Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 04-30-2009, 02:03 PM

This is from Polycarp's epistle found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

Quote:

Polycarp 11:3
But I have not found any such thing in you, neither have heard
thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his
letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those
churches which alone at that time knew God; for we knew Him not as
yet.

Polycarp 11:4
Therefore I am exceedingly grieved for him and for his wife, unto
whom may the Lord grant true repentance. Be ye therefore yourselves
also sober herein, and hold not such as enemies but restore them
as frail and erring members, that ye may save the whole body of you.
For so doing, ye do edify one another.

Toto · 04-30-2009, 03:46 PM

1 Corinthians 9:5 We have the right to take a believing wife with us like the other apostles, the Lord's brothers, and Cephas, don't we?

It was expected that men would be married in that society at that time.

Clement of Alexandria thought that Paul was married, according to Eusebius

Quote:

Chapter XXX.—The Apostles that were Married.

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begat children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

But the editors of ccel note:

Quote:

851 The passage to which Clement here refers and which he quotes in this connection is 1 Cor. ix. 5; but this by no means proves that Paul was married, and 1 Cor. vii. 8 seems to imply the opposite, though the words might be used if he were a widower. The words of Philip. iv. 3 are often quoted as addressed to his wife, but there is no authority for such a reference. Clement is the only Father who reports that Paul was married; many of them expressly deny it; e.g. Tertullian, Hilary, Epiphanius, Jerome, &c. The authority of these later Fathers is of course of little account. But Clement’s conclusion is based solely upon exegetical grounds, and therefore is no argument for the truth of the report.

Lilyofthevalley · 04-30-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry

This is news to me, and very interesting. Who was she?

What is this epistle where he greets her?

Doug Shaver · 05-01-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Was Paul married?

In I Corinthians 7, the man himself unambiguously implies that he was not.

If a church father in effect accuses him of lying, I might believe it if the church father had been personally acquainted with Paul or was relying on unimpeachable sources.

premjan · 05-01-2009, 06:50 AM

Bride of Christ?

show_no_mercy · 05-01-2009, 07:14 AM

Well I guess Polycarp and Clement could be mistaken or lying, or Paul might have gotten married sometime after he wrote 1 Corinthians.

Guess there's no way to tell.

arnoldo · 05-01-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

This is from Polycarp's epistle found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lightfoot.html

Quote:

Polycarp 11:3
But I have not found any such thing in you, neither have heard
thereof, among whom the blessed Paul labored, who were his
letters in the beginning. For he boasteth of you in all those
churches which alone at that time knew God; for we knew Him not as
yet.

Polycarp 11:4
Therefore I am exceedingly grieved for him and for his wife, unto
whom may the Lord grant true repentance. Be ye therefore yourselves
also sober herein, and hold not such as enemies but restore them
as frail and erring members, that ye may save the whole body of you.
For so doing, ye do edify one another.

Reading the entire chapter (Polycarp 11) in context it appears that Polycarp is refering to Valens (Polycarp 11:1 "My hear is sore for Valens, sometime one of your clergy, that he should have so little understanding of the office that was conferred on him"), rather than Paul, when he writes, "I feel the deepest sorrow for that man and his wife." Apparently Valens was a church leader who, along with his wife, was involved in some kind of financial mismanagement.

PhilosopherJay · 05-01-2009, 10:49 AM

Hi show_no-mercy,

Another possibility is that the text of Paul's letter or letters could have been changed to eliminate the idea that he was married.

The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a discrepancy between the writings attributed to Polycarp and Clement and the current canonical writings of Paul. There is no way to decide if Paul's wife existed or not based on the current texts. This is a shame because Polycarp and Clement are two of the main sources for Eusebius' "Church History"

It seems we have to question the reliability of these two extremely important witnesses to the early development of Christianity. One may suspect that they passed along wrong information or that the letters of Paul pass along wrong information about the existence of Paul's wife. In either case, this seems to call all our sources into question.

One would think that we could give a clear answer to this question of Paul's marital status after some 15 letters and 80 pages of writings about his most personal thoughts, and half a book (Act of the Apostles) on his travels.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives this description of him:

Quote:

a man little of stature, thin-haired upon the head, crooked in the legs, of good state of body, with eyebrows joining, and nose somewhat hooked, full of grace: for sometimes he appeared like a man, and sometimes he had the face of an angel.

It is hard to know if "eyebrows joining" would have been an attractive feature in those days.

It is certain that he knew a lot of women because it says that Thecla "saw many women and virgins entering in to Paul"

Demes and Hermogenes make this claim about him, "he defraudeth the young men of wives and the maidens of husbands, saying: Ye have no resurrection otherwise, except ye continue chaste, and defile not the flesh but keep it pure."

This seems to suggest that he was against sex of any type, as only virgins would be resurrected.

Paul does not marry Thecla, but he does travel with her:

Quote:

26 And Paul sent away Onesiphorus with all his house unto Iconium, and so took Thecla and entered into Antioch: and as they entered in, a certain Syriarch, Alexander by name, saw Thecla and was enamoured of her, and would have bribed (flattered) Paul with money and gifts. But Paul said: I know not the woman of whom thou speakest, neither is she mine.

This is the exact opposite of what Clement of Alexandria says. Here is travels with an unmarried virgin, while Clement says he was married but did not travel with his wife.

The statement in Paul's 1 Corinthians 9.5 may be referring to either of these situations. The text has Paul writing, "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?"(King James).

One can read this as answering a criticism that he went around with Thecla or one can read it as Paul demanding the right to take his wife along on some future trip.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Well I guess Polycarp and Clement could be mistaken or lying, or Paul might have gotten married sometime after he wrote 1 Corinthians.

Guess there's no way to tell.

arnoldo · 05-01-2009, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives this description of him:

Quote:

a man little of stature, thin-haired upon the head, crooked in the legs, of good state of body, with eyebrows joining, and nose somewhat hooked, full of grace: for sometimes he appeared like a man, and sometimes he had the face of an angel.

Thank you for mentioning the Acts of Paul which according to the following source was written in the second century. . .

Quote:

Many recent scholars, with the notable exception of Rordorf (AD 150, EAC, 1.1122), assign a late second-century date to the Acts of Paul with little or no argumentation (Elliot, ANT, 357; Hills, Bauckham, and Marguerat in Semeia 80 [1997] pp. 146,161, 170 respectively). A date is largely assumed without criteria. I think that most scholars uncritically accept Schneemelcher’s dating, as his two vols. NTA have became a standard primer to the subject; he says (NTA 2nd ed, p. 235):

Quote:

The date likewise cannot be precisely determined. We can only say that the APl must have been written before 200, the approximate date of Tertullian’s de Baptismo. Since on the other hand it is dependent on the APt, the period between 185-195 [repeated by Drobner, Fathers of the Church, p. 33; ] may be regarded as a possible estimate. An earlier dating (Rordorf) scarcely admits proof.

Well, there you go. Schneemelcher offers a single argument against Rordorf, the alleged dependence of the APl on the APt (in agreement with Schmidt,Praxeis Paulou). . . Therefore, I will propose the date to the APl in the first quarter of the Second Century, and more precisely about 100-117–a date which is somewhere between Ignatius and the Didache.

http://actapauli.wordpress.com/2009/...paul/#more-120

rlogan · 05-01-2009, 08:12 PM

There was no Paul.

Writings of the alleged Paul are clearly specious on the face of them - obviously liturgical devices (exactly how they are used, imagine that) written with phony pretexts.

Yea, sure - some shattering rift is addressed by Paul in an alleged letter to a congregation without, uh, mentioning what that rift actually is in a "letter" the size of a classical book. Your bullshit detector ought to be going full-on five alarm ring here.

Inspect the Pauline "letters" from the objective criteria established by what they actually pretend to be on the surface, and see if they actually pass that test - or if instead they look more like "Dear Christians at large" devices conveniently backing the theology of (say) Marcion - ie the hands that they conveniently appear in.

See a treatment of Galatians here for example:

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html

And the Dutch Radical approach in general here:

http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

Take two radical readings and call me in the morning.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2009, 06:50 AM	#5
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Bride of Christ?

05-01-2009, 07:14 AM	#6
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Well I guess Polycarp and Clement could be mistaken or lying, or Paul might have gotten married sometime after he wrote 1 Corinthians. Guess there's no way to tell.

05-01-2009, 08:12 PM	#10
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	There was no Paul. Writings of the alleged Paul are clearly specious on the face of them - obviously liturgical devices (exactly how they are used, imagine that) written with phony pretexts. Yea, sure - some shattering rift is addressed by Paul in an alleged letter to a congregation without, uh, mentioning what that rift actually is in a "letter" the size of a classical book. Your bullshit detector ought to be going full-on five alarm ring here. Inspect the Pauline "letters" from the objective criteria established by what they actually pretend to be on the surface, and see if they actually pass that test - or if instead they look more like "Dear Christians at large" devices conveniently backing the theology of (say) Marcion - ie the hands that they conveniently appear in. See a treatment of Galatians here for example: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/eysingsp.html And the Dutch Radical approach in general here: http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html Take two radical readings and call me in the morning.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.