Dating Paul's Writings

[vulcanlogician]

Thread title: I dated Paul's writings for a little while. We found we didn't have much in common, so we ended the relationship

[Minimalist]

Thread title: I dated Paul's writings for a little while. We found we didn't have much in common, so we ended the relationship

[JairCrawford]

People seem to see what they want to see.

http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/grsm_...uthors.htm

Passing to Justin Martyr; the evidence as to quotations found in his writings (145-149 A.D.) is especially valuable owing to its greater richness. Dr. Abbott concludes that Justin knew the Synoptic writings but not Jn. But the knowledge by Justin of the Synoptics has been hotly contested both because of the great freedom with which Justin treats the alleged quotations, and also because of several statements he makes on important points which prove conclusively that Justin used other accounts of the nativity and baptism than those in Mt. and Lk. The wide variation also of Justin's quotations from the present text of the Synoptics shows either quotations from memory, or that the original text of the first three Gospels differed very greatly from our present text.

What all of the scholars mentioned fail to consider, including the author, is the possibility/probability that the synoptics were works-in-progress at the time in question.  Again, we have no evidence at all that there was any sort of xtian canon prior to Marcion, and xtian writers tell us as much, and it makes a great deal of sense that people thought the idea of writing this shit down made sense even if they didn't agree with Marcion's take on it.  But these things take time.  They weren't done when Justin was writing but they were by the time Irenaeus attached the names to them.

I agree. There is no evidence for a Christian canon yet, but Justin Martyr's knowledge of these verses, or what would become verses, is still very important. And on top of that, the traditions surrounding Jesus that he knows is significant as well. The Bethlehem tradition especially surprised me.

Other things of note that I thought interesting is that Justin Martyr does not seem to have a complete understanding of the concept of the Trinity yet, ranking God first, Christ second, and the Spirit third. But this makes sense because this was pre Nicene Coucil.

Also, his writings are not as apostolic as I would have suspected, but rather very proto-Catholic. That surprised me.

[Minimalist]

but Justin Martyr's knowledge of these verses, or what would become verses,

Like I said, works in progress. 

Justin Martyr does not seem to have a complete understanding of the concept of the Trinity yet,

He died long before Tertullian invented the claim so, yeah, no way he could know of it.

[Jehanne]

People seem to see what they want to see.

http://gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/grsm_...uthors.htm



What all of the scholars mentioned fail to consider, including the author, is the possibility/probability that the synoptics were works-in-progress at the time in question.  Again, we have no evidence at all that there was any sort of xtian canon prior to Marcion, and xtian writers tell us as much,  and it makes a great deal of sense that people thought the idea of writing this shit down made sense even if they didn't agree with Marcion's take on it.  But these things take time.  They weren't done when Justin was writing but they were by the time Irenaeus attached the names to them.

I agree. There is no evidence for a Christian canon yet, but Justin Martyr's knowledge of these verses, or what would become verses, is still very important. And on top of that, the traditions surrounding Jesus that he knows is significant as well. The Bethlehem tradition especially surprised me.

Other things of note that I thought interesting is that Justin Martyr does not seem to have a complete understanding of the concept of the Trinity yet, ranking God first, Christ second, and the Spirit third. But this makes sense because this was pre Nicene Coucil.

Also, his writings are not as apostolic as I would have suspected, but rather very proto-Catholic. That surprised me.

What you had in the first few centuries was not one "Christianity", but many.  Eventually, a political "natural selection" evolved, as Constantine saw Christianity as a way to unify his Empire; ditto for Byzantium, onward into the Middle Ages and beyond, until this very day.  It was not until the French philosophes and Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson & Paine, Madison & Friends interactions with them that led to, "We the People..." that modern Western Civilization has been able to have Church & State go their separate ways.  With Darwin, Science has become the objective, religion the subjective.  But, the Battle continues....

[The Grand Nudger]

Specifically, they saw a way to unify the rabble of their holdings through a novel commercial enterprise enthusiastically seeking authoritative backers.

[Pat Mustard]

If we look at the Pauline epistles and compare them with Marcions teachings we inevitably run into several differences in theology.

No shit Sherlock.

That's what you get when 1,600 years of rewriting of various different original arguments happens, first to try and wrangle them into a single narrative largely of a single purpose (a bad failure I may add), and then secondly to serve whichever entity or political ideology was then currently in power.

The point is that differences in theology cause significant problems with the theory that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles.

No it really does not. When you consider how many times the "pauline" epistles, along with the rest of the bible, have been rewritten and to what purpose they were so altered every time, you can easily see the possibility that Marcion was the original author. Your problem is in assuming that the bible is a static document, when all the evidence proves that it is not.

[JairCrawford]

If we look at the Pauline epistles and compare them with Marcions teachings we inevitably run into several differences in theology.

No shit Sherlock.

That's what you get when 1,600 years of rewriting of various different original arguments happens, first to try and wrangle them into a single narrative largely of a single purpose (a bad failure I may add), and then secondly to serve whichever entity or political ideology was then currently in power.

The point is that differences in theology cause significant problems with the theory that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles.

No it really does not. When you consider how many times the "pauline" epistles, along with the rest of the bible, have been rewritten and to what purpose they were so altered every time, you can easily see the possibility that Marcion was the original author. Your problem is in assuming that the bible is a static document, when all the evidence proves that it is not.

I realize it's not static. But to my knowledge the Pauline epistles seem to be the least covered area of the Bible when it has come to redaction criticism and in order to bolster such a hypothesis, we would really need to analyze the Pauline writings to look for the places where said redaction most likely occurred. If the hypothesis is true, and if what Justyn Martyr said about Marcion is also true and not baseless slander, then we are looking at some very heavy redacting in the Pauline epistles.

[The Grand Nudger]

The pauline epistles have recieved so much attention that we have four distinct "paul"s and three categories for the works themselves.  Ranging from authentic (meaning, some guy wrote it).. 7..to, not sure who wrote it....2, and finally we arrive at the officially pseudo-epigraphic....4.  One stands out in a category all it's own..the category being utter horseshit.

Within just the "authentic" narratives there are two authentic pauls.  The second and third, and fourth categories contain redactionary, theological, and legendary paul (it's this this paul that's bolstered further by luke with acts.)

Somewhere, in all of this..is "paul"..both as a man and as a monolithic work of literature. You'll either find satisfaction or you wont..because no matter what category you want to discuss the only source or evidence for any of it will amount to

"magic book says...."

[JairCrawford]

The pauline epistles have recieved so much attention that we have four distinct "paul"s and three categories for the works themselves.  Ranging from authentic (meaning, some guy wrote it).. 7..to, not sure who wrote it....2, and finally we arrive at the officially pseudo-epigraphic....4.  One stands out in a category all it's own..the category being utter horseshit.

Within just the "authentic" narratives there are two authentic pauls.  The second and third, and fourth categories contain redactionary, theological, and legendary paul (it's this this paul that's bolstered further by luke with acts.)

Somewhere, in all of this..is "paul"..both as a man and as a monolithic work of literature. You'll either find satisfaction or you wont..because no matter what category you want to discuss the only source or evidence for any of it will amount to

"magic book says...."

That's interesting. Can you link me to anything? I'd like to take a look at it.

So far almost all of the redaction criticism I've read on has either been on the Gospels (I.e. The Jesus Seminar, two source theory for Synoptics, etc) or even moreso, the Old Testament (documentary hypothesis, supplementary hypothesis, etc.).