aa5874

You are not making much sense. Your statement is highly illogical. You are the one arguing from Silence. You MUST have Faith that there were originals of the NT in the 1st century.

There are NONE and you will always argue from Silence.

Why do you imagine that there were originals from centuries earlier??

One does NOT need a hundred years to copy an Epistle or a story of Jesus.

You don't know what you are talking about.

gMark still contains the so-called False Prophecy and 1800 years later Christians today still claim Jesus is coming soon.

You must know that Christians do NOT claim Jesus was a false prophet or that Christianity is bunk because of Mark 9.1 and Matthew 16.28.

The internal evidence states Jesus was born after his mother was found pregnant by a Ghost, and that he walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

You must have a lot of Faith to accept the internal evidence.

You statement is wholly illogical. I expect that all the Recovered NT manuscripts would be from the 2nd century or later and that is PRECISELY what has happened.

I do NOT expect that all other writings from antiquity are from the 2nd century or later.

How do you know that the original Epistles have NOT been found?? Do you think that they will be STAMPED "THESE ARE THE ORIGINALS??

And again, it does NOT take a hundred years just to copy an Epistle or a story of Jesus.
Does a writer have to exist at 75 CE to write about the same time??

You are living in the 21 st century and is now writing about stories of Jesus of the 2nd century or later.

Josephus mentioned many characters called Jesus but NONE from Nazareth.

And the Father of Jesus called the Anointed in Antiquities 20.9.1 was NOT a Holy Ghost.

Do you remember the INTERNAL evidence that Jesus was born after his mother became Pregnant by a Ghost??

You remember you ACCEPT the INTERNAL evidence??

The anonymous letter of the Roman Church attributed to Clement was composed in the 5th century or later.

Augustine of Hippo, Optatius, Rufinus, Tertullian, and the author of the Chronography of 354 knew NOTHING at all of the Clement letter to the Church of Corinth when there supposedly was a Great Dissension in the Church.

It is virtually impossible for the very writers of the Church to have known of the Clement letter c 95 CE and stll PUBLICLY declare that Clement was bishop for about 10 YEARS between c 68-80 CE.

The supposed Clement letter will EXPOSE the Massive Forgeries and Manipulation of Church writings.

The game is OVER--thanks to the Roman Church for Preserving the Clement Forgery.

jakejonesiv

The Pauline epistles had already been largely composed by the Marcionite communities of Asia Minor before Marcion emerged to the West. We don't have to suppose that Marcion wrote all of them personally.

Now, the Marcionite epistles were not in the form we have them in our Bibles today. They were shorter and more concise. The Pastorals and Acts were absent, not having been written yet.

Jake

jakejonesiv

The best candidate for the first collection of all the Pauline epistles (sans Pastorals) remains to be Marcion. This thread could go on another 20 pages depending on how many viable alternatives are proposed.

So, everyone, what do you think?
Who had the first collection of the Pauline Epistles?

Duvduv

...which is why Justin who allegedly lived in the same town and period as Marcion never mentions any texts of Marcion, including anything written by someone named Paul, or any epistles held by Marcion....

maryhelena

Jake, you are sidestepping the questions I'm asking you. Why?

Why are you not prepared to state your case - to put your position on the table?

aa5874

We already know that Marcion did NOT have or used the Pauline writings.

Marcion had the writings of Empedocles and Preached about Another God and Another Son.

Justin's First ApologyIn the Pauline writings Jesus was the Son of the God of the Jews so it is virtually impossible that Marcion would have used the Pauline letters.

Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies The Pauline letters do NOT teach Dualism so it is virtually impossible that Marcion would need the Pauline letters.

Ephrem's Against Marcion III In the Pauline writings The Lord God was the Maker and Jesus was Sent by the Maker.


1. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents

Galatians 4:4 KJV2. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
Romans 8:3 KJV3. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
1 Corinthians 1:9 KJV4. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
2 Corinthians 1:19 KJV5. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
Ephesians 4:13 KJV6. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
1 Thessalonians 17. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
Colossians 18. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents
Colossians 19. The Pauline writings are Anti-Marcionite documents.

Philippians 2

Bernard Muller

to Stephan,
Can you give me more info about where to find that basic Josephus' story in Tractate Gittin (such as folio or chapter #) or the whole quote. I could not find it.
Thanks,
Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to aa,
It's easy to make your expectations fit what you consider evidence. The belief that the earliest recovered manuscripts would also be the earliest written manuscripts is an act of faith.

Agreed. But what evidence do you have for declaring the earliest recovered manuscripts to be among the earliest ones written, except, of course your expectations (which do not count as evidence).

How do you know the original epistles have been found? Just simple math about probabilities would tell you the chance that the earliest manuscripts have been found is very small.

gMark was written in the then present. "Mark" was certainly not thinking centuries ahead. The situation was, after the fall of Jerusalem, there were false Christs and false prophets appearing, attracting Christians to them. That's what "Mark" was fighting against (see the mini apocalypse). He promised the Kingdom will come very soon to keep his flock. Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem, so his prediction of the kingdom to come would be true (for the good elects). That's what "Mark" wanted his audience to think.
It's just like politics: win the day by making tentalizing promises. After, well, these promises can be reinterpreted, or people can become resigned to be deceived, or new unforeseen overriding circumstances prevented these promises to be fulfilled.
Christian apologists found some reinterpretations, such as "generation" (of Jesus) meant race, or Jews. And that the Kingdom advent was the scene on the high mountain (transfiguration, God calling Jesus is (good) Son, Moses and Elijah resurrected for the occasion).
But it would be stupid to write that the Kingdom is very near, after the fall of Jerusalem, some 50 to 100 years after 70 CE.

Actually, that letter surfaced not earlier than the 17th century and its content was unknown before that among western scholars.
But Eusebius (early 4th century) mentioned it well before that:
(Hist. Eccl., iii. 16) "There is one acknowledged Epistle of this Clement, great and admirable, which he wrote in the name of the Church of Rome to the Church at Corinth, sedition having then arisen in the latter Church. We are aware that this Epistle has been publicly read in very many churches both in old times, and also in our own day."

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller

Bernard

It was 'John' the son of 'zakkai' (= zacchaeus) not Zadok in Gittin 56:

I confounded Zadok and John but Zadok (= Justus) who seems to have also been taken prisoner in Jerusalem according to Josephus's accusation in Vita. It has long been noted that the John story here is a recycling of Josephus. My argument would be that John is the original and Josephus an invention. Zadok (= Justus).

Bernard Muller

Thanks, Stephan, but in my books, I cannot take that as an acknowledgment of Josephus by a Jewish source. The story in Josephus' works was plagiarized, that's how I take it.
What about Philo of Alexandria? Besides a mention in Josephus' Antiquities, is there other mentions of him (with his name!) in any other sources in antiquity?
Cordially, Bernard