(December 11, 2017 at 2:47 am)JairCrawford Wrote:(December 11, 2017 at 2:25 am)Minimalist Wrote: And yet, over a century after this "paul" guy supposedly wrote them we have an extensive work of a xtian writer, Justin, written to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD and guess what? He doesn't seem to know jack-shit about this "paul" guy. Never mentions him. Although he does know about the alleged arch-heretic Marcion. Oddly, xtian writers like Tertullian tell us that it was Marcion who was the first to produce a canon of alleged scripture which included 10 of these pauline epistles and the so-called "Gospel of the Lord" which turns out to be a large chuck of "Luke."
Odd, eh?
Justin was clearly more focused on the Gospel than the Pauline epistles. We can't say for sure whether he ignored them or didn't know them.
As for Marcion, that doesn't surprise me. He developed conflicting views from the Pauline perspective but it doesn't surprise me that he could have canonized the gospels early on.
Yeah, sure. I suppose someone could have written a History of the American Revolution in 1876 without once mentioning George Washington, too? The question is WHY would they do it.
I'll give you a better reason. That paul bullshit had not yet been re-edited into something the proto-orthodox could live with. Once "paul" had been rehabilitated they started pushing him out there as part of their propaganda effort. Not so oddly the earliest pauline manuscript we have is dated to the late 2d - mid 3d century. Just about what one would expect.
Along those same lines Justin never heard of any of the gospel writers, either. Clearly those names had not been attached by 160.
