what that Sabbath is"