stephan huller

If Celsus's date is earlier the dating of Paul has to be earlier

Bernard Muller

Jake,
I have an argument to show than 'Acts' was written with knowledge of Josephus' Wars but NOT his 'Antiquities, which would make very difficult for 'Acts' to be published very late.

In 'Acts' (23:2, 24:1), the high priest during Paul's last visit to Jerusalem is "Ananias". At this time, the governor of Judea is Felix, two years before he was replaced (Ac 24:27).

However according to Josephus' Ant., XX, VIII, 5 & 8, it is very clear that during Felix' years as governor (52-60), there were only two successive high priests, "Jonathan", then "Ismael". "Ananias" is also recorded in 'Antiquities', but his tenure ended during the rule of Cumanus, the predecessor of Felix (Ant., XX, VI, 2). If the author of 'Acts' had 'Antiquities', this mistake would not have occurred.

But how did this writer get "Ananias"?
Most likely from Josephus' Wars, II, XII, 6: "both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests". This is during the rule of Cumanus. From that the author likely thought there were two high priests then. But later in the same book, we learn that, after Felix became governor (II, XIII, 2), "the first man who was slain by them [sicarii] was Jonathan the high priest" (II, XIII, 3).

Nobody is mentioned in 'Wars' as the replacement for Jonathan. Then who is left as a high priest? Ananias, of course!

This is a very strong piece of evidence advocating the author of 'Acts' knew about 'Wars' but did not read 'Antiquities'.

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller

Acts Theophilus = Theophilus of Antioch.

Sheshbazzar

Certainly. I used 'Saul of Tarsus' only as a communication device so that readers would know whom I intended, not out of any conviction that the initial 'Pauline' author's name was actually 'Saul of Tarsus', But most would only recognize this character under the names Saul or Paul.
If I had employed 'Simon the Samaritan' or any other names I would have had to digress into elaborate explanations which would have likely raised objections and disputations about the identity issue that are entirely tangential to the point I was attempting to make. vis. The initial root text of the 'Pauline gospel' was early, pre-christian, and entirely Jewish in nature with none of the over-cooked christian addenda.

Regarding other arguments about 'Paul', if he did not actually author large portions of these texts, (I highly doubt the original Jewish author ever even mentioned any 'lord' 'Christ Jezus') the arguments are not against 'his' religious views, but against those inserted by latter editors and pseudo-Paul forgers in his name.


.

James The Least

Richard Pervo, one of the foremost scholars on "Acts of the Apostles," has dated that work around 115-120.

James The Least

If only 10% was left after substantial redactions, then one is left to wonder why they would have bothered retaining even that much. Much less the name/figure of "Paul."

It's easier to believe that there never was a "Paul," only Marcionites and Catholics pretending to be this supposedly dead expert on the Torah.

jakejonesiv

Dear Bernard,

Yes, eveyone can see and judge your arguments for themselves.
Now I have a question for you. What was the Marcionite Recension of this passage? Just what is your point here re Marcion?
Jake

Sheshbazzar

It wasn't a matter of retaining. That original strongly argued Jewish 10% was absolutely essential and fundamental to the arguments of the orthodox position, it covering the doctrine of justification by faith, and the principal upon which believing gentiles were exempt from the requirement of circumcision.

Really, it was nothing more than a thoroughly Jewish argument that gentiles living subject to the Noachide law, were as gentiles, exempt from the 'touch not, taste not, wear not' requirements of the Jews Levitical laws. And were in their uncircumcised condition accepted by The Elohim of Israel, in accordance with his promises, and with the sayings of the Prophets.

And without the actual writings of 'Paul' we will never know how much 'Jewish' material was edited out of 'Paul' to make him palatable to the views of the orthodox church.

jakejonesiv

Dear Bernard,

No, of course you first name is not Bernand. My fat fingered apologies entirely to your name!

Bernard, we have before us two main alternatives.

1. Canonical Luke, as we read it today, is the original form of the "third gospel." Marcion had canonical Luke and abridged it to form his gospel.
2. Marcion's version of Luke predated canonical Luke. By this measure, Marcion's version would qualify as "urLuke." A proto-orthodox editor enlarged urLuke with anti-Marcionite material to create canonical Luke.

In favor of option #1, are the explicit statements made by the proto-orthodox that Marcion cut down canonical Luke. For example, Ireneuas wrote, "But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer..." AH 3.7.

However, we may take these assertions with a grain of salt. We have the frank admission that Marcion answered the proto-orthodox with the same charges. "I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is." Tertullian, AM 4.4. This tit-for-tat cancels out the other.

It was evidently the habit of the proto-orthodox to accuse Marcion of deleting material he never had. As with Tertullian accusing Marcion of deleting "M" material, i.e. material only found in Matthew Or when Origen accused Marcion of deleting chapters 15 and 16 of Romans, when neither Marcion not Tertullian had them.

A concise list of some passages where Tertullian confounded passages in Matthew with Luke is found on Roger Pearse’s site, where Dr. Holmes quotes from Dr. Lardner, _The History of Heretics_.

Here is an excerpt from note 4.
"Lardner refers two of these instances to passages in chap. vii. of this Book iv., where Tertullian mentions, as erasures from Luke, what really are found in Matthew v. 17 and xv. 24. The third instance referred to by Lardner probably occurs at the end of chap. ix. of this same Book iv., where Tertullian again mistakes Matt. v. 17 for a passage of Luke, and charges Marcion with expunging it; curiously enough, the mistake recurs in chap. xii of the same Book"
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-32.htm

These false statements concerning Marcion's abridgment of the scriptures cast the entire proto-orthodox case in doubt.

We become even more suspicious when we find out that Marcion's gospel predated the naming of the Gospel of Luke by more than a generation. Marcion had his gospel not after the mid 140's CE, and perhaps much earlier. A gospel named "Luke" is never mentioned before Irenaeus around 180 CE. And when it is finally mentioned, Irenaeus admits that Marcion had it first! AH 3.7.

Luke is never mentioned in any surviving scrap attributed to Papias. Scholars wax on and on about the Tesimony of Papias concerning Mark and Matthew, but where was Luke?

We also know that the author of Acts also redacted the "third gospel." Acts and canonical Luke constitute a set. So, if it is likely that Acts post-dates Marcion, and contains anti-Marciointe material, then the likelihood that the canonical version of Luke is also post-Marcion. Thanks to Richard I. Pervo, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that Acts dates to the second century because it utilizes Josephus. And thanks to Joseph B. Tyson, we know that Acts was written to counter the Marcionite challenge.

So what did the proto-orthodox redactor add to urLuke to create canonical Luke? If it can be shown that majority of this material is anti-Marcionite, the case for the priority of Marcion's version is increased. And that is exactly what we find. The majority of the material in canonical Luke that was not in Marcion's gospel can be viewed as contra Marcionite. It is no coincidence that the majority of the unique material in canonical Luke (called the "Lukan Sondergut" by German scholars) did not appear in Marcon's gospel.

Let me repeat that in another more prosaic way to emphasis the point. Most of the stuff that is in Luke but not Marcion's gospel is not in Mark or Matthew either.


Now, to believe that canonical Luke was prior to l'evangelion marcionite, we are asked to believe that someone added the Lukan Sondergut to the material known in the other synopotic gospels, and then just as quickly Marcion came along and chopped it out! That strains credulity. It is too much of a "coincidence." It is much easier to fathom that it was added after Marcion.


OK, one may ask, what material is in the unique Lukan material? I give here quick examples. The nativity in Luke is a late addition. It does not appear in Mark, or "Q" (if that doubtful document even existed) and it is contradictory with Matthew. And it certainly contradicts Marcion's docetic Jesus wafting down from heaven. Also, the resurrection appearance where Jesus states "Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have." This is clearly a late addition to the gospel and just clearly as clearly an antidocetic text. Other "L" material includes Prodigal son, unjust steward, good Samaritan, rich man and Lazarus, Samaritan leper, bent woman, Mary & Martha, Zacchaeus, widow of nain, woes of Sermon on the Plain, historization of the Little Apocalypse.


Jake Jones IV

outhouse

Despite either of our personal opinions, pauls Judaism is seriously debated.


I see nothing at all that doesnt place him firmly as a Hellenistic Righteous Proselyte who had fully converted.

His uncontested Epistles are fairly well dated, of which I havnt seen a decent arguement against.