Dating Paul's Writings

[JairCrawford]

Right. I get that. But there are still problems with associating all the Pauline writings with Marcion as the Pauline writings do not fall into his extreme seperation of the OT and NT theology.

[Minimalist]

I have an advantage over you here.  I see no evidence for the bullshit story that the "church" put out later.  Therefore, I find no reason at all to give that story any credence at all.

We have no xtian manuscripts at all prior to the first century and damn little in the 2d.

What we know is that Justin Martyr, writing c 160 AD, knows of Marcion but never heard of any body named "paul."

We know that both Irenaeus and Tertullian writing in the late and very late 2d century treat Marcion as a heretic.  Tertullian credits Marcion with producing the first church canon.  Marcion calls it the gospel of the lord and it is most of what later came to be luke.  He also included 10 epistles of someone named "paul."

The story of Marcion is that c 135 or so he went to Rome, gave them 200,000 sesterces, and founded a church and in less than 10 years was excommunicated as a heretic.  I have never found any reference to this tale in Irenaeus, Tertullian or Hippolytus the earliest sources we have.  Celsus, the first Greco-Roman writer to mention anyone named Jesus c 185 AD notes in one of his quotes that "christians utterly detest one another."  There was certainly no overall governing body.  In fact, we can't find any evidence of xtians in Rome at all during the first century.

And after that, things get real messy.

[The Valkyrie]

Probably better than dating Paul...

[chimp3]

Paul was a raving psycho. It does not matter when or if he wrote any of his rantings down.

[JairCrawford]

I have an advantage over you here.  I see no evidence for the bullshit story that the "church" put out later.  Therefore, I find no reason at all to give that story any credence at all.

We have no xtian manuscripts at all prior to the first century and damn little in the 2d.

What we know is that Justin Martyr, writing c 160 AD, knows of Marcion but never heard of any body named "paul."

We know that both Irenaeus and Tertullian writing in the late and very late 2d century treat Marcion as a heretic.  Tertullian credits Marcion with producing the first church canon.  Marcion calls it the gospel of the lord and it is most of what later came to be luke.  He also included 10 epistles of someone named "paul."

The story of Marcion is that c 135 or so he went to Rome, gave them 200,000 sesterces, and founded a church and in less than 10 years was excommunicated as a heretic.  I have never found any reference to this tale in Irenaeus, Tertullian or Hippolytus the earliest sources we have.  Celsus, the first Greco-Roman writer to mention anyone named Jesus c 185 AD notes in one of his quotes that "christians utterly detest one another."  There was certainly no overall governing body.  In fact, we can't find any evidence of xtians in Rome at all during the first century.

And after that, things get real messy.

We don't really need to dwell on that story though. If we look at the Pauline epistles and compare them with Marcions teachings we inevitably run into several differences in theology. That is the main issue with the theory that Marcion wrote Paul. Now does this prove Paul's existence beyond a shadow of a doubt or prove authentic authorship by Paul? No. But that's not the point. The point is that differences in theology cause significant problems with the theory that Marcion wrote the Pauline epistles.

[JairCrawford]

There were heretics everywhere.  The notion that there was any sort of "church" in the first-2d centuries which could exercise any kind of authority is patently absurd.

What there were were scattered groups with all sorts of fucked up beliefs.

---

It is interesting. But then how, under this insinuation, are the Pauline epistles unaware of gospels?

Justin knows nothing of any gospels, either.  He mentions something called the Memoirs of the Apostles but none of it matches up with any of what passes for "gospels" now.

I'm reading through his First Apology right now and while he has yet to mention anything from Paul, he actually quotes liberally from Matthew in one section so I don't see how he couldn't have known of at least that gospel.

[Minimalist]

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.

[Jehanne]

I know that the earliest datings to some of Paul's letters are set to about 50 AD. But that is very conservative dating. Nevertheless this is the first place I have heard insist that none of the letters could have been composed in the first century. I am wondering, why not? What is the smoking gun?

Most scholars, whether theologians or atheists seem to all agree (from what I can ascertain) that most of the Pauline epistles (the ones which scholarly consensus points to being by one authentic author, not counting the ones widely in question) predate the gospels.

I know there is some theory about Marcion involving the Pauline epistles, but I don't know much about it in detail.

Here's a great resource for you:

Early Chrisitan Writings

[Minimalist]

Indeed.  Peter Kirby has performed a great service with that site.  He also has an Early Jewish Writings link:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

[Jehanne]

Wow, thanks!  Never knew about his other site!!  (Internet message boards are useful!!!)