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]

[Jehanne]

[Minimalist]

[Jehanne]

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