Hi
The thing that sticks in my mind while studying the genuine letters of Paul is how can we know what Paul originally wrote. The earliest copies we appear to have are fragments like P46 which dates from around the 3rd century AD. Are we wasting our time trying to get to the true words of Paul?
You will have to study Marcion who was a fan of Paul.
I was looking at the book, The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon by Jason D. BeDuhn.
It is incomplete to just look at the 3rd century fragment.
Steve Campbell
author of three books on the historical accuracy and the historical context of the bible.
I do not trust Paul. You can read my book Historical Accuracy to see why. What I’ll say now is that he was a prophet of Jewish Apocalypticism which produced false prophets. So, he had a vision of a false prophet which made him build a religion without using organic primary sources.
Second, he misappropriated Hebrew/Old Testament verses. So, he has built Pauline Christianity on flawed usage of Hebrew sacred scripture.
See the thread right before yours, “Paul Misappropriated Four Hebrew…”
Are you wasting time by trying to get to the true words of a person who uses the Hebrew Bible in a flawed way? You are already poised to accept the answer: Yes you are.
To go along with BeDuhn’s book there are:
A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul: A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion by Clabeaux
and
The Very First Bible by A.W. Mitchell.
Many thanks for your information. I have much new research to investigate. I am also curious why there appears to be no mention of Paul in the gospels. Surely by AD 70 when Mark was probably written there would have been some knowledge widely circulating regarding Paul’s theology, especially the so called creed in 1 Corinthians 15 dealing with the resurrection which would perhaps boost the gospel’s credibility. Of course there is the Paul of Luke’s Acts but frankly I don’t trust this as an historical document. I might even join the few who believe Luke was not the author.
Thanks again
Doug
I am also curious why there appears to be no mention of Paul in the gospels.
I would simply chalk that up to his not being part of the story they are telling. He wasn’t around while Jesus was alive and everyone knew it.
He does, though, feature pretty prominently in the sequel to Luke’s gospel.
how can we know what Paul originally wrote. The earliest copies we appear to have are fragments like P46 which dates from around the 3rd century AD. Are we wasting our time trying to get to the true words of Paul?
Are you concerned with the accuracy of the transmission (“do we know the scribes copied his letters accurately?”); or are you concerned with whether Paul wrote the uncontested letters at all?
As far as I can tell, the suggestion that 1 Cor. 15:5-11 was a post-Pauline addition originates with Robert Price; see, ** you do not have permission to see this link ** Journal of Higher Criticism, Fall 95. His argument has nothing to do with Marcion (who is mentioned only once in a passing footnote).
We don’t have any copies of Marcion’s Apostolicon. We have only what Tertullian and Epiphanius tell us about it. Neither of them gives any hint that the creed of 1 Cor 15 was missing. (I was pleased to find ** you do not have permission to see this link **.)
So what you have in The Very First Bible seems to be a recent reconstruction put out by an outfit going by the name “Marcionite Christian Church”. And it appears that they worked on the presumption that Marcion had the authentic Pauline corpus, and they were convinced by Price’s article that Paul didn’t actually write 1 Cor 15:5-10 (though they included vv.3-4 & 11).
Is Price right about this? I think he could be, but I wouldn’t put any money on it.
There is so much we have to speculate and read between the lines regarding Paul. An example, how did Paul locate Peter/ Cephas to spend two weeks with him as he says in Galations 1 18.? If he did find Peter in the bustling city of Jerusalem we have no details of how this lengthy meeting went. Peter, probably by then, a disillusioned illiterate fisherman, possibly keeping a low profile for fear of the Romans and Paul, an educated, well travelled evangelist. I don’t believe we can trust Acts to help us in the Paul quest. So we rely on P46 and perhaps scattered references in Marcion etc.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)