Paul's shadow in the gospels

[hakeem]

I agree that there is good warrant for a "conclusion that the author of gMark wrote under the influence of Paul's preaching, letters, or church communities", but I find some of this slightly contradictory.

There is no good evidence to conclude that the author of gMark was influenced by the supposed preaching of Paul.

1. The story of John the Baptist is not in the Epistles.

2. The stories of miracles of Jesus are not in the Epistles.

3. The temptation and transfiguration are not in the Epistles.

4. The claim in gMark that the visitors to the tomb told no-one that Jesus resurrected is not in the Epistles.

5. If Jesus did live and was actually known to be crucified then the author of gMark would not need a letter from anyone to write about the crucifixion.

6. Virtually all the stories about Jesus in gMark were made up [never happened] or was taken from a non-Pauline source so the author of gMark would not need a letter from Paul to invent a crucifixion .

It is blatantly obvious that if the author of gMark was influenced that it was by non-Pauline sources.

This is a good point -

As James Tabor says in Paul and Jesus, one needs to learn to read the NT backwards, contrary to our cultural programming.

This would mean that Revelation [the Apocalypse of John] predates the Epistles.

[andrewcriddle]

I have already encountered on this forum the idea that Paul's letters were written in the 2nd century. What is the argument or evidence for that?

The lack of acknowledgement of Paul or his body of work by early 2nd century writers. Robert M Price thinks the Pauline letters are the product of a few people like Polycarcp, someone in the Marcionite community, and a 2nd century Paul.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch knew about both Paul and his letters. If you are assuming that neither of these is a genuine early 2nd century work then you should make that clear.

Andrew Criddle

[DCHindley]

I have already encountered on this forum the idea that Paul's letters were written in the 2nd century. What is the argument or evidence for that?

The lack of acknowledgement of Paul or his body of work by early 2nd century writers. Robert M Price thinks the Pauline letters are the product of a few people like Polycarcp, someone in the Marcionite community, and a 2nd century Paul.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch knew about both Paul and his letters. If you are assuming that neither of these is a genuine early 2nd century work then you should make that clear.

I'm not sure where MrMacSon stands on the authenticity of Clement of Rome or Ignatius, but as someone who used to think they were authentic (although perhaps interpolated), I am now very suspicious of them. They, plus the Didache, now seem to me to be Christian pseudepigrapha. Clement of Rome's letter is extremely long, longer IIRC than even any of Paul's letters, which makes it a literary work advancing an agenda. The letters of Ignatius have been discussed on this board, where I have questioned their authenticity.

Then again, MrMacSon might be following the line argument that the composition of a work should not be dated before it is cited by an authentic Church Father, or when the earliest mss containing it can be dated. Personally, I think that this latter idea is hogwash, and is better suited to apologetics, as it s a convenient way to "wave away" things one disagrees with.

DCH

[hakeem]

Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch knew about both Paul and his letters. If you are assuming that neither of these is a genuine early 2nd century work then you should make that clear.

Andrew Criddle

You are assuming that the letters attributed to Clement and Ignatius are genuine since you have no historical corroborative evidence to show when they were really composed.

In addition, none of the letters attributed to Clement or Ignatius state when any letters under the name of Paul were written. The so-called Clement and Ignatius letters are essentially worthless to date the Epistles under the name of Paul.

[Jax]

hakeem is correct. 1 Clement and the Ignatian letters are useless for dating Paul.

[MrMacSon]

I have already encountered on this forum the idea that Paul's letters were written in the 2nd century. What is the argument or evidence for that?

The lack of acknowledgement of Paul or his body of work by early 2nd century writers. Robert M Price thinks the Pauline letters are the product of a few people like Polycarcp, someone in the Marcionite community, and a 2nd century Paul.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch knew about both Paul and his letters. If you are assuming that neither of these is a genuine early 2nd century work then you should make that clear.

I have no view about the date of 1 Clement, but note its two references to Paul -

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 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 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.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html

I do not thing the letters of Ignatius of Antioch are genuine early 2nd century.

Part of Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians - “My spirit is devoted to the cross, which is a stumbling block to unbelievers but salvation and eternal life to us,” - has been said to echo what Paul had written to the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 1:18—20 (but I think that's long stretch) -

• 1 Cor. 1:18—20: -
  
  18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
  

  • “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” [Isaiah 29.14]

  20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
  .

• And “Become wise as a serpent in everything and guileless forever as the dove,” has been said to paraphrase Matt 10:16
  
  And Jesus is the “door to the Father,” is said to echo John 10:7—9; 14:6.

[Bernard Muller]

The lack of acknowledgement of Paul or his body of work by early 2nd century writers. Robert M Price thinks the Pauline letters are the product of a few people like Polycarp, someone in the Marcionite community, and a 2nd century Paul.

a) According to Hyppolitus of Rome, the Naassenes were among the first gnostics, probably starting around 110 CE.

From 'Against All Heresies", book 5, chapter 2:
"What, however, the natural use is, according to them, we shall afterwards declare. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"- now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes,-"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."30 For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs, and a hidden mystery of blessed pleasure, are comprised."
It seems that very early, they made use of Paul and Romans 1:27 (in bolded italics).

Also in chapter 3 of same book:
"Paul the apostle, he says, knew of this gate, partially opening it in a mystery, and stating "that he was caught up by an angel, and ascended as far as the second and third heaven into paradise itself; and that he beheld sights and heard unspeakable words which it would not be possible for man to declare."
Here they made use of 2 Corinthians 12:3-4 (in bolded italics)

Also in same chapter:
These are, he says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, "which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him."
Here these Naassenes made use of 1 Corinthians 2:13-14a (in bolded italics).

b) Origen said gnostic Basilides (120-140) wrote: "Indeed, the Apostle [Paul] has said, "I was once alive apart from the law," [Rom 7:9] at some time or other. That is [Paul means], before I came into this body, I lived in the kind of body that is not subject to the law: the body of a domestic animal or a bird." (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 1015B)

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

About "Mark" copying from Paul's epistles: http://historical-jesus.info/66.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

You are assuming that the letters attributed to Clement and Ignatius are genuine since you have no historical corroborative evidence to show when they were really composed.

Definitively 1st century for 1 Clement, according to the internal evidence: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html, then "find" on 5.2

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

You are assuming that the letters attributed to Clement and Ignatius are genuine since you have no historical corroborative evidence to show when they were really composed.

Definitively 1st century for 1 Clement, according to the internal evidence: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html, then "find" on 5.2

Cordially, Bernard

There is absolutely no definite internal evidence which shows the anonymous letter was written in the 1st century. You cannot show or provide any historical evidence that an actual person by the name of Clement of Rome wrote any letter to anyone at anytime.