Robert said
Jarek said
I do not fight the dating of the writings of Ignatius or 1Clem. …
And at this point it is worth asking a question. Since there are allusions to Gal in 1 Clem, when was 1 Clem written? …
1Clem 5:2 to ** you do not have permission to see this link **Clem 31:2 to Gal 3 …
Tertullian devoted much time to Marcion. He wrote that Marcion was the one who found the Galatians. Marcion was born in 85 CE. He came to Rome after 135 CE. On the other hand, the consensus is that 1Clem dates back to 97 CE. So where did the allusions to Gal in 1 Clem come from?
These allusions are very slight. The word ‘pillars’ and ‘transgression’ and ‘Abraham being justified by faith’, which is also found in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Only the first can really be said to possibly reflect knowledge of the text of Galatians, but note that both Peter and Paul are both being referred to as pillars by Clement here. This has changed your mind about the dating of 1 Clement? Are there any other allusions to Galatians in 1 Clement?
Have you also changed your mind about the authenticity of the letters of Ignatius?
Is it certain that Tertullian believed that Marcion was the first to find Paul’s letter to the Galatians? I suppose the Latin (** you do not have permission to see this link **) is somewhat ambiguous, but I would not argue that point. Assuming this is probably what Tertullian believed, is it certain that Tertullian was correct in believing that it was Marcion who was the first to make the letter of Paul to the Galatians known in Rome? I must leave these questions to those with more expertise in these matters.
I sent you Tertullian and “allusions to Gal in 1Clem” because you asked. I found this via google right after you asked your question.
The compilation 1Clem, Gal, Against Marcion was used to show the contradictions in the consensus.
The mistake of Detering and the Dutch Radical Critics was that they were greedy and wanted to prove too much at once.
They should focus on questioning the authenticity and authorship of Paul’s letters. Only. Lead to a broad discussion on this matter. Correct your own mistakes highlighted in this discussion.
It was only after isolating the topic of the authenticity of the letters that they could begin to discuss the issue of dating separately and look for true authors.
In the first topic, they would be more or less successful. In the second, they would die. So something would have survived.
Their arguments undermining the authenticity of the letters are very good, but no one commented on them. For a simple reason. It was easier to refute the arguments about Marcion’s alleged authorship and late dating. Ludemann did not refer to Detering’s arguments undermining the authenticity, but rejected his book because of its dating inconsistent with the patristic testimonies.
Corpus was planned and released as a content product based on the tradition of the original Anointed One’s clubs and the activities of the itinerant apostles. It was the work of ghost writers and editors working under the supervision of a publisher who knew what he wanted to deliver to the market.
Robert said
Jarek said
Ludemann did not refer to Detering’s arguments undermining the authenticity, but rejected his book because of its dating inconsistent with the patristic testimonies.
Do you have a quotation to back this up? Doesn’t sound right to me. I think most scholars simply ignore Detering because he makes lousy arguments.
By the way, why is it you tend not to answer questions?
I’m so sorry. The discussion is a bit beyond my modest possibilities and I forget about the questions while thinking about other issues. I will do my atmost to correct this.
Gerd Lüdemann Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (1996) comments, while mentioning Jürgen Becker (Der Apostel der Völker, 1989), in footnote 232 that Detering’s thesis (Urchristentum im Zwielicht, 1995) about the letters of Paul coming from the second century “is mistaken and is refuted by the existing sources.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
There is also ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I use Zuntz’s theses and therefore I am not interested in the dating and authenticity of 1Clem and Ignatius’ letters. For a simple reason – I do not attribute the authorship of Pauline Corpus to Marcion. For me, Pauline Corpus was released around 100 CE which is supported by most biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman spoke about it in a debate with Daniel Wallace. As for Tertullian, the Galatians and 1 Clement – Tertullian may be misinterpreted, he may be wrong, he disliked Paul .. Not important at all.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Thanks, Jarek. What about Occam’s razor? Now that you have acknowledged Price’s view that yours is simply a choice of paradigm, and that each are no more nor less hypothetical, do you renounce and abjure your earlier suggestion that your were the one true confrère of Friar William of Occam?
I am the reincarnation of the friar William and I will prove it to you in a moment.
You are a publisher, a guy comes to you with 7 excellent letters from 40 years ago. What are you doing?
Of course, you publish them as soon as possible. As they are. You have no control over who else they have been offered to or who else is working on them. You do this to stay ahead of the competition and be the first. If you succeed, you can take advantage of it by assigning yourself, for example, direct access to the source from which you pull out new extensions as a magician pulls rabbits out of a hat.
You certainly do not wait for the editors to make the epistols even more attractive and the ghost writers will add more letters.
Another situation is when you plan to market your own theology and ethics in the form of letters from a legendary apostle that he did not write. You are then in full control. You hire ghost writers and editors and you can polish your publishing house in complete safety. This is your original idea. 10 letters from two authors are written and you announce that they are the work of the legendary Paul.
Your turn
Robert said
That’s your proof? Seems like a lot of unnecessary assumptions to me.
This is the most likely scenario according to the Occam razor principle. You have something unique from the past and you have to choose a course of action. You don’t know how many copies of this work are there, who still has them. If you make it public first, you will automatically become its source of origin. The principle of the Occama razor is based on the selection of the most favorable and rational action. The current consensus breaks this rule.
I’m still wondering about…the publisher. Paul writes a letter. He sends it to the intended recipient. The IR reads it and maybe shows it to somebody else. Maybe they tell someone else who wants to read it and likes it so much they want to copy it. Long hand. And so on and so on and so on. Until somebody goes around and collects copies of as many of Paul’s letters as survive.
Jarek your scenario doesn’t work because that’s not how folks did things back then. Publishing in the sense you mean it did not appear until the 14th century. (In China.)
Sir you are committing base anachronism!
-sharp intake of breath- crowd goes silent-
Proleptic fiend! Have you no shame?
Well that’s enough of that. Who wants to talk about Merkabah Mysticism?
Stephen said
I’m still wondering about…the publisher. Paul writes a letter. He sends it to the intended recipient. The IR reads it and maybe shows it to somebody else. Maybe they tell someone else who wants to read it and likes it so much they want to copy it. Long hand. And so on and so on and so on. Until somebody goes around and collects copies of as many of Paul’s letters as survive.Jarek your scenario doesn’t work because that’s not how folks did things back then. Publishing in the sense you mean it did not appear until the 14th century. (In China.)
Sir you are committing base anachronism!
-sharp intake of breath- crowd goes silent-
Proleptic fiend! Have you no shame?
Well that’s enough of that. Who wants to talk about Merkabah Mysticism?
China? Printing, not publishing.There were even top-down price regulations for copying books in the Empire. We have work as editors, we have ghost writers who wrote almost all of the early Christian literature. We have publishing.
Robert said
Aside from the fact that “the most favorable and rational action” is entirely subjective, what is your basis for assuming:1. One person forged 7 letters, second forged 3 letters, plus editors. According to consensus we have two authors and redactors
2. He cleverly created an illusion of development of thought, which is nonetheless not so clear that everyone would agree with the implied chronology, separate answer will be prepared
3. This person offered these seven forgeries to one or more ancient ‘publishers’, you don’t know. thats the problem.Is it a forgery, is it genuine, how many copies are on the market. It is a risk, it is an oportunity. Many factors to make decission. You can publish, you can opt out. But you are not messing around with editing the material and supplementing it. Time to market is crucial in this case.
4. This ancient publisher apparently could presume upon some kind of exclusive arrangement, ie, a hitherto unknown ancient form of copyright. For publisher clients, a book is an indispensable tool in their business. They will not risk losing access to new extensions, new positions to play unfair competition with the publisher. It is enough to make a small personalization of each copy to know who is having a bad time or does not control their subordinates
5. This imaginary anachronistic publisher also had long range plans for developing additional forgeries, which would benefit from the prior control of the publication copyright by his publishing house. Luke is dated 85 CE. Is not finished in 175CE.
Contrary to your extravagant and imaginary scenario, I merely presume that the author of these seven letters who called himself Paul was not lying about his name. Paul was a historical figure to me. He was an itinerant preacher. He didn’t write anything and the ghostwriter just completed his CV.
Aside from your extravagant and imaginary scenario, you have yet to offer any evidence or argumentation to support your thesis that each of these letters better reflects a date of composition forty years later than the time-frame suggested by the letters themselves. That’s the plan. You had to start somewhere. Extravagant script that I owe in part to this discussion.
I do not think that you are the reincarnation of Friar William of Occam. Inasmuch as he was in real life one of my actual confrères, I speak with some fraternal familiarity and personal authority on this matter. Fair enough.
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
??1 Clem is dated 97CE. Tertullian stated that Gal was found by Marcion and was previously unknown in Rome. Despite the 40-year difference between the publication of 1 Clem (97CE) and the publication of the Gal (135CE), we have allusions and references to Gal in 1 Clem.
Give me the quotations and references for Tertullian’s statements about Galatians being found by Marcion and previously being unknown in Rome. I’d also like to see the allusions and references to Galatians in 1 Clement. Then I will be able to have a more intelligent discussion with you about this. Alas, I am not a Tertullian scholar. Is there any reason to suspect that Tertullian should have been intimately familiar with 1 Clement or all of the writings known in the churches of Rome?
When it comes to chronology, I bet on 1Thes written first by a ghost writer. The publisher then made a routine carrot and stick move and got the next ghost writer to write 2Thes. On the one hand, he appreciated the creation and content of 1 Thes. On the other hand, he showed the author of 1 Thes that he is not the only one. This has a positive effect on the relationship of the writer-publisher and disciplines the author in terms of timeliness and quality of work. Never gets old.
So now you agree with the points of development in the authentic letters of Paul?
Against Marcion Book 4 Chapter 3
“In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary,(4) the mystery(5) of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had(6) its own authentic materials,(7) by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. Well, but(8) Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles(9)) for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,”(10) as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character(11) of those Gospels which are published as genuine(12) and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. “
Hagner, Use of The Old and New testament, p.222
1Clem 5:2 to Gal 2:9, 1Clem 56:1 to Gal 6:1, 1Clem 31:2 to Gal 3
Whether Tertullian knew 1 Clem is irrelevant. It is about the dating of 1 Clem and the date of Gal’s appearance on the market.
Is there any biblical scholar at any university in the world who has interpreted the phrase “finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians” to mean that Marcion “discovered” the epistle?? I get that this has now turned into a mythic trope, but does any learned scholar believe this?
The verb Tertullian used in Latin (nactus) is pretty much universally translated as “received” or “acquired.” The verb for “found” in the case of discovery is repperit. The word nactus could mean “stumbled upon,” but this use does not imply discovery; merely acquiring the knowledge about (typically in a “late to the party” way).
vergari said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
??1 Clem is dated 97CE. Tertullian stated that Gal was found by Marcion and was previously unknown in Rome. Despite the 40-year difference between the publication of 1 Clem (97CE) and the publication of the Gal (135CE), we have allusions and references to Gal in 1 Clem.
Give me the quotations and references for Tertullian’s statements about Galatians being found by Marcion and previously being unknown in Rome. I’d also like to see the allusions and references to Galatians in 1 Clement. Then I will be able to have a more intelligent discussion with you about this. Alas, I am not a Tertullian scholar. Is there any reason to suspect that Tertullian should have been intimately familiar with 1 Clement or all of the writings known in the churches of Rome?
When it comes to chronology, I bet on 1Thes written first by a ghost writer. The publisher then made a routine carrot and stick move and got the next ghost writer to write 2Thes. On the one hand, he appreciated the creation and content of 1 Thes. On the other hand, he showed the author of 1 Thes that he is not the only one. This has a positive effect on the relationship of the writer-publisher and disciplines the author in terms of timeliness and quality of work. Never gets old.
So now you agree with the points of development in the authentic letters of Paul?
Against Marcion Book 4 Chapter 3
“In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary,(4) the mystery(5) of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had(6) its own authentic materials,(7) by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. Well, but(8) Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles(9)) for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,”(10) as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character(11) of those Gospels which are published as genuine(12) and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. “
Hagner, Use of The Old and New testament, p.222
1Clem 5:2 to Gal 2:9, 1Clem 56:1 to Gal 6:1, 1Clem 31:2 to Gal 3
Whether Tertullian knew 1 Clem is irrelevant. It is about the dating of 1 Clem and the date of Gal’s appearance on the market.
Is there any biblical scholar at any university in the world who has interpreted the phrase “finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians” to mean that Marcion “discovered” the epistle?? I get that this has now turned into a mythic trope, but does any learned scholar believe this?
The verb Tertullian used in Latin (nactus) is pretty much universally translated as “received” or “acquired.” The verb for “found” in the case of discovery is repperit. The word nactus could mean “stumbled upon,” but this use does not imply discovery; merely acquiring the knowledge about (typically in a “late to the party” way).
Markus Vinzent wrote a book about 2 Pauline Corpuses – with GAL and without. Will be published soon by CUP.”Based on our witnesses (Tertullian, Epiphanius …) and on papyri and manuscript variations in the tradition of the Epistles, it is clear that they attest to two very different collections of Paul’s letters. More on this I am publishing in the nearer future with a book by CUP, but which I am now detailing in the current study.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)