The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

[dewitness]

You can't expect conversation partners when you don't understand what you read and don't make a coherent argument.

I don't know of any one who asks agnostics for a second opinion. Agnostics by definition have a hard time understanding the evidence or don't know what to do with it.

1. I understand that the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline Corpus.

2. I understand that in writings attributed to Justin it is claimed that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles called Gospels that were read in the Churches c 150 CE.

3. I understand that there is NO corroboration at all in the Canon that the Pauline Corpus was composed before c 59-62 CE.

4. I understand that No Pauline Epistles have been recovered and dated to the anytime before c 70 CE.

5. I understand that an Apologetic writer claimed the Pauline letters were composed After the Apocalypse of John.

6. I understand that Jesus cult writers claimed Paul was alive after gLuke was written.

7. I understand that Philo wrote nothing of Paul.

8. I understand that Josephus wrote nothing of Paul.

9. I understand that Tacitus wrote nothing of Paul.

10. I understand that the authors of the NT Canon wrote nothing of the Pauline Gospel--Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

11. I understand that Origen claimed at c 180 CE Celsus did not mention anything about Paul.

12. I understand that Origen claimed the Gospels came before Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline Gospel is a Late invention and was unknown at least up to 180 CE.

[dewitness]

In the NT Canon itself the Pauline Corpus is placed AFTER the Gospels and there is no known NT Codices where any Pauline letter is found before gMatthew and No Apologetic writer have placed the Pauline Corpus first.

Now, in a writing attributed to Origen, it will be claimed that the Pauline 14 Epistles were Last

http://www.bible-researcher.com/origen.html

From Origen's Homilies on Joshua, viii. 1. (about 240)

This work exists only in a Latin translation, probably by Rufinus (d. 410). Some scholars think that Rufinus has contributed to the passage. The latin text here is copied from the text given in Christopher Wordsworth's On the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and on the Apocrypha (London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848), Appendix A, p. 8.


Veniens vero Dominus noster Jesus Christus, cujus ille prior filius Nave designabat adventum, misit sacerdotes Apostolos suos portantes tubas ductiles, praedicationis magnificam coelestemque doctrinam. Sacerdotali tuba primus in Evangelio suo Matthaeus increpuit, Marcus quoque, Lucas et Joannes, suis singulis tubis sacerdotalibus cecinerunt. Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum suarum personat tubis. Jacobus quoque et Judas. Addit nihilominus atque et Joannes tuba canere per epistolas suas et Apocalypsim, 4 et Lucas Apostolorum gesta describens. Novissime autem ille veniens, qui dixit: Puto autem nos Deus novissimos Apostolos ostendit, [1 Cor. 4:9] et in quatuordecim epistolarum suarum fulminans tubis, muros Jericho et omnes idololatriae machinas et philosophorum dogmata usque ad fundamenta dejecit.

So too our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when he came sent his apostles as priests bearing well-wrought trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the twofold trumpet of his epistles; and so also James and Jude.

Still the number is incomplete, and John gives forth the trumpet-sound in his epistles and Apocalypse; 4 and Luke while describing the acts of the apostles. Lastly however came he who said, I think that God hath set forth us Apostles last of all, [1 Cor. 4:9] and thundering on the fourteen trumpets of his epistles threw down even to the ground the walls of Jericho, that is to say all the instruments of idolatry and the doctrines of philosophers.

Origen even argued that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Origen's De Principiis 2

To show more clearly, however, what we mean, let us take the illustration employed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews...

Origen's De Principiis 1.2

The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the first-born of every creature.” And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.”

Origen has admitted that the Fourteen Epistles--the Pauline Corpus and the Epistle to the Hebrews were composed after the Gospels, after Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude and the Apocalypse of John.

Origen has admitted that all the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews were composed LAST in the Canon.

We have Apologetic writings that make no mention at all of the Pauline Corpus and Hebrews up to the mid 3rd century.

[avi]

Origen has admitted that the Fourteen Epistles--the Pauline Corpus and the Epistle to the Hebrews were composed after the Gospels, after Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude and the Apocalypse of John.

Can you explain to those who do not know the answer (i.e. maybe only me!), what is the status of the manuscript evidence for "origen's" various compositions.
date of oldest extant copy;
physical condition of oldest extant copy;
language of oldest extant copy;

Why couldn't Origen have concocted the whole religion, including Paul's letters, Justin's manuscript, the two Clement's, and the rest of the second century authors, including Irenaeus? Whoever started up the Christian variant of Judaism, had to have a solid grasp of the Hebrew texts, and Origen certainly did possess this talent, if one believes the popular version of his life story.

[dewitness]

Origen has admitted that the Fourteen Epistles--the Pauline Corpus and the Epistle to the Hebrews were composed after the Gospels, after Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Peter, James, John, Jude and the Apocalypse of John.

Can you explain to those who do not know the answer (i.e. maybe only me!), what is the status of the manuscript evidence for "origen's" various compositions.
date of oldest extant copy;
physical condition of oldest extant copy;
language of oldest extant copy;

I am merely showing statements in writings attributed to Origen and it can be easily deduced that the Pauline Corpus was composed AFTER the fables of Jesus were already known and composed. I have not made any claims about the status of manuscripts attributed to Origen.

Why couldn't Origen have concocted the whole religion, including Paul's letters, Justin's manuscript, the two Clement's, and the rest of the second century authors, including Irenaeus? Whoever started up the Christian variant of Judaism, had to have a solid grasp of the Hebrew texts, and Origen certainly did possess this talent, if one believes the popular version of his life story.

I have no evidence at this time to argue that Origen concocted the whole religion. I am arguing that the Pauline Gospel was a late invention using the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

Now, examine any Codex with the NT, virtually all of them place the Pauline Epistles AFTER the Gospels and many even AFTER the Catholic Epistles.

Some later Codices even agree with the claims by Origen and place the Pauline Corpus LAST in the Canon.

See list of NT minuscules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne ... 80%931000)

The traditional order of the writings of the books of NT Canon is that the Gospels were composed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus.

[MrMacSon]

Why couldn't Origen have concocted the whole religion, including Paul's letters, Justin's manuscript, the two Clement's, and the rest of the second century authors, including Irenaeus? Whoever started up the Christian variant of Judaism, had to have a solid grasp of the Hebrew texts, and Origen certainly did possess this talent, if one believes the popular version of his life story.

I reckon there is a reasonable chance Origen had a signficant role in drawing various texts together, and redacting them, to help concoct or cement a Christian variant of Judaism. See this thread, initiated by a post of dewitness - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ?f=3&t=132 - and specifically the quotes from, and the link to, Origen's Commentary on John 1 ...

Again, if God set in the Church (Ephesians 4:11) apostles and prophets and evangelists (gospellers), pastors and teachers, we must first enquire what was the office of the evangelist, and mark that it is not only to narrate how the Saviour cured a man who was blind from his birth, (John 9:1) or raised up a dead man who was already stinking, (John 11:39) or to state what extraordinary works he wrought; and the office of the evangelist being thus defined, we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such discourse also as is not narrative but hortatory and intended to strengthen belief in the mission of Jesus; and thus we shall arrive at the position that whatever was written by the Apostles is Gospel. As to this second definition, it might be objected that the Epistles are not entitled Gospel, and that we are wrong in applying the name of Gospel to the whole of the New Testament. But to this we answer that it happens not unfrequently in Scripture when two or more persons or things are named by the same name, the name attaches itself most significantly to one of those things or persons.

This -

• we shall not hesitate to find Gospel in such discourse also, as is not narrative, but hortatory and intended to strengthen belief in the mission of Jesus; and thus we shall arrive at the position that whatever was written by the Apostles is Gospel

[stephan happy huller]

What is this obsession with limiting the possibilities of 'how Christianity developed' to known historical commodities? First avi and company were certain that Constantine was responsible for everything. Now the same crazy theory is applied to Origen even though Origen clearly cites earlier witnesses. Come on, stop with the nonsense and just admit that Christianity has to date back at least to the second century. Why is it so imperative to develop the most implausible of theories regarding the origins of the religion?

[dewitness]

What is this obsession with limiting the possibilities of 'how Christianity developed' to known historical commodities? First avi and company were certain that Constantine was responsible for everything. Now the same crazy theory is applied to Origen even though Origen clearly cites earlier witnesses. Come on, stop with the nonsense and just admit that Christianity has to date back at least to the second century. Why is it so imperative to develop the most implausible of theories regarding the origins of the religion?

You are the same person who argues that the NT writings are forgeries to prove primacy and that there is evidence that Irenaeus wrote in the 3rd century. Are you not limiting the possibilities of 'how Christianity developed'?

[MrMacSon]

What is this obsession with limiting the possibilities of 'how Christianity developed' to known historical commodities? First avi and company were certain that Constantine was responsible for everything. Now the same crazy theory is applied to Origen even though Origen clearly cites earlier witnesses. Come on, stop with the nonsense and just admit that Christianity has to date back at least to the second century. Why is it so imperative to develop the most implausible of theories regarding the origins of the religion?

I agree Christianity is likely to date back at least to the second century.

What seems clear is that Origen is discussing the relevance and collation / redaction of earlier works of "witnesses".

Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book I) is well worth a read, as may be other works of a similar vein by other authors

1. How Christians are the Spiritual Israel.

That people which was called of old the people of God was divided into twelve tribes, and over and above the other tribes it had the levitical order, which itself again carried on the service of God in various priestly and levitical suborders. In the same manner, it appears to me that the whole people of Christ, when we regard it in the aspect of the hidden man of the heart, Romans 2:29 that people which is called Jew inwardly, and is circumcised in the spirit, has in a more mystic way the characteristics of the tribes.



5. All Scripture is Gospel; But the Gospels are Distinguished Above Other Scriptures.


8. How the Gospels Cause the Other Books of Scripture Also to Be Gospel.

Now an objection might be raised to our first definition, because it would embrace books which are not entitled Gospels. For the law and the prophets also are to our eyes books containing the promise of things which, from the benefit they will confer on him, naturally rejoice the hearer as soon as he takes in the message. To this it may be said that before the sojourn of Christ, the law and the prophets, since He had not come who interpreted the mysteries they contained, did not convey such a promise as belongs to our definition of the Gospel; but the Saviour, when He sojourned with men and caused the Gospel to appear in bodily form, by the Gospel caused all things to appear as Gospel.

He opened the way for all those who desired it to be disciples of His wisdom, and to understand what things were true and real in the law of Moses, of which things those of old worshipped the type and the shadow, and what things were real of the things narrated in the histories which "happened to them in the way of type", 1 Corinthians 10:11 but these things "were written for our sakes, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." With whomsoever, then, Christ has sojourned, he worships God neither at Jerusalem nor on the mountain of the Samaritans; ... Before that Gospel, therefore, which came into being by the sojourning of Christ, none of the older works was a Gospel. But the Gospel, which is the new covenant, having delivered us from the oldness of the letter, lights up for us, by the light of knowledge, the newness of the spirit, a thing which never grows old, which has its home in the New Testament, but is also present in all the Scriptures. It was fitting, therefore, that that Gospel, which enables us to find the Gospel present, even in the Old Testament, should itself receive, in a special sense, the name of Gospel.


10. How Jesus Himself is the Gospel.

The foregoing inquiry into the nature of the Gospel cannot be regarded as useless; it has enabled us to see what distinction there is between a sensible Gospel and an intellectual and spiritual one. What we have now to do is to transform the sensible Gospel into a spiritual one.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101501.htm

Section 8 - cited above - is circular-'reasoning'.

[arnoldo]

Origen does not support any mythicist claims in any way, shape or form. Consider the following quotes from Origen citing that Celsus's allegeded knowledge of John the Baptist.

CHAP. XLVII.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

. . . and the following quote which does not state the Celsus was not aware of the Apostle Paul. . . only that Celsus did not quote him a particular passage.

CHAP. LXIII.

And since Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus men of infamous notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and sailors of the vilest character, we have to remark, with respect to this charge, that he seems, in order to bring an accusation against Christianity, to believe the Gospel accounts only where he pleases, and to express his disbelief of them, in order that he may not be forced to admit the manifestations of Divinity related in these same books; whereas one who sees the spirit of truth by which the writers are influenced, ought, from their narration of things of inferior importance, to believe also the account of divine things. Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were notoriously wicked men, it is recorded that "Jesus selected His own apostles, as persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evildoers." And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, "Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man." Moreover, Paul, who himself also at a later time became an apostle of Jesus, says in his Epistle to Timothy, "This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into, the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief." And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ. He saw, probably, that anything he might say about that apostle would require to be explained, in consistency with the fact that, after being a persecutor of the Church of God, and a bitter opponent of believers, who went so far even as to deliver over the disciples of Jesus to death, so great a change afterwards passed over him, that he preached the Gospel of Jesus from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum, and was ambitious to carry the glad tidings where he needed not to build upon another man's foundation, but to places where the Gospel of God in Christ had not been proclaimed at all.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

Specifically, in the pasage below Origen claims that Celsus misquoted Paul's saying.

CHAP. XIII.

But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians, that "the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good," we have to answer that he slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow: "If any one among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God." The apostle, therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is fool ishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world.". . .
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en161.html

Then again, if Origen edited the gospels and Josephus's writings he may support mythicists claims.

[MrMacSon]

Origen does not support any mythicist claims in any way, shape or form.

" ... mythicist claims .." about what, specifically?

My reason for referring to & citing Origen is more to determine aspects of how the NT might have been developed.