How late might the gospels be?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Irish1975 »

hakeem wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:05 am
The character called Paul and letters were manufactured no earlier than the 2nd century in an attempt to historicise the fable called the resurrection.
If, as you suppose, Paul is a fictional character, why are there so many incompatible versions of him in the NT? Wouldn't these hypothetical 2nd century fabulists be able to get their story straight?

1. genuine Paul (Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, 1 Thss, Phil, Phlm)
2. deutero Paul (Eph, Col)
3. fake Paul (pastorals)
4. impossibly fake superhero Paul (Acts)

Also, Paul's account of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 does not in fact "historicise" the gospel tale of the resurrection. Paul's resurrection is entirely mythical and mystical. It is not flesh and blood, a revivified corpse, but rather a "spiritual body." There is no empty tomb for Paul either.

Show me an ancient author as palpably as distinctive and consistent in his own voice as the Paul of the seven genuine letters.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Jax »

archibald wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:31 am
Jax wrote: Wed Jan 17, 2018 2:25 pm Wait! Jesus wasn't gay? :wtf:

OK Mr. Wizard, then why was he snuggling with the disciple that he loved in 'John'? And the naked youth? And the fact that Jesus is "around 30" and apparently not married?

;)
I'm working on a new book already.....
Is the protagonist Gayilean? :D
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:05 am
The character called Paul and letters were manufactured no earlier than the 2nd century in an attempt to historicise the fable called the resurrection.
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:55 am If, as you suppose, Paul is a fictional character, why are there so many incompatible versions of him in the NT? Wouldn't these hypothetical 2nd century fabulists be able to get their story straight?

1. genuine Paul (Rom, 1 & 2 Cor, Gal, 1 Thss, Phil, Phlm)
2. deutero Paul (Eph, Col)
3. fake Paul (pastorals)
4. impossibly fake superhero Paul (Acts)
It took almost 2000 years for people to realise the so-called Pauline letters were really products of multiple authors and that letters were composed after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

For hundreds of years Christians writers were claiming all the letters under the name of Paul were genuine when in fact the letters are falsely attributed to a manufactured character called Paul.

The Muratorian Canon
....the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first 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, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction.........He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy,.
Eusebius' EH 3.3 5.
Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.
Jerome's De Viris Illustribus
He wrote nine epistles to seven churches: To the Romans one, To the Corinthians two, To the Galatians one, To the Ephesians one, To the Philippians one, To the Colossians one, To the Thessalonians two; and besides these to his disciples, To Timothy two, To Titus one, To Philemon one.
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:55 am Also, Paul's account of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15 does not in fact "historicise" the gospel tale of the resurrection. Paul's resurrection is entirely mythical and mystical. It is not flesh and blood, a revivified corpse, but rather a "spiritual body." There is no empty tomb for Paul either.
What bizarre nonsense!!!

The Pauline writer admitted he was claiming or implying to be a witness that God raised Jesus from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:15
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
The letters under the name of Paul are in the Christian Bible because they are compatible with the teachings of the Church that Jesus, the Lord from heaven, the Creator, God's own Son, was killed by the Jews and that he bodily resurrected on the third day.

It is simply absurd to suggest that the Church would have used multiple epistles with known heresies from a known heretic which contradicted their own teachings.

Letters under the name of Paul were used by Church writers to argue against Marcion and furthermore Church writers who used the Pauline letters taught that Jesus bodily resurrected.
Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:55 am
Show me an ancient author as palpably as distinctive and consistent in his own voice as the Paul of the seven genuine letters.
Again, you post absurdities. You seem to have no idea that there are no such thing as genuine Paul writings. The existing Epistles were handwritten no earlier than the mid-2nd century.

The author of Acts claims or implies that he was a companion of Paul but did not corroborate, did not show, did not acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches up to the time of Festus c 61-63 CE and showed no influence by supposed Pauline teachings.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Irish1975 »

hakeem wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:30 pm
Again, you post absurdities. You seem to have no idea that there are no such thing as genuine Paul writings. The existing Epistles were handwritten no earlier than the mid-2nd century.
Come now, no need to be rude.

What is your evidence for a 2nd century dating for all the NT epistles? Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by hakeem »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:51 pm
hakeem wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:30 pm
Again, you post absurdities. You seem to have no idea that there are no such thing as genuine Paul writings. The existing Epistles were handwritten no earlier than the mid-2nd century.
Come now, no need to be rude.

What is your evidence for a 2nd century dating for all the NT epistles? Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
I never said that all NT Epistles are dated to the 2nd century.

The existing manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles [P 46] are indeed dated NO EARLIER than the mid 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... ent_papyri

Papyri 46 is dated to around 200 CE by means of Paleography

In addition, writings attributed to 2nd century writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Municus Felix show no knowledge of the character called Paul, no knowledge of his supposed letters, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings of the resurrection, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings about the Second Coming and no knowledge of a character called Paul who preached to anyone in the Roman Empire.

It is also virtually impossible to attempt to understand the Pauline Epistles or to put the letters in a chronological order without first reading the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles must have preceded the Pauline letters and it can be seen that Christian writings mention Acts of the Apostles no earlier than the 2nd century.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Irish1975 »

hakeem wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:47 pm
The existing manuscripts of the Pauline Epistles [P 46] are indeed dated NO EARLIER than the mid 2nd century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N ... ent_papyri

Papyri 46 is dated to around 200 CE by means of Paleography

In addition, writings attributed to 2nd century writers like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus, Municus Felix show no knowledge of the character called Paul, no knowledge of his supposed letters, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings of the resurrection, no knowledge of the Pauline teachings about the Second Coming and no knowledge of a character called Paul who preached to anyone in the Roman Empire.

It is also virtually impossible to attempt to understand the Pauline Epistles or to put the letters in a chronological order without first reading the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles must have preceded the Pauline letters and it can be seen that Christian writings mention Acts of the Apostles no earlier than the 2nd century.
1) Obviously the age of the manuscripts has no bearing on the dating of the text or author.

2) Elaine Pagels wrote a whole book, The Gnostic Paul, consisting of nothing but 2nd century gnostic exegesis of the letters of Paul. Paul was already well known at that time.

3) Do you think some 2nd century person wrote Galatians, which is by far the most embarrassing text for the later Church, in which Paul berates Peter and throws shade at James, and asserts the total independence of his gospel from the other apostles?
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Hakeem,
'1 Clement', usually accepted to have been written in the 1st century, mentions Paul and some of his letters.
Early in the 2nd century, the Naassenes also mentioned Paul and quoted Romans 1:27 (a very long verse) and
Basilides (120-140) also mentioned Paul and quoted at least one phrase from Paul's epistle 'Romans' (http://historical-jesus.info/64.html).
Actually, Justin quoted a verse in gLuke, deemed to be an interpolation including a phrase from 1 Corinthians (11:23-25), which is part of a passage (1 Cor 11:23-28 http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adb) considered also an interpolation (by some critical scholars and myself).
Marcion, around 130 CE, made extensive use of Paul's epistles (including some pseudo-Pauline ones). He worked on epistles which already had been combined (by others than Paul).

You are wrong into thinking that the relevant found manuscripts had to be written right after the Pauline epistles and Acts. It is more likely to be copies made well after the original texts.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by MrMacSon »

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:17 pm to Hakeem,

'1 Clement', usually accepted to have been written in the 1st century, mentions Paul and some of his letters.
They're pretty vague mentions -

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one but many labors, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

1Clem 6:1
Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among ourselves.
.
.
1Clem 46:9
Your division hath perverted many; it hath brought many to despair, many to doubting, and all of us to sorrow. And your sedition still continueth.

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

1Clem 47:3
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

1Clem 47:4
Yet that making of parties brought less sin upon you; for ye were partisans of Apostles that were highly reputed, and of a man approved in their sight.

1Clem 47:5
But now mark ye, who they are that have perverted you and diminished the glory of your renowned love for the brotherhood.

1Clem 47:6
It is shameful, dearly beloved, yes, utterly shameful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the very steadfast and ancient Church of the Corinthians, for the sake of one or two persons, maketh sedition against its presbyters.

1Clem 47:7
And this report hath reached not only us, but them also which differ from us, so that ye even heap blasphemies on the Name of the Lord by reason of your folly, and moreover create peril for yourselves.

Bernard Muller wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:17 pm Basilides (120-140) also mentioned Paul and quoted at least one phrase from Paul's epistle 'Romans' (http://historical-jesus.info/64.html).
So Origen tells us, over 10 yrs later.
pavurcn
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by pavurcn »

Comparative studies might be instructive. How far back do we find "first citations" of various works...not only that they exist, but definite phrases from them?

Note this item, for example: "The first clear mention of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations in antiquity is by Themistius in the 4th c. CE, who calls it Marcus’ ‘precepts’ (parangelmata)."

What is reasonable to expect about the history and provable reception of documents written in the circumstances of the first century? Do we even know how to accurately define reasonable expectations, with the few pieces of the puzzle that we possess? For us, Paul is a theological and indispensable giant of early Christianity. How was he actually perceived by various communities around the Mediterranean in the first decades of the movement? Who would have been able to read him and interested in quoting him in the first century, say, before Clement of Rome?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: How late might the gospels be?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:16 pmDo you think some 2nd century person wrote Galatians, which is by far the most embarrassing text for the later Church, in which Paul berates Peter and throws shade at James, and asserts the total independence of his gospel from the other apostles?
Some think that Marcion wrote the core of Galatians. Marcion would presumably not be too embarrassed to throw shade at James and berate Peter.

(This is not my current view, incidentally. Just throwing it out there.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply