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]

[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]

[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.).