Robert said

Jarek said

… But Paul’s letters were lost for almost 80 years and rediscovered already in the corpus by Marcion. …

janmaru said

… Many historians think that even the undisputed letters appearing in the Marcion canon were written in Paul’s name by members of the Marcionite Church. … 

I don’t know a lot about Marcion, but isn’t it pretty clear from the Roman church letter to the Corinthians, later attributed to Clement, that at least some of Paul’s letters had circulated outside of their original destination prior to Marcion’s Apostolikon? Do you think that Clement’s letter was also a later creation?

  

Half of the book is about 1 Clement and Ignatius. I would like to discuss this but Detering’s book is unknown here. Dating 1 Clement is presented here:

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Detering reached for the theses of the Dutch Radical School because he did not like Harnack's solutions. 
Especially the two "spells" of Harnack - the authenticity of 1 Clement and the 7 letters of Ignatius. 
I think this part will be the most interesting... 

"The real intention of the author, of course, is not the resolution of an actual conflict in a diplomatic way, 
but something quite different: his writing, that is directed not to one church, and also not to the church in Corinth, 
but to allthe churches in the Catholic universe, is intended not to mediate, but to instruct and—here a typical 
Catholic tendency of the letter becomes visible—to warn against uprisings and disorder in the churches! 
The writings lead us into a time, most probably the middle of the second century, in which the distinction 
between priests and laity (40:5: there are much different rules for laity than for ecclesiastical officer-holders) 
already announces the Roman clericalism. Against all inclinations to opposition, the authority of the church 
is enjoined in an impressive example. For this purpose the writer employs the motif of party conflict already 
known to him from 1 Corinthians and uses this as a pretence, cloaked in the form of a letter, for an edifying, 
exhortative discourse on the theme ”Peace and Harmony in the Church.” For the writer of 1 Clement, 
the church in Corinth is an exemplary church, in which he would like to see his ideal church realized, in essential agreement 
with that of the self-aggrandizing official Roman church: consider the harmonious picture of the church he sketches, 
in which the young submit in humble subordination to the old, the laity to the priests, the wife to the husband (chs. 1-2)—the Roman 
Catholic ideal of the church in its purist form! 
Once one has recognized the writer’s real intention, it will no longer seem strange if there are other peculiarities as well that would look odd in a real letter. 
Who would expect, for example, in a real letter, which moreover is written by the church in Rome to the church in Corinth, to find the exhortation (34:7), 
”Let us therefore come together in the same place(epi to auto) with harmony of conscience and earnestly call upon the Lord as from one mouth, 
that we may share in his great and glorious promises”? 
In view of the geographical distance between Rome and Corinth, one can only wonder how the writer imagined the commonvisit of a holy place. 
In this passage it becomes clear: for a moment the writer has forgotten the situation presupposed by the letter and falls from the role of writer of letters
into the role of a preacher, which he also gladly takes over in other passages as well: see the passages with strong liturgical characteristics (20.1-12; 38.1-4 
and the concluding prayer, 64), which make one think of a sermon rather than a letter." 
(from "The Fabricated Paul. Early Christianity In The Twilight." by Hermann Detering, Darrell Doughty)

@janmaru You pointed to the example of the post “In What SENSE is Jesus” God “in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? My Change of Mind”. For a few days the comments didn’t work, so I wrote my own under another post (trip to Croatia) where they worked.

• 

  BDEhrman March 2, 2021 at 7:25 pm** you do not have permission to see this link **

  I don’t think any early Christian would have called Jesus YHWH. They would have seen him as the Son of YHWH. THe Gospel writers certainly did not think of him as the Lord God Almighty. He was the Lord of the world but there was one greater than he, who made him what he was.

  ….

  I agree with the first sentence. There is no contradiction with the quotes indicated. But Bart’s second statement contradicts them. So Bart makes his own choice, dismissing these quotes as irrelevant. I wonder what Mark and Luke thought about it.