Books and letters of Paul.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:40 pm ... New Testament scholars are for the most part a bunch of nitwits with little imagination ...
Most are biased.

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:40 pm ... Of course the Church Fathers never explicitly tell us the big secret. It renders their own lie about 'apostles' - a concept non-existent in Israelite religion (the Samaritans always refer to Moses as THE apostle like the Marcionite[s] did their apostle - impotent.
Perhaps the Marcionites are channelling the Samaritans ?? ...

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:40 pm ... Here is about as close as any scholar comes to realizing the situation:
3. As yet another characteristic of this Gospel, it may be mentioned that the influence of Paul over the mind of Luke is remarkably conspicuous in the spirit of it, in the very form of its expressions, and not infrequently, we may also venture to say in the selection of the materials of which it is composed. There is an old tradition, according to which Luke is said to have been little other than the amanuensis of Paul in the composition of it;* and it is sometimes alleged that when Paul refers to his Gospel, as he does in more than one of his epistles, the reference is to this Gospel, as drawn up by Luke, under his superintendence, if not dictation. It would appear that the old heretical sect of the Marcionites, who owned no apostolical authority but that of Paul, received this Gospel as his, and rejected all the others; and, on this account also, it has been held and described to be the Pauline Gospel. But the preface of the Gospel expressly contradicts the idea of its Pauline authorship.

Edward Anderson Thomson The Four Evangelists; with the Distinctive Characteristics of Their Gospels, T & T Clark, 1868.

  • Vide Smith's Dissertation on the gospels p. lii., and on the Writings of St Luke p. 45 for the reference of the fathers to this tradition.
    • [underlining MrMacSon's]
>> "There is an old tradition, according to which Luke is said to have been little other than the amanuensis of Paul in the composition of it; and it is sometimes alleged that when Paul refers to his Gospel, as he does in more than one of his epistles, the reference is to this Gospel, as drawn up by Luke, under his superintendence, if not dictation." <<

< => G.Luke is Paul's gospel. That "the preface of the Gospel expressly contradicts the idea of its Pauline authorship" might reflect a preface designed to mislead; say, to give the impression that there were a number of 'apostles' [of/for the NT].

And, indeed, the commentary by Thomson immediately after the passage you cite, Secret Alias, is -
It [the preface of G.Luke] asserts that it was drawn up by the evangelist himself from the testimony of those which "from the beginning were eyewitness and ministers of the word" and we know that Paul was not of those authorities. It is, as it has been always designated, "The gospel according to Luke" not "The gospel according to Paul". At the same time, the connection of Luke with Paul does come out in various portions and references of the gospel, indicating the similarity of thought and feeling which obtained between them, and perhaps also some direction and information on the part of Paul.


eta: Luke 1:1-3

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled /[been surely believed] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word [τοῦ λόγου]. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning ...

Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by Secret Alias »

Well obviously Luke the beloved disciple of Paul wrote that...

Strange that in the midst of a crazy movement which thought that invisible demonic forces were in control of everything except for the divine Spirit in the saints Luke just happens to sound so sober and understated. What could possibly account for the "un-first century" characteristic of Luke's modesty? Hmmm
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:18 pm
Edward Anderson Thomson The Four Evangelists; with the Distinctive Characteristics of Their Gospels, T & T Clark, 1868.

  • Vide Smith's 'Dissertation on the gospels' p. lii., and on 'the Writings of St Luke' p. 45 for the reference of the fathers to this tradition.
    • [underlining MrMacSon's]
Those are
  1. Dissertation on the origin and connection of the Gospels: with a synopsis of ..., and
  2. The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke

On p. lii of Dissertation on the origin and connection of the Gospels, Smith notes Irenaeus referred to "Luke [as] the follower of Paul, [who] wrote what Paul preached" (in Adv Haer. iii 1), and -
... this is not inconsistent with what may be inferred from St Luke's preface, that he wrote from what the original eyewitnesses1 had communicated to him; because, in another place, he (Irenaeus) takes the same view of the origin of this Gospel. We may conclude, therefore, both from the circumstances of the case and ancient tradition that St Luke had the approbation of St Paul, and, to a certain extent, his assistance.

James Smith. 'Dissertation on the origin and connection of the Gospels: with a synopsis of ...' Wm. Blackwood & Sons, 1853. p. lii
1 Inference that G.Luke's preface refers to Paul as an 'original eyewitness' raises the question whether Paul's vision on the road to Damascus might actually have been or could be considered as a genesis event for the Christ Jesus story (albeit a vision, of course).


In 'The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke', Smith notes interesting aspects of the narrated relationships between Luke and Paul in the accounts of Acts -
... in his account of the second missionary journey of St.Paul, he [the author of Acts, purportedly Luke] uses the first person plural, in Acts, xvi. 10., proving that he was then at Troas. Now it is interesting to observe how naturally the change of style from the historical to the autoptical coincides with the change of pro-noun. It is in fact one of those undesigned coincidences which afford such conclusive proof of the authenticity of the narration.
[ . . . ]
Another argument is drawn from the statement in xvi. 10 "And after he had seen the vision immediately toe endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the Gospel unto them." This is held to be arrogance if we suppose it was written by St Luke. But there is no arrogance in the statement of a fact, a fact confirmed, as regards Luke, by St Paul, who calls him his fellow-labourer (Philem. 24.); and besides it is the universal practice for even the humblest members of collective bodies of men to save circumlocution by speaking of their proceedings in the first person plural. The author does no more in this passage.

James Smith (1856) The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts.

And, wrt "the positive evidence, which proves that Luke, who is mentioned by St. Paul in his epistles, was the author of the Gospel and the Acts", Smith also makes some interesting points about the alignment of Luke and Paul -
In the epistles Luke is mentioned as a "fellow-labourer", as one who was with him on his first visit to Rome, and as a physician. Here then are three conditions which, if shown to be fulfilled in Luke, and in him alone of all the companions of St Paul, we cannot avoid the conclusion that he is the author of the works in question. I shall, therefore, endeavour to show that they are all fulfilled in the writer of the Acts and the third Gospel.

1st. He was a fellow-labourer (Philem. 24.). This is proved by the text already quoted (Acts, xvi. 10.), where-in he states himself as one of those called to preach the Gospel in Macedonia.

2nd. He was with St. Paul on his first arrival at Rome, 'proved' by Col. iv. 14., written immediately after; and by Acts, xxviii. 16., where the writer states his arrival therein the following terms: "And when we were come to Rome," etc.

3rd. He was a physician (Col. iv. 14.).

James Smith (1856) The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul: With Dissertations on the Life and Writings of St. Luke, Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by Ulan »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:11 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:53 pmn.b. “Libri et epistulae Pauli viri iusti” doesn't/wouldn't have punctuation (?)
Not in antiquity, most likely.
The sentence wouldn't need any punctuation anyway, as long as it is clear that "viri iusti" isn't the subject of the next sentence.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by Joseph D. L. »

DCHindley wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:54 am Reading over the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, there is this rather odd statement made by one of the captive Christians:

Saturninus the proconsul said: What are the things in your chest?

Speratus said: Books and epistles of Paul, a just man.

Now it can be generally agreed upon what is meant by epistles, whether they be of the Marcionites or the Pastoral redactions.

But what of the former inclusion of books? What books of Paul does/could he have?
The martyr seems to be equating "Books" with acknowledged "religious books," probably the Judean scriptures (Law & Prophets & Writings), although some of the Gospel books could be among these. The term "epistles of Paul" as a second category suggests edifying reading, not sacred lit., but I could easily be wrong about this.

They were martyred 17 July of 180 CE, so for them, there was no official NT canon except for some Gospel books. About the same time Irenaeus, located at Lugdunim in Gaul, was promoting a full set of authoritative Christian themed books that probably originated a couple decades earlier in Asia Minor (from Polycarp of Smyrna). I guess that the new sets of Christian books available in Gaul and Asia Minor, which included the full 13 letters of Paul in a "canonical" format, had not reached as far as Scilla in Numidia, waaaay out east beyond Libya. However, just the fact that they had the presence of mind to collect a record of the trial (official transcripts made available by bribes, publically posted announcements, and eyewitness accounts), which suggests an organized community, not just a bunch of weirdos. Christian communities, who meet in closed (invite only) worship sessions, would have been seen by the Romans as an illegal collegia.

The Judeans were the only ethnic community in the Roman sphere that had gained the right to meet in large numbers openly on a weekly basis for their worship. The fact that the Romans clamped down on the Christian community in Scilla suggests that by then the split between Christianity and Judaism was wide. Maybe the martyr was suggesting that they were actually a faction of Judaism (offering Judean scriptures as proof) with some of the epistles of Paul used in worship. I guess the judge was having none of that.

DCH
Not to be "that guy" but this doesn't really address anything of what I'm getting at.

The phrasing of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs implies that it is both books and epistles belonging to Paul, and not just epistles. "Books and epistles of Paul, a just man", versus "books, and epistles of Paul, a just man". Now because the Greek doesn't include punctuation, it is up to the wording and context to help interpret what is being said. When translated in such a way as I quoted in my original post, does lead me to think that books and epistles belong together.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by Giuseppe »

Marcion accepted that the 12 were apostles before Paul:
Who loves Paul but is somewhere on the spectrum between hostile and ambivalent towards the Jerusalem Apostles?

In my mind, the answer could not be more obvious: it was the Marcionites!
https://timsteppingout.wordpress.com/20 ... rrassment/

That ambivalence founds his explanation in the recognition of the fact that the 12 came before Paul.

Otherwise Marcion world have shown only pure hostility, not ambivalence, towards the 12, if Paul was really first.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by lsayre »

Even though they appear within the same sentence, why should the word "Books" be associated with Paul's letters?
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:20 amThe phrasing of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs implies that it is both books and epistles belonging to Paul, and not just epistles.
Groucho Marx famously quipped: "One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I will never know." Such modifying phrases can be ambiguous in how they apply to the rest of the sentence; this is especially common in cases in which either common sense or background knowledge tells us which application is correct. In this case, it is common sense that tells us that elephants do not wear pajamas, so the proper way to understand the sentence (the way that Marx is counting on!) is to understand the pajamas as being on Marx himself... until he unleashes the joke. It is important to understand that there is no default position; that is, there is no one and only one correct way of reading the sentence before we apply common sense. "I shot an elephant in the savannah" has a prepositional phrase just like "in my pajamas," but in this case we would likely apply "in the savannah" very differently than "in my pajamas." Only common sense or background knowledge (elephants do not wear pajamas, but they do live in the savannah) clues us in to how to read the modifying phrase.

In the case of "books and epistles belonging to Paul," the phrase "belonging to Paul" is ambiguous in its application; as above, there is no default position here. Here, however, common sense also does not help, since in the abstract books are just as capable of belonging to Paul as epistles are. So what is required is background information, and Christians both know and knew that "the epistles of Paul" are a thing, while "books of Paul" are not. If we assume that the Christian in question shared this same background knowledge, then the ambiguity is easily resolved in favor of books being separate from "epistles of Paul." In order to read "books" as belonging to Paul, one would have to eschew this background knowledge (or assume it was not shared by the Christian in question).

I do not by any means think it is impossible that this phrase implies "books of Paul." But it does require two assumptions (first, that "of Paul" applies both to the epistles and to the books, and second, that there was a category of literature, separate from the epistles, that could be called "books of Paul"); the other view requires only one assumption (to wit, that "of Paul" applies only to the epistles), since "the epistles of Paul" are famous and do not require an assumption.
When translated in such a way as I quoted in my original post, does lead me to think that books and epistles belong together.
Then this probably says more about what you want to find than about what is actually there. The phrase is naturally and grammatically completely ambiguous. It does not lean, on its own, in any direction; either of the two readings is completely possible and makes syntactic sense. To create an entirely new category of literature on the basis of an inherently ambiguous modifying phrase is just reckless.

But I would love for background information to turn this in the other direction for me. Are there ancient mentions of literature which, separately from the epistles, could be called books of Paul? If some people thought that Paul was responsible for the gospel of Luke, that could be "a book" (singular) of Paul. Maybe there are more. Maybe some Christians turned 2 Timothy 4.13 and its mention of "books, especially the parchments," into a legend about Pauline books. What is out there?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by Ulan »

I agree. There is no way to force any specific meaning into this sentence. It's simply ambiguous, and no poking will change that.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Books and letters of Paul.

Post by DCHindley »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:20 am The phrasing of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs implies that it is both books and epistles belonging to Paul, and not just epistles. "Books and epistles of Paul, a just man", versus "books, and epistles of Paul, a just man". Now because the Greek doesn't include punctuation, it is up to the wording and context to help interpret what is being said. When translated in such a way as I quoted in my original post, does lead me to think that books and epistles belong together.
As has been reported in the newz recently, the US State Department has issued specific rules for use of the comma in State issued documents.

That phrase, in the original Greek, could go:
1) Books and epistles of Paul, a just man
2) Books, and epistles of Paul, a just man

#1 would imply that Paul wrote "books," which he did not. He wrote Epistles, both lengthier treatises and also shorter personal letters. What we today mean by "book" is not what ancients meant by "biblion' (little scroll).

#2, on the other hand, means "Books" (like the Books of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation), and *also* Epistles of Paul.

I believe that Martyrologies now must be punctuated according to the Chicago Manual of Style, or are of null effect.

DCH
Post Reply