andrewcriddle

IMO all of the 13 Pauline letters in the NT canon have good enough early external attestation that someone arguing against authenticity has the burden of proof.

In the case of Titus and 1 Timothy there is enough internal evidence to establish inauthenticity and this is probably true for 2 Timothy and Ephesians but not IMO for the other nine.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Since by his own account Paul's involvement with Christianity started after the period covered by the Gospels, I would not expect them to mention Paul.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

But the argument that someone had to write the Epistles therefore Paul wrote the Epistles is most illogical.

It is just as illogical to claim someone had to write gMark therefore it was Mark.

Please state the source of such a culture. Not even in the Church was such a culture tolerated. Please name a school of antiquity which taught people to wrongly attribute authorship.

Tertullian will show what happened to the presbyter that was CONVICTED of wrongly attributing writings to Paul.

According to Tertullian a presbyter was REMOVED from his office for false attribution to Paul.

Tertullian's "On Baptism 17 So, based on Tertullian if it was known that writings were wrongly attributed to Paul then those writings would have been removed and the guilty removed from office once in a position of AUTHORITY.

There is NO evidence that there was an acceptable CULTURE of falsely attributing writings to authority except perhaps among criminals or those involved in counterfeit.

spamandham

You're correct of course.

spamandham

What external attestation are you referring to?

avi

Thank you for this second example, previously, we discussed together the same problem, with Psalms 110:1.

The question here is the credibility of Paul, and in particular, whether or not, his Jewish credentials are believable.

My concern, which I have debated earlier with Doug and others, is this: how do we know, whatever it is that we think we know, about Paul, or any of the other authors of the first three hundred years of the common era?

Here's what I could find:
Romans 10:13
Hort & Westcott:
Codex Sinaiticus:
Joel 2: 31

Not found in Codex Sinaiticus; Here it is in a later version, of unknown date of creation, transliterated:
hebrew:
English: (King James version, virtually identical to Douay-Rheims version)
Latin Vulgate:
This is not the first debate on this issue: Here is a snippet from an earlier dialogue:

That's Kristian's view, and I believe, SNM's as well. It is not my view.

I do not accept the proposition that the 70 Jewish scholars, who created the Septuagint from a written text, not from oral tradition, would have accepted referring to Yahweh as Kurios. In my opinion, the notion that the LXX scholars would have used Kurios, instead of Theos, is 21st century re-interpretation of history.

I explain the omnipresent "kurios", and not a single instance of "theos", as representing intervention by Lord Constantine. Do we have any document, older than Sinaiticus/Vaticanus with LXX? I suppose not, sorry to acknowledge.

The reason for pursuing this question in a thread on the credibility of Paul, is this: do we have the slightest idea who he was, what he wrote, or when he lived? I doubt it.

Yup, maybe, perhaps, ok,
BUT, how do we know whether or not that acknowledgement ("by his own account") is genuine?
Where is the independent source to confirm any of this?

Now I have learned where Doug Shaver picked up that line of argument!! haha.

Good. Ok, so I must bear the burden to prove that "Paul" did not write the 13 letters, because there is such a plethora of evidence supporting the notion that he did compose them. Andrew, please, a single reference here, would be good. I hope it is not Eusebius.

Um, well, though I bear the burden of proof, I can't even find Joel 2:31 in Codex Sinaiticus, so, I am an unlikely candidate to succeed in such a demonstration, much as I would enjoy doing so. My starting point is this business of Kurios. Why that?

I am struck by the fact, not myth, not opinion, not conjecture, that Constantine, "LORD" Constantine, considered himself to be on a plateau with Jesus. We know this, not only from the written record, but more importantly, from that nifty English mosaic, featured in the recent BBC telecast. There was good ole Lord Constantine, wearing the mantle of Jesus, i.e. the chi rho symbols associated with him. Even the BBC was confused, thinking that the mosaic must represent Jesus!!!

I believe, without evidence, just simple faith, that this whole nasty business of changing the texts to read kurios, rather than theos, dates from Constantine, and reflects his evident narcissism, not the mentality of the ancient Jewish scholars who created LXX.

avi

aa5874

But, this would mean the Pauline writings are NOT credible.

There is no external evidence that the Gospels are historical accounts of Jesus the Messiah with his 12 disciples.

And further, many of the events in the Gospels are known fiction or cannot be shown to have ever occurred at any time to any person in the history of mankind.

The Gospels ALL end at a non-historical resurrection and some at the ascension, and "Paul's OWN ACCOUNT begin after the fiction of the resurrection.

The Pauline writings are NOT credible. His involvement with the RESURRECTED Jesus the Messiah, Creator of heaven and earth is simply NOT true.

The Pauline writings appear to be a pack of lies when he claimed he received DATA, historical information, his gospel and apostleship from a RESURRECTED dead and that he stayed with an apostle Peter for fifteen days when Peter in the Gospels was a fictitious character who WITNESSED fictitious events.

aa5874

But your claim of "good enough external attestation" makes very little sense once you ADMIT that there are inauthentic letters among the 13 letters.

It would appear that the Pauline writings were written to deceive and that the deception is now being uncovered.

How could a letter in the hands of the Ephesians Church, supposedly written when "Paul" was alive, be a forgery?

Why would an UNKNOWN forger just write a letter to the Ephesian Church when there is no benefit whatsoever for the UNKNOWN counterfeiter?

It was the Roman Church who benefited from the Pauline letters including the fraudulent letter to the Ephesians Church. It was the Roman Church that Canonised the bogus letter to the Ephesians Church.

The bogus Ephesians Church letter and those to Timothy and Ttitus MUST have been AUTHORISED by the Church.


Based on Justin Martyr, there appears to be, NO SAUL/PAUL, NO Pauline character, NO Pauline Churches, NO Pauline doctrine and NO Pauline letters.

The Pauline writings were written to historicise fiction. All of them

1Co 11:23 - The Pauline writers received NOTHING from the resurrected dead but LIES.

The Pauline writings cannot be presumed to be authentic at all.

Johnny Skeptic

Why should the burden of proof apply to every single verse of the 13 Pauline letters?

If 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 was an interpolation, what would indicate to you that it was an interpolation?

What early external attestation are you referring to?

stephan huller

Let me give an example of how shallow the traditional interpretation of Paul is. How many of you have heard the nonsense that Marcion's gospel began with Galatians? I am sure many of you believe this yourselves. But what you likely don't know (everyone except for Andrew Criddle of course) is that Ephrem's community placed letter to the Galatians FIRST in its canon.

Why does this matter? Well let's forget Epiphanius because he is a moron. So we have Tertullian telling us - no, that is accurate. We have Tertullian's arguments against Marcion's canon REFLECT AN ORDER that starts with Galatians. Tertullian never says "these damn Marcionite's screwed with the proper order of the Apostolikon!" Whoever wrote the material that eventually got incorporated into the Five Books Against Marcion, he accepted the order of the Pauline canon started with Galatians.

Indeed the only thing that 'Tertullian' says about the text is "we too claim that the primary epistle against Judaism is that addressed to the Galatians." (AM 5.2)

Now I think there is enough evidence to suggest that the original material which makes its way to Book Four and Five of the Five Books Against Marcion came from the hand of an original author whose gospel was the Diatessaron AND THEN CHANGED TO REFLECT A LUKAN GOSPEL BY A CATHOLIC EDITOR (perhaps Tertullian himself). The repeated references in Book Four to things taken out of Luke which never appear in Luke is the clear give away. I have read Williams article and many others and no satisfactory explanation has ever been formulated. The Diatessaron hypothesis is the only one which makes sense. The original author is accusing Marcion of removing things which appeared in his gospel which included Matthean and Lukan elements.

If this situation is accepted it is only a small leap to assume that the original author who employed a Diatessaron LIKE EPHREM had a canon LIKE EPHREM. In other words, the Galatians-first canon was a reflection of the original author ATTACKING Marcionite canon rather than the Marcionite community itself.

What do I think started the Marcionite Apostolikon?

The Epistle to the Corinthians.

I don't know for sure but I am quite aware that there a number of references to the primacy of Corinthians that other scholars haven't quite seen. They all come from Tertullian's Against Marcion.

The first appears in Book Three of the series where Tertullian cites the contents of the apostolic canon against the Marcionites:

Even the heretics' own apostle interprets as concerning not oxen but ourselves that law which grants an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, [1 Cor. ix. 9] and affirms that the rock that followed them to provide drink was Christ, [1 Cor. x. 4] in the same way as he instructs the Galatians that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham took their course as an allegory,[Gal. iv. 22, 24] and advises the Ephesians that that which was foretold in the beginning, that a man would leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife would become one flesh, is seen by him to refer to Christ and the Church. [Eph. v. 31, 32] [Tert. AM iii.5]

The clear implication of this passage is that THIS IS THE ORDER of the texts in the Marcionite canon despite what we have come to believe from Patristic sources.

The same order of epistles is demonstrated in Against Marcion Book iv Chapter 5 where Tertullian looks at the canon and says:

Let us consider what milk it was that Paul gave the Corinthians to drink, by the line of what rule the Galatians were again made to walk straight, what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, and the Ephesians are given to read, what words are spoken also by our near neighbours the Romans, to whom Peter and Paul left as legacy the gospel, sealed moreover with their own blood. We have also churches which are nurselings of John's: for although Marcion disallows his Apocalypse, yet the succession of their bishops, when traced back to its origin, will be found to rest in John as originator.

The reason I cite more than just the reference to the Pauline epistles is that the bit about John is that it is eerily reminiscent of what appears in the Muratorian Canon regarding Paul's dependence on John:

The Epistles of Paul themselves, however, show to those, who wish to know, which [they are], from what place, and for what cause they were sent. First of all he wrote to the Corinthians, admonishing against schism of heresy; thereupon to the Galatians [admonishing against] circumcision; to the Romans, however, [he wrote] rather lengthily pointing out with a series of Scripture quotations that Christ is their main theme also.

While the Muratorian Canon echoes at least part of the order witnessed by Tertullian (i.e. Corinthians THEN Galatians) it goes on to give a separate list of how these same letters are to appear in the canon in the next paragraph:

But it is necessary that we have a discussion singly concerning these, since the blessed Apostle Paul himself, imitating the example of his predecessor, John, wrote to seven churches only by name [and] in this order: The first [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, and the seventh to the Romans.

Indeed it is not difficult to see that the Muratorian Canon is actually mediating between two lists - i.e. the order that the apostle wrote his letters and the order of importance of those same epistles.

We have answered the question of where Tertullian got the idea for the strange ordering of:

Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians and then Romans.

Colossians is missing from the list which is difficult to explain. Yet notice what happens when we look to the order Tertullian brings forward the epistles (which is not the same thing as the order they appeared in the Marcionite canon) later in Book Five:

Galatians, Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians and Philippians.

I can't help but noticing though that - at least in terms of the first four epistles - if you just transpose Galatians and Corinthians - you can start to reconcile the two orders of epistles in Tertullian.

So all of this brings up the ultimate question - was Galatians actually the first epistle in the Marcionite canon or was there some misunderstanding that developed over time (and the subsequent rewrites of the original material)?

Let me explain what I mean.

Epiphanius testimony is always unreliable. He treats 'Ephesians' and 'Laodiceans' as two separate texts. This makes absolutely certain that he is relying on a second hand report he doesn't understand. We have already seen that Tertullian DOES INDEED witness the 'Corinthians first' order of epistles in Against Marcion.

I think this is the older layer of the text and - for whatever reason - a secondary (or tertiary) understanding eventually developed that Galatians was 'really first.'

How was this done?

Just look at the language of Tertullian's original argument. His words seem to imply that Galatians was placed first on doctrinal rather than chronological grounds:

Principalem adversus Judaismum Epistolam nos quoque confitemur quae Galatas docet.

Could it be that an original argument identifying Galatians as the 'first against Judaism' became misunderstood (or misrepresented) in terms of the actual order of the Marcionite canon?

Of course the natural question would be why would anyone do this? The answer might be that before Romans was placed first in the orthodox canons (for political reasons) perhaps as early as the end of the second century, the Marcionite canon might well have been recognized as agreeing with the original order of epistles in Catholic documents like the Muratorian canon.

Let's look at ALL the earliest references to Galatians and Corinthians in Tertullian's Against Marcion. We'll begin with the first reference to whether the epistles support Marcionite teachings at the start of Book One. Notice the order of arguments follows the order of a 'Corinthians first' canon:

So then if, as still a neophyte, in his zeal against Judaism he thought something in their conduct called for reproof, their indiscriminate associations [cf. 1 Cor v] in fact, though he himself was afterwards to become in practice all things to all men [1 Cor 9:19 - 23] —to the Jews as a Jew, to those under the law as himself under the law — do you allege that that reproof, concerning conduct and nothing more, conduct which its critic was afterwards to approve of, must be supposed to refer to some deviation in their preaching concerning God? On the contrary, in respect of the unity of their preaching, as we have read earlier in this epistle, they had joined their right hands,c and by the very act of having divided their spheres of work had signified their agreement in the fellowship of the gospel: as he says in another place, Whether it were I or they, so we preach. [1 Cor xv. 11] Also, although he writes of how certain false brethren had crept in unawares, desiring to remove the Galatians to another gospel,e he himself shows clearly that that adulteration of the gospel was not concerned with diversion of the faith towards another god and another Christ, but with adherence to the regulations of the law. In fact he found them insisting on circumcision, and observing the seasons and days and months and years of those Jewish solemnities which they ought to have known were now revoked in accordance with the reforming ordinance of that Creator who had of old taught of this very thing by his prophets [AH i.20]

There can be no doubt that this argument clearly follows a pattern for the epistles where to the Corinthians preceded Galatians. But does this prove that one followed the other in the Marcionite gospel? It is difficult to say. But most commentators miss the fact that Corinthians precedes Galatians in the manner in which the argument is formulated.