gurugeorge

Between 70 CE and 130 CE (with 130 CE as the latest possible consensus scholarship date I've seen for the composition of Acts).

Duvduv

This is a question for the experts on the books of the heresiologists/historians. As far as I am aware, there is not a single ancient author who cites text or ideas in either Acts or any pauline epistles that is substantively different than the canonical versions. Am I correct on this?

In other words, does a single ancient author ever "quote" any text from any epistles that does not appear in the canonical versions, or cite an epistle that is not included in the canonical ones? Is there a single author who relates material from Acts that does not appear in the canonical version of Acts?

If there are no such differences, this would seem to indicate that there were never any known versions of Acts or the epistles that were significantly different that the canonical ones, and that no fragments of such alternative versions exists.

Adam

The Western text of Acts is known to be significantly different than canonical Acts. It may have been too little known to have been quoted by anyone. This would seem to indicate that your conclusion is wrong.

Duvduv

Not necessarily if this is a known version of Acts with some known differences, which according to Wiki is 10%, i.e. that the western version is 10% longer and may merely represent a first draft of the canonical Acts. But is there anything in any writings of heresiologists suggesting some unknown versions of Acts with Paul's life, or unknown versions of the epistles?

aa5874

Again, your statement is EXTREMELY significant.


Now, The writings that show NO or little significant variation are most likely Later.

And this is PRECISELY what has happened when New Testamentr manuscipts were ANALYSED for Textual Variants.

gMark had the MOST Textual variatians and the Pauline letters had the least which suggest gMark was most likely EARLIER than the Pauline letters.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Only 45.1 % of gMark is variant free--LESS than Half of gMark shows NO differences in Text.

In fact, all the Canonised Gospels show many Textual variants and do NOT EXCEED 60% VARIANT FREE VERSES but the Pauline letters supposedly written BEFORE gMark and the Gospels show the same or similar Vaiations as the supposed LATER Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

75.5 % of Romans, 75.7% of 1 Corinthians, 78.1 % of 2 Corinthians, and 76.5% are FREE of Variants which is similar to 81.4 %, 79.5 in Epistles to Timothy and 71.7% in Titus.

Virtually every analysis of the Pauline writings do NOT show that they were written EALRLY or before c 70 CE.

Duvduv

What about citations in the books of the heresiologists?
Are we to assume that they never cite any unknown texts attributed to Acts or the epistles? Which means that there is no evidence of any texts of the epistles that is unknown to the canon?

aa5874

Let us NOT assume. We have New Testament manuscripts that have survived and THEY CAN BE EXAMINED for Textual Variants.

We would Expect MORE TEXTUAL Variations in an EARLIER story than a Later story.

When several Greek New Testaments of gMark are Examined it seen that MORE half of the book of gMark contains Textual Variants.

When the Pauline writings are Examined the Textual Variants in the so-called authentic lettters are FAR less than gMark and the other Gospels and are Comptaible with the LATE epistles like Timothy, Titus and Hebrews.

The Pauline writings, every single one, from Romans to Philemon, show LESS Textual variation than Acts of the Apostles.

No need to assume. The analysis of Textual Variants of Greek New Tesatment Texts suggests Acts of the Apostles and indeed the other books of the Canon are EARLIER than ALL so-called authentic Pauline writings.

Only 52% of Revelation is FREE of Textual Variants but 78.1 % FREE in 2 Corinthians and 67.3% in Acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_T..._New_Testament

Duvduv

If no apologists ever cite unknown references from epistles or Acts then it is a good bet that no alternative versions ever existed, the claims about Marcion nothwithstanding. There are suggestions of some interpolations such as in Romans where Tertullian fails to mention the seed of David, but this isn't the same as alternative versions of epistles.

If no apologists ever mentioned alternative or competing epistles even by other groups, or alternative books of Acts, one must assume that the canonical versions are all that ever existed in the name of Paul. This would itself lend credence to the argument of one basic source for them even if more than one hand was involved in writing them.

Duvduv

There is apparently no source or hint in the writings of the apologists that suggests alternatives to the assorted contradictions below found in the canonical set of epistles, such that there existed only the canonical set containing contradictions suggesting composites but produced by one source.

Galatians 1:11 It is Jesus who revealed himself to Paul.
Galatians 1:15 It is God who revealed the Christ to Paul.

God is the Savior in 1 Timothy and Titus, whereas Jesus is the Savior in Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Timothy.

1 Timothy 2:
“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

2 Timothy 1: This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus.

God is over all in Ephesians 4 but Jesus is over all in Romans 9.

The "churches" were of Christ in Romans 6 but of God in 1 Corinthians 11.

The kingdom belongs to Christ in Colossians 1 but belongs to God in Colossians 3.

The Judgement Seat belongs to God in Romans 14 but to Christ in 2 Corinthians 5.

Paul is a servant of God (and apostle of Jesus) in Titus 1 but a servant of Christ in Galatians 1.

spin

This is not correct. Gal. 1:11 says that Paul had a revelation of Jesus Christ, ie the revelation concerned Jesus.

This is all nitpicking. Jesus is the agent of god. This means he is over all and god being over him is over all (including Jesus).

And more of the same.