Since the biblical scholars themselves move the dating of Acts to the year 100CE, because Luke must have known the Pauline Corpus (This is the conclusion of a multi-year conference of dozens of specialists), is it not the same in the case of Mark?
But there are real reasons to question Luke’s knowledge of Paul’s letters. The ideas of the “Paul” of Luke diverge from the ideas of the “Paul” of the letters. And the recorded Pauline timeline in Acts is irreconcilable with the letters. (This is one of the weaknesses of Robyn Faith Walsh’s argument since she relies on a direct literary relationship between Paul and the gospels.) As for Mark their soteriology is similar but their Christology diverges. If you’re going to use similarities as a sign of influence what do you make of differences?
[…]
In relation to the issue of the dating of the Acts, the indicated researchers, and especially Richard I. Pervo11, who reported on the team’s work in this area and is also the author of an extensive monograph on the subject Dating Acts: between the Evangelist and the Apologists (Salem, OR: Polebridge Press 2006), concluded – after a thorough analysis of the sources – that the Acts was written between 100 and 130.12 In their opinion, this time period is indicated, on the one hand, by the dependence of the Acts on the Antiquitates Judaicae by Josephus Flavius (93/94) and the letters of Paul of Tarsus (their collection known from around 100), and on the other hand – by the highly probable knowledge of the Acts attested in the late-dated pastoral letters of Paul (1–2 Tim and Titus) and the Letter of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (69/82–156)13. This may indicate that
they belong to the world of the apostolic fathers, a period in the history of Christianity that spans the years 100–150. From this period, the Acts also know of specific institutions of Christian life that only appeared then,
including widows – Christian women. The financial abuses indicated in them
occurring in Christian communities and problems with teaching also find their echo in Paul’s pastoral letters, the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp from the first half of the 2nd century. The date of creation of the Acts is also connected with the problem concerning Paul of Tarsus, one of its main
heroes. Luke does not present him as the author of the letters or as using
this form of communication with the communities he founded or visited. This fact R.I. Pervo explains this, gaining support in his views
of the research team, that in some circles after 100 AD the letters of Paul of Tarsus
became controversial, even though most church communities in which they were known used them to shape Christian doctrine and ethics.
These arguments were decisive in shifting the date of the creation of the Acts from around 85 AD –
which most biblical scholars had been convinced of so far – to the years 110–120, and some seminar participants even opted for the years 100–150. 14
[…]
picking up at 1:02:24 of 1:12.52
History Valley
Are you saying that the Marcionite edition of the Pauline letters either
a) were created
or
b) or is an edited version of what already existed?
Dr. Trobisch:
Are the Pauline letters an exercise?
The Pauline letters are from the middle of the second century. That’s why you cannot say this is the theology of Paul. It’s the theology of the editors of the Pauline letters–how they elaborated the shorter letters of the Marcionite Pauline Letters.
Steefen:
So, when someone says a Pauline letter was written in the first century, one should say a Pauline letter that shows up in the Marcionite collection was written … and the edited canonical edition was completed when.
Peejayk
Great interview! David Trobisch is always illuminating. Would be great to have him discuss things with Marcus Vinzent to sort out authenticity of Marcion’s Paul (Marcus now believes Marcion inherited the letters whereas Trobisch thinks Marcion produced them)!
elfrad1714
This is not a new revelation. I recall reading German church historian Karlheinz Deschner. One of his works, published in 1980, is titled ‘The Falsified Belief’. The author demonstrates in detail how the gospels and various church dogmas were created. His books were not translated into English.
vocesanticae
The thing is, if Trobisch is even half right about this, then most “critical scholars” are a joke. Dupes, almost all of them, reading the canonical letters of Paul as historical sources.
Steefen:
So, when someone says a Pauline letter was written in the first century,
one should say a Pauline letter that shows up in the Marcionite collection was written in the first century
but the edited canonical edition was completed when?
Because Marcion’s gospel and letters are collected together, the speaker is saying, the letters are better understood as a response to that gospel.
How sure are you that Marcion did absolutely no editing?
The editors of the canonical Pauline Letters renamed the Laodiceans congregation to the Ephesians.
Laodicea is not the same place as Ephesus.
The Muratorian Canon was written to define the church’s canon of Scripture in response to Marcionism. It rejects several writings that are considered to contain heretical views.
During the time period of early Christianity, there was no accepted “New Testament”, merely books considered of greater or lesser value. While likely not intended strictly as a canon list, the fragment is evidence of among the first attempts to systemize such a group of approved writings, at least if it indeed dates to the 2nd century. Debates on what works should be accepted as scripture would continue. The earliest version of the eventual consensus New Testament canon did not occur until 367, when bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in his annual Easter letter composed a list that is still recognized today as the canon of 27 books. However, it would take several more centuries of debate until agreement on Athanasius’ canon was reached within all of Christendom.
– Wikipedia
Steefen
Marcion vs Athanasius of Alexandria vs the Muratorian Canon
Steefen
Did the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans become the canonical Letter to the Ephesians and his Letter to the Philipians?
ChastGPT said:
The idea that the Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans became the canonical Letter to the Ephesians or Letter to the Philippians is speculative and debated among scholars, but no direct evidence supports this claim. Here are some key points to consider:
The Letter to the Laodiceans
Mention in Colossians: In Colossians 4:16, Paul refers to a letter “from Laodicea” that the Colossians are to read. This has led to much speculation about the identity and content of this letter.
Non-canonical Status: No extant letter definitively known as Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans exists in the biblical canon, and any connection to canonical letters remains uncertain.
Connection to Ephesians
Circular Letter Theory: Some scholars suggest that the Letter to the Ephesians was a circular letter intended for multiple churches, possibly including Laodicea. Early manuscripts of Ephesians lack a specific address to “Ephesus,” lending weight to this theory. If so, this letter might have been the one Paul intended Laodiceans to read.
Stylistic Similarities: Both Colossians and Ephesians share similar themes and language, suggesting a possible connection.
Connection to Philippians
Distinct Context: The Letter to the Philippians has a distinct tone and content, focusing on Paul’s close relationship with the church in Philippi. It does not fit well with the idea of a circular or Laodicean letter.
The “Apocryphal” Letter to the Laodiceans
An apocryphal text called the Epistle to the Laodiceans circulated in early Christianity. This short letter is largely a compilation of phrases from Paul’s other writings and is considered a forgery.
Scholarly Opinions
Some scholars believe the letter Paul referred to in Colossians has been lost entirely.
Others propose that Ephesians might reflect the content or intent of a circular letter that included Laodicea but was not exclusively addressed to them.
In summary, while Ephesians may bear some connection to the lost letter referenced in Colossians, no evidence directly links it to the Letter to the Laodiceans. Philippians is even less likely to be associated with the Laodicean correspondence.
Steefen:
Philippians is even less likely to be associated with the Laodicean correspondence.
My reasoning which is nothing spectacular since I’m just a mechanic and driver is that Mark and John were the same gospels. Matthew and Luke are the same gospels. Marcion stories are found in John too, not just Luke (Peter disowns Jesus). Marcion stories are found in all the gospels.
Marcion stories ridicule the 12 apostles, and
Examples
Marcion: John 18. Peter’s three denials (a ridicule)
Nicene, Apostolic father club: John 21. Peter can feed the sheep (a honor)
Women: Jesus was the King and he loves everyone and he does all these miracles and was born from a virgin mom and was resurrected from the dead and omg he is God too. And the women saw him fist. It’s a secret. There’s going to be a big wedding someday.
Men: you’re out of your mind, we need to rework the story a little more.
Me: I ran around the town trying to catch all the roosters. I carried a fishing net full of 70 roosters I caught and brought it to the Temple to sacrifice as a bribe to have Jesus released. The Temple is closed until sunrise and all the roosters crowed. Then I got arrested for theft and bribery. Now I’m in jail.
I’m confused here. I thought the whole point of studying Early First Century Christianity was to completely trip balls on coming up with new ideas. Marcion doesn’t really seem to have any new radical idea going on. The OT Jews were constantly going back to Baal and Asherah. That good old fashioned Law of Moses YHWHism ever really existed is as probable as that Jesus existed. There’s words on paper here! We got words on paper!
I’m confused here.
No sh*t. Colin, perhaps it’s time for you to go be confused elsewhere.
The Apostle Paul supposedly died AD 64 or 65.
Supposedly, but we have real evidence for that. Perhaps later generations simply had no idea of the fate of Paul or any of the other early Christians. I like to imagine Paul being eaten by cannibals in the wilds of Hispania.
“No, no. you eat Christ’s body and blood! Not mine!!!”
I get exasperated when I read people go on and on about Marcion this, Marcion that, building up whole theories about him. None of his own writings survive and what we “know” comes from his enemies. Contrast that with Paul whose writings we possess as well as accounts of his adventures and forgeries in his name.
@Stephen
The apostle Paul was Jesus. Pontius Pilate didn’t crucify Jesus, he has real insurrectionist to get rid of that week. That’s why the so called Apostle Paul goes and hides up north of Judea and south in Arabia to con more Gentiles into it all. So yeah, Jesus was eventually killed by the Romans in Rome before 70AD after he finished up the job killing all the apostles and disciples.
Marcion was born after 70AD and didn’t know what was what.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)