Steefen
Well, well, well, it is probable that there was an insertion of the Last Supper language into 1 Corinthians, Chapter 11 because Pauline Christianity dates after AD64 and likely, after AD70. Of course, no Pauline Christianity in the first century puts it not only after AD64, AD70, but after Josephus’ Antiquities and after the Testimonium Flavianum.
Jarek
All of Paul’s letters were written by professional writers using false attribution. Most of this has been shown by biblical research. One author wrote the 7-letter collection, another 24-letter collection was written by another author. One was first, the other was late. Other authors showed better or worse imitative artistry of the first letters. Despite these efforts, the Corpus had letters of various authors. The letters were written for missionaries before the year 100.
Steefen
So Paul existed as the second passage after the Testimonium Flavianum puts forward by Josephus; but, that does not rule out Paul was just a name attributed to “Pauline” letters. Mark is just a name attributed to gospel of Paul. Matthew is just a name attributed to gospel of Matthew.
Jarek
You are a missionary and you want to convey something important, what you have just come up with. You write it down.
The next day, you sit on the agape and pull out yesterday’s scroll and speak. “I inherited this letter from my grandfather who was a student of the disciple of the great apostle Paul. Grandfather passed it on to my father, my father gave it to me …”
Your words take on multi-generational power and tradition.
Steefen
Sounds like the invented tradition of a great missionary was invented by Marcion.
Now, let me put on my hat of another role.
Jesus did not exist.
Paul may have gotten wind of Enoch being turned into an angel. Paul made Jesus that angel.
Josephus said a Pauline character invented something to exploit the pious in order to gain sex and money. A second century Marcion (and professional writers) as opposed to a first century Paul wrote evangelizing material and attributed it to a first century Paul.
Josephus may have known elements of Paul’s scam because they appear in the TF. Tacitus calls all of it “superstition.” The TF does not mention the Last Supper. So, Robert is exhibiting wishful thinking that the Last Supper was actually known by Paul who didn’t even show he knew who Judas was.
With Paul now separated from 1 Corinthians, Paul’s name is only assigned to 1 Cor., there was some Oral Tradition “superstition” but not necessarily with Last Supper human sacrifice like Decius Mus sacrificed his life and like the son of that man, also named Decius Mus sacrificed his life, and later Jesus sacrificed his life for the world as a Decius Mundus. Antiquities of the Jews was completed AD93. Jesus sacrificing his life is put in the context of scam and exploitation. Look at the two passages following the TF.
James the Brother of Jesus is not known for having carried out the memorial ritual of Last Supper.
Jarek said
Robert said
I doubt Vinzent would claim to have proven that. There’s a difference between being able to defend a thesis and proving it. There’s no proof about these kinds of things.
So, proven or not, if there was no Pauline Christianity in the first century, who do you think wrote Paul’s so-called authentic letters? And when do you think they were written.
All of Paul’s letters were written by professional writers using false attribution. Most of this has been shown by biblical research. One author wrote the 7-letter collection, another 24-letter collection was written by another author. One was first, the other was late. Other authors showed better or worse imitative artistry of the first letters. Despite these efforts, the Corpus had letters of various authors. The letters were written for missionaries before the year 100.
Before the year 100 means they were not Marcion missionaries.
Pseudepigrapha (also anglicized as “pseudepigraph” or “pseudepigraphs”) are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author, or a work whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.
Steve Campbell, argumentation specialist
If the gospel of Mark, the gospel of Matthew, Paul’s 1 Corinthians, and Paul’s Romans were not written by Mark, Matthew, and Paul but were attributed to fictional or historical figures of the past, the author/s of the seven authentic letters of “Paul” would have written 1 Cor. and Romans after AD 64.
There is less than a decade before the Gospel of Mark was completed.
The real author/s of the seven authentic letters of “Paul” … Wait
July 18, AD 64, Rome burned under Nero and according to Tacitus, there was a superstition about Jesus Christ being crucified (extreme penalty).
For “Paul” to be so deficient on the biography of the biblical Jesus, the real author of the seven authentic letters of Paul had more time to pick up biographical information from the superstition/Oral Tradition so strong in Rome; and, there is less than a decade before the Gospel of Mark was completed, giving the real author of Pauline letters time to pick up details from that gospel if not the superstition/Oral Tradition so strong in Rome.
James the Just died AD 62. The real author of Paul did not pick up the Our Father prayer from James and did not mourn the death of James by praying the Our Father. Where is the eulogistic chapter in Pauline letters? Where is the eulogistic chapter in the book by “Luke,” Acts of the Apostles?
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
I doubt Vinzent would claim to have proven that. There’s a difference between being able to defend a thesis and proving it. There’s no proof about these kinds of things.
So, proven or not, if there was no Pauline Christianity in the first century, who do you think wrote Paul’s so-called authentic letters? And when do you think they were written.
All of Paul’s letters were written by professional writers using false attribution. Most of this has been shown by biblical research. One author wrote the 7-letter collection, another 24-letter collection was written by another author. One was first, the other was late. Other authors showed better or worse imitative artistry of the first letters. Despite these efforts, the Corpus had letters of various authors. The letters were written for missionaries before the year 100.
So sometime in the first century some unknown professional writer just made up this Paul character and fabricated communities he is said to have founded in Thessaloniki, Corinth, Phillipia, and Galatia. He fabricated these rather chaotic letters to these communities and also created a rather fine letter from this fictional Paul character to the gentile churches in Rome. This was done to train missionaries. Most of this has been shown to be the case by biblical research? Which scholars exactly have shown this to be the case? How many of their fellow critical scholars accept that this has now been shown to be the case?
Robert said
Steefen said
… The TF does not mention the Last Supper. So, Robert is exhibiting wishful thinking that the Last Supper was actually known by Paul who didn’t even show he knew who Judas was. …
Mistaken logic. Whether or not Josephus knew of or included the Lord’s supper does not preclude the possibility of Paul knowing about it. Josephus and Paul were two different people writing very different works.
… and according to Tacitus, there was a superstition about Jesus Christ being crucified (extreme penalty). …
Again, that’s not what Tacitus says. The belief that Jesus was crucified was not the contents of the superstition. Rather, Tacitus says that the execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (14–37 CE) temporarily suppressed the superstition.
Mistaken logic? You mistook my point: not even Josephus or an interpolator included the Last Supper in the TF. I am simply showing there is no evidence that can serve as hooks for a line of reason; hence, no counterargument that Paul knew about it. Neither the Pauline letters nor Josephus can be used to explain how “Paul” came to know word-for-word what happened in a private dinner in a scene of historical fiction.
Second, every one knows what Tacitus says and everyone knows what the superstition was.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What made the claim most mischievous was that the Samaritan Redeemer suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius not the superstition that Jesus of Galilee was handed over to Pilate for execution. It was bad enough that Caiaphas and Pilate no longer held offices after the Samaritan Redeemer event but to substitute a miracle worker who paid his taxes who Pilate regrets and washes his hands of responsibility for his execution–to substitute a holier and fictitious character for the Samaritan Redeemer is quite mischievous (causing trouble) for Rome.
Tacitus did not say the resurrection was the superstition: the life and execution of Christus was a most mischievous superstition when the execution of the Samaritan Redeemer was the reality. Word-for-word interpretation fails in the light of an interpretation within historical context. If Tacitus said Christus was one of two religious leaders given the death penalty by Pilate, I would have to say Tacitus did his research on the matter.
Robert
And even if the letters were gathering more interest and influence around this time, they still were not being seen as authoritative scripture.
Steefen
If the letters better matched Oral Tradition, they would have been seen as authoritative.
If Jesus was not substituted for the Samaritan Redeemer, the letters would have been seen as authoritative.
Nero was not the only one to see the Jesus Christ, born without a biological father, doing miracles, etc. story as a superstition.
If Paul really cared about Jesus, he would have cared about the brother of Jesus, James.
Robert said
Jarek said
This is the difference between us. I would be on your side if Harnack were right in dating Acts. Then I would understand that here two different currents met around 65 and in order not to cannibalize each other, they decided to synchronize each other. …
I certainly don’t think Acts was written that early. But why would these two currents have to come together at the same time? I think it’s perfectly fine that there be quite a bit of time between Paul’s specific letters being written and his story taking on the legendary proportions that it has in the book of Acts. If it took around 40 years for the gospel of Mark to be written, what’s so surprising for it to take just as long for Acts to be written?
But Letters 40-60, black hole, Corpus 100, Resurrection 150, Acts 100-150 make no sense whatsoever. When you look at these dates, the cause and effect sequence starts with Corpus. Marcion gave a subsidy, it was accepted and they tried to get along for 5 years. For 5 years was ok. Something happend. Did not work. Marcon was questioned, not to destroy his achievements.
So 40-50 years from letters being written to some being collected together and beginning to circulate. Some scholars (most perhaps?) would probably date the first circulation of his letters somewhat later. And even if the letters were gathering more interest and influence around this time, they still were not being seen as authoritative scripture. Your timeline has the corpus being written around 100 by an unknown professional writer and then being treated as part of a canon of new scripture supplanting the time honored Jewish scriptures, a much higher exaltation, within the same length of time, right?
“All of Paul’s letters were written by professional writers using false attribution. Most of this has been shown by biblical research.” Most of letters attributed to Paul are apocrypha ( Seneca 8+6, 3rdCor, Laodiceans, 6 letters from NT, Hebrews) for all scholars. Laodiceans was in the Bible for 1000 years, Seneca collection was questioned in Renaissance, 3rd Cor is still canonical in Armenia .
My Post #55 was only addressing the part of your theory that pertains to the seven letters of Paul judged by scholars to be authentic. It was about this part of your theory that I was asking:
Most of this has been shown to be the case by biblical research? Which scholars exactly have shown this to be the case? How many of their fellow critical scholars accept that this has now been shown to be the case?”
Your post # 55 is due to my untrained language. I meant all the letters attributed to Paul in the NT and outside the NT. Sorry for that.
I believe that the letters were written just before the publication of the corpus. I believe they were written one by one over and over again by a man whose goal was to … write. Despite the division of Corpus into smaller parts, they were released just like the season of the Netflix series – all episodes together. Marcion’s missionaries presented the content of the Letters and Evangelicon to a pagan audience. Others presented exegesis from the LXX. Still others Shepherd Harmas. As it turned out who was doing the best, there was a development of the part of early Christian literature that was used by the winner – letters and new gospels were added.
Robert said
Steefen said
Mistaken logic? You mistook my point: not even Josephus or an interpolator included the Last Supper in the TF. I am simply showing there is no evidence that can serve as hooks for a line of reason; hence, no counterargument that Paul knew about it. Neither the Pauline letters nor Josephus can be used to explain how “Paul” came to know word-for-word what happened in a private dinner in a scene of historical fiction.
If you do not want to be misunderstood, I suggest you choose your words more carefully because I responded to exactly what you actually said. As for what you are now saying, it’s silly. One does not need a counterargument until a good argument has first been made for why the passage should not be included in Paul’s text. It’s included in all of the manuscripts (and even in the scholarly reconstructions of Marcion’s text) and all of the text-critical editions because there are no text-critical arguments that have been made to exclude it. It’s possible, of course, that it was a later addition and no earlier texts survived, but one does not need counterarguments against mere possibilities that are unsupported by any evidence or good text-critical arguments. Paul tells us that he passed on a tradition that derived ultimately from the Lord himself. He’s using the language of traditional material that he is further passing on. Is he lying or was he misinformed by the tradition? Who knows? If you want to argue about whether or not some type of last supper resembling what Paul passes on in his letter actually took place historically, that’s a totally different issue. As for how a similar account made it into Mark’s gospel, that’s not really difficult. Either he knew the same tradition Paul knew and/or he was familiar with Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians or knew of Paul’s version from another Pauline community.
Steefen: … and according to Tacitus, there was a superstition about Jesus Christ being crucified (extreme penalty). …
Robert: Again, that’s not what Tacitus says. The belief that Jesus was crucified was not the content of the superstition. Rather, Tacitus says that the execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius (14–37 CE) temporarily suppressed the superstition.
Steefen said:
Second, every one knows what Tacitus says and everyone knows what the superstition was.
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of ** you do not have permission to see this link **, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
What made the claim most mischievous was that the Samaritan Redeemer suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius not the superstition that Jesus of Galilee was handed over to Pilate for execution. It was bad enough that Caiaphas and Pilate no longer held offices after the Samaritan Redeemer event but to substitute a miracle worker who paid his taxes who Pilate regrets and washes his hands of responsibility for his execution–to substitute a holier and fictitious character for the Samaritan Redeemer is quite mischievous (causing trouble) for Rome.
Tacitus did not say the resurrection was the superstition: the life and execution of Christus was a most mischievous superstition when the execution of the Samaritan Redeemer was the reality. Word-for-word interpretation fails in the light of an interpretation within historical context. If Tacitus said Christus was one of two religious leaders given the death penalty by Pilate, I would have to say Tacitus did [not do?] his research on the matter.
Look at my bolding above and you should be able to see that Tacitus did not say what you claim he said. He states the execution of Christ by Pontius Pilate as fact and it was this execution that he viewed as temporarily repressing the superstition of Christianity. Also, when you later tacitly allow for this possibility, did you perhaps mean to say that Tacitus did [not do] his research on the matter?
Jesus did not exist in the late 20s / early 30s. There was no Last Supper. In historical fiction, there is a Last Supper.
If Tacitus said Christus was one of two religious leaders given the death penalty by Pilate, I would have to say Tacitus did his research on the matter.
If Tacitus illustrated he knew Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer that would have shown he researched the matter. Tacitus was born AD 56.
Tacitus is not relaying an historical account, he is giving incorrect commentary.
Emperors and procurators knew the history of procurators and they knew the conditions under which Pilate’s assignment came to an end (the execution of the Samaritan Redeemer). Second, just as there would be Jewish people from AD 30 alive in AD 70, there would be Romans from AD 30 alive in AD 64 who would know what Pilate did and did not do. It was an historical error to assign a second execution to Pilate.
The superstition of Christianity would include the superstition that Jesus was executed by Pilate; it would not exclude that. To say Christianity is a superstition but the part about his execution is not superstition is not given in the Tacitus quote. Tacitus did not qualify his statement as you propose.
Jarek
I believe that the letters were written just before the publication of the corpus.
Steefen
So 1 Corinthians with the Last Supper word-for-word passage was written after gospel of Mark and gospel of Matthew.
In the absence of the Temple, God needed sacrifice? Well so many messianic rebels were defeated and crucified, let the defeated and crucified be the sacrifice personified by one person, not an historical person, but a person representing all who were defeated, particularly at the Battle of Galilee under Jesus of Galilee.
Emperors and procurators knew the history of procurators and they knew the conditions under which Pilate’s assignment came to an end (the execution of the Samaritan Redeemer). Second, just as there would be Jewish people from AD 30 alive in AD 70, there would be Romans from AD 30 alive in AD 64 who would know what Pilate did and did not do. It was an historical error to assign a second execution to Pilate.
The superstition of Christianity would include the superstition that Jesus was executed by Pilate; it would not exclude that. To say Christianity is a superstition but the part about his execution is not superstition is not given in the Tacitus quote. Tacitus did not qualify his statement as you propose.
= = =
People advanced in their field use critical thinking skills, context, and more than one source.
Robert said
None of your historical reasoning above changes what Tacitus actually wrote. The text is very clear and without qualification. Would you like me to parse the Latin for you?
People advanced in their field use critical thinking skills, context, and more than one source, so, your failure to be persuasive is not a translation issue.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Romans and I Corinthians were in Marcion’s canon/collection.
Question #1: Are there major differences between Romans and I Corinthians in Marcion’s canon/collection and Romans and I Corinthians in
– Codex Vaticanus (4th century)
– Codex Sinaiticus (after 325 CE), or
– the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (commissioned in 382 CE)?
Question #2: If there were no major differences, did the Marcion versions of Romans and I Corinthians end up in
– Codex Vaticanus
– Codex Sinaiticus, or
– the Latin Vulgate
Bart Ehrman, Author of Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
We do not have Marcion’s version of Romans and I Corinthians. A reconstruction can be attempted using the writings of Tertullian and Epiphanius.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Question #3: Would you like to credit someone earlier than Marcion for collecting the letters of Paul?
For example:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** – Asiarchs were friends of Paul. Surely, the Asiarchs would preserve the great Pauline epistle to the Romans. The Asiarchs of the Commune Asiae could have been the agents that preserved their friend Paul’s Letter to the Romans, if not other letters in the Asian churches.
Bart Ehrman, Author of Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament
2 Peter 3:16 presupposes a collection of Paul’s letters long before Marcion.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Whoever wrote 2 Peter is aware of the letters of Paul. Peter is thought to have been martyred AD 68.
2 Peter dates between 65-68 and 100-150.
100 – Scheikle
100-110 – Knoch, Kelly
100-125 James, Vogtle, Paulsen
100-140 Callan; possibly 125
130 (E. Brown, Sidebottom)
150 (L. Harris); “Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.” Understanding the Bible: a reader’s guide and reference by Stephen L. Harris
QUESTION 1: Where do you date 2 Peter?
QUESTION 2: In your book, Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, in Essay 13, “The Use and Significance of Patristic Evidence for Textual Criticism, p. 247 and Essay 8, “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox,” p. 142, do you acknowledge and address second century anti-Marcionite redaction of scripture?
Markus Vinzent (Kings College London) has put forth that Marcion brought forward teachings of Paul that were somewhat undesirable and contributed to Marcion being considered a heretic. I would say since Acts of the Apostles was not included in Marcion’s collection but “Luke” presented different biographical information of Paul than is found in Paul’s letters, post-Marcion redactors of the New Testament were going for something different than what was in Marcion’s New Testament.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)