Paul The Herodian and the DSS

[dejudge]

dejudge, are you saying Paul's epistles were composed after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70?

All writings under the name of Paul, from Romans to Philemon, All 13 so-called Epistles, were fabricated NO earlier than 180 CE.

Please examine the short gMark, Acts of the Apostles the Muratorian Canon, the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen's "Against Celsus", Arnobius, Lactantius, and Ephraim the Syrian.

The abundance of evidence from antiquity do show that Entire Pauline Corpus, all 13 so-called Epistles, were really unknown at least up to c 180 CE.

 

[Craig B]

You assert things without evidence. You claim Paul came before the Gospels which is contrary to the very NT Canon.

In the Canon Paul comes AFTER the Gospels.

This is an absurd argument. The Canon is a collection of books made much later than Paul or the gospels. These books were not set down in the same order as they were composed, but in the order which seemed best to, or was the best guess of, its compilers. As I have stated, most Christian scholars believe Mark was written before Matthew. Now, to these compilers the gospels seemed more important that Paul's Epistles, so they were put down first. And Matthew contains more material than Mark, so it was put before Mark.

Thus also, the Church Father Papias is quoted by the later Eusebius as stating

And this the Presbyter (John the Elder) used to say "Mark, being the recorder of Peter, wrote accurately but not in order whatever [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord; for [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor followed him ... so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote certain things just as he had recalled them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias_of_Hierapolis. (My bold.) So even the earliest Christian writers recognised that sayings or events were placed by their reporters as best they were able, and that order of relation is not proof of order of occurrence. How could it be? And if this is true within a gospel then a fortiori it is true of the NT canon as a whole.

You do realise that the suras or chapters of the Koran are not set down in the order in which they were uttered by Muhammad, but more or less in the order: longest first. Muslim scholars are well aware of this, and Christian scholars recognise similar phenomena in the NT.

Needless to say, Jewish scholars are equally well aware that the events recounted in their scriptures did not all occur in the order in which they are related in the text.

 

[Craig B]

... Please examine the short gMark, Acts of the Apostles the Muratorian Canon, the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen's "Against Celsus", Arnobius, Lactantius, and Ephraim the Syrian.

OK. Starting now. What am I looking for?

 

[dejudge]

This is an absurd argument. The Canon is a collection of books made much later than Paul or the gospels. These books were not set down in the same order as they were composed, but in the order which seemed best to, or was the best guess of, its compilers. As I have stated, most Christian scholars believe Mark was written before Matthew. Now, to these compilers the gospels seemed more important that Paul's Epistles, so they were put down first. And Matthew contains more material than Mark, so it was put before Mark.

It is your argument that is without any actual evidence from antiquity. You seem to have forgotten or do not know the chronology of Jesus and Paul as written in the very Canon

1. Jesus FIRST CAME, was killed, buried and resurrected.

2. After the resurrection, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

3. After Jesus ascended and the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, they began to preach the Gospel.

4. Thousands are converted on the day of Pentecost.

5. Paul PERSECUTED those who preach the Gospel.

6. Paul became a convert of the Resurrected Jesus after hearing his voice.

7. Paul later began to preach the same Gospel.

8. The author of Acts mentioned Paul over 140 times and never claimed Paul wrote Epistles to Churches up to c 62 CE.

9. 2 Peter mentions Paul but 2nd Peter is admitted by the Church to be a forgery and declared that it does not belong in the Canon.

10. No author of the Canon claimed Paul wrote Epistles or mentioned Pauline Epistles before c 70 CE.

In the Canon itself the Gospel [the story of Jesus] was known and circulated BEFORE Paul was a convert.

It was precisely because the Pauline writer knew the Jesus story found in the Gospel why he could identify and persecute those who believed it.

The only matter to be resolved is how long after the Gospel were known and circulated was the Pauline Corpus fabricated.

Paul's story and Epistles MUST come AFTER the story of Jesus.

The Pauline Epistles MUST come AFTER the Gospel. The Pauline writer PERSECUTED those who believed the Gospel.
Up to at least c 180 CE the Pauline Epistles were unknown.

 

[Brainache]

Do you think he had any written "gospel" or did he just mean oral "good news"?

No written Gospel. Just "Good news"

You assert things without evidence. You claim Paul came before the Gospels which is contrary to the very NT Canon.

In the Canon Paul comes AFTER the Gospels.

1.In the Canon Paul persecuted those who believed and preach the Gospel.

2.In the Canon there were people who were Apostles of Christ before Paul.

3.In the Canon over 500 person were aware that Jesus was raised from the dead before Paul.

4.In the Canon Paul was the LAST to be seen of the resurrected Jesus.

Galatians 1:23 NAS

1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15

You can't be telling me this because of the order the books appear in the bible, can you?

You are the one who first made a flippant statement without a shred of evidence that Paul comes before the Gospels and continue to repeat the flippancy as if you have no intention of present any evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

You give the impression that whatever you assert cannot be questioned or that you have no obligation to present any supporting evidence.

You have no evidence at all in or out the Canon that Paul comes before the Gospels.

The Pauline writer claimed he was LAST to be seen of Jesus.

Paul's Revelation was after the Apostles.

Paul's Revelation was AFTER the Revelation of the Apostle John.

Examine the Muratorian Canon---Paul's Epistles were composed AFTER the Revelation of John.

The Muratorian Canon corroborates the writings of Justin Martyr when he mentioned the Revelation of John but not a single sentence from the Pauline Corpus.

Oh dear. You are saying that.

It is your argument that is without any actual evidence from antiquity. You seem to have forgotten or do not know the chronology of Jesus and Paul as written in the very Canon

1. Jesus FIRST CAME, was killed, buried and resurrected.

2. After the resurrection, Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

3. After Jesus ascended and the disciples were filled with the Holy Ghost, they began to preach the Gospel.

4. Thousands are converted on the day of Pentecost.

5. Paul PERSECUTED those who preach the Gospel.

6. Paul became a convert of the Resurrected Jesus after hearing his voice.

7. Paul later began to preach the same Gospel.

8. The author of Acts mentioned Paul over 140 times and never claimed Paul wrote Epistles to Churches up to c 62 CE.

9. 2 Peter mentions Paul but 2nd Peter is admitted by the Church to be a forgery and declared that it does not belong in the Canon.

10. No author of the Canon claimed Paul wrote Epistles or mentioned Pauline Epistles before c 70 CE.

In the Canon itself the Gospel [the story of Jesus] was known and circulated BEFORE Paul was a convert.

It was precisely because the Pauline writer knew the Jesus story found in the Gospel why he could identify and persecute those who believed it.

The only matter to be resolved is how long after the Gospel were known and circulated was the Pauline Corpus fabricated.

Paul's story and Epistles MUST come AFTER the story of Jesus.

The Pauline Epistles MUST come AFTER the Gospel. The Pauline writer PERSECUTED those who believed the Gospel.
Up to at least c 180 CE the Pauline Epistles were unknown.

Can you please please please tell me where you are getting these ridiculous ideas?

 

[dejudge]

No written Gospel. Just "Good news"

You are always making assertions without providing any evidence.

You can't be telling me this because of the order the books appear in the bible, can you?

You are telling me that Paul came before the Gospel because of your imagination. What you claim is not even in or out any source of antiquity.

May I remind you that you have not yet shown the source of antiquity that support your order for Paul.

You can't have invented you order, did you?


[quote="Brianache]Can you please please please tell me where you are getting these ridiculous ideas?[/QUOTE]

The story of Paul is in the Bible just like the story of Romulus can be found in the writings of Plutarch.

You cannot change the order of ridiculous stories of Paul in the Bible or Romulus in Plutarch

Romulus was the founder of Rome.

Paul persecuted those who believed the Gospel.

Now, in 1 Corinthians 15--Paul knew of WRITTEN Scriptures about Jesus.

In the Muratorian Canon Paul knew that John had written to Seven Churches.

In the writings of Origen, Paul knew of the WRITTEN gLuke.

Where is the evidence for your ridiculous idea that Paul came before the Gospels?

 

[Brainache]

You are always making assertions without providing any evidence.

Please educate yourself a bit more on these questions. The arguments you are making are foolish in the extreme. Please stop.

I don't know where to start.

What is your level of education?

I'm not being rude, I just find it difficult to imagine an educated adult can be saying these things.

 

[dejudge]

Please educate yourself a bit more on these questions. The arguments you are making are foolish in the extreme. Please stop.

I don't know where to start.

What is your level of education?

I'm not being rude, I just find it difficult to imagine an educated adult can be saying these things.

Again, you are making assertions without any evidence.

Please, answer the question. Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Paul comes Before the Gospels.
Your chronology for Paul is not in the Bible and not in Apologetic or non-Apologetic writings of antiquity.

You seem to think that whatever you imagine cannot be questioned and that you have no obligation to present any supporting evidence.

The myth fables of Paul are in the Bible and they do not mention anywhere that Paul comes before the Gospels.

With your education you should be able to easily show the sources for your claim that Paul comes before the Gospel.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you are making assertions without any evidence.

Please, answer the question. Where did you get the ridiculous idea that Paul comes Before the Gospels.
Your chronology for Paul is not in the Bible and not in Apologetic or non-Apologetic writings of antiquity.

You seem to think that whatever you imagine cannot be questioned and that you have no obligation to present any supporting evidence.

The myth fables of Paul are in the Bible and they do not mention anywhere that Paul comes before the Gospels.

With your education you should be able to easily show the sources for your claim that Paul comes before the Gospel.

I've asked you before, and I'm going to ask you once more: Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? I have never seen anyone suggest what you are saying seriously, not once ever.

Where is it coming from?

If you don't answer I will assume you are just making it up and if you persist with derailing this thread with this crap, I'll just have to ignore you. I've never done that before to anyone, please don't make me start now.

 

[dejudge]

I've asked you before, and I'm going to ask you once more: Where are you getting these ridiculous ideas? I have never seen anyone suggest what you are saying seriously, not once ever.

Where is it coming from?

If you don't answer I will assume you are just making it up and if you persist with derailing this thread with this crap, I'll just have to ignore you. I've never done that before to anyone, please don't make me start now.

Why don't you read the NT Canon and Apologetic writings about Paul?

I have already stated my sources for Paul. The story of Paul is in Acts and the Pauline Corpus. Paul was NOT before the Gospels.

Now it is your turn to tell us which source of antiquity, which Bible, which Christian writer of antiquity support your ridiculous idea that Paul comes before the Gospels.

Why can't you present your sources of antiquity for a Paul which comes before the Gospels?

 

[Brainache]

Why don't you read the NT Canon and Apologetic writings about Paul?

Why don't you read what Historians say?

I have already stated my sources for Paul. The story of Paul is in Acts and the Pauline Corpus. Paul was NOT before the Gospels.

You are so far away from any kind of reasonable position, that you can't even see it from where you are.

Now it is your turn to tell us which source of antiquity, which Bible, which Christian writer of antiquity support your ridiculous idea that Paul comes before the Gospels.

The fact that Paul's letters were written in the 50's and the Gospels weren't written before the 70's at the earliest.

I don't know why this is confusing for you.

Why can't you present your sources of antiquity for a Paul which comes before the Gospels?

Please educate yourself, or go away. These arguments have no place in this thread.

 

[dejudge]

Why don't you read what Historians say?

Because Historians have NOT presented any actual evidence for pre 70 CE Pauline writings
Plus, the Pauline writings that have been recovered and dated are NOT from the 1st century or before c 70 CE.

Why don't you read the evidence found in the NT Canon and Apologetic writings?

They clearly state Paul was a PERSECUTOR of those who preached the story of Jesus.

You are so far away from any kind of reasonable position, that you can't even see it from where you are.

Your position is so unreasonable that you cannot even mention a single source of antiquity. You keep dodging and refuse to supply the evidence.

The fact that Paul's letters were written in the 50's and the Gospels weren't written before the 70's at the earliest.

It is NOT a fact that Paul's letters were written in the 50's.

You keep on making assertions without any evidence.
If you are educated why are you incapable of presenting evidence for assertions?


Where do you get the ridiculous idea that Paul's letters were written in the 50's.

The author of Acts said no such thing.

The author of 2nd Peter said no such.

Ignatius said no such thing.

Clement of Rome said no such thing.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified about c 49 CE so the Pauline story is not credible in "Against Heresies.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline Epistles were composed After Revelation by John.

You cannot present a single CREDIBLE source of antiquity up to 180 CE which can show the Pauline Corpus was already known since c 50 CE.

 

[Brainache]

Because Historians have NOT presented any actual evidence for pre 70 CE Pauline writings
Plus, the Pauline writings that have been recovered and dated are NOT from the 1st century or before c 70 CE.

Why don't you read the evidence found in the NT Canon and Apologetic writings?

They clearly state Paul was a PERSECUTOR of those who preached the story of Jesus.

They say he was a Persecutor of Followers of The Way Of The Lord. They don't say he persecuted the readers of the Gospel According to Mark (or whoever).

Your position is so unreasonable that you cannot even mention a single source of antiquity. You keep dodging and refuse to supply the evidence.

As Nick Terry said: I am not a public source of information. The information is out there. Read a book.

It is NOT a fact that Paul's letters were written in the 50's.

You keep on making assertions without any evidence.
If you are educated why are you incapable of presenting evidence for assertions?


Where do you get the ridiculous idea that Paul's letters were written in the 50's.

This is widely accepted in Academia. If you want to change that, talk to the Academics.

The author of Acts said no such thing.

The author of 2nd Peter said no such.

Ignatius said no such thing.

Clement of Rome said no such thing.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified about c 49 CE so the Pauline story is not credible in "Against Heresies.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed the Pauline Epistles were composed After Revelation by John.

You cannot present a single CREDIBLE source of antiquity up to 180 CE which can show the Pauline Corpus was already known since c 50 CE.

This is all irrelevant to anything in this thread. I'm going to see if we can split this nonsense somewhere else.

I've never done that before.

 

[dejudge]

They say he was a Persecutor of Followers of The Way Of The Lord. They don't say he persecuted the readers of the Gospel According to Mark (or whoever).

They don't say Paul comes before the Gospels.

 

[Brainache]

They don't say Paul comes before the Gospels.

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [34]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]
Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[35] c. 80–85.[36]
John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was put to death by the Romans c. 65[citation needed], nor any other event post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church.[38]
Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Few academic scholars, however, take Robinson's work seriously. For example, Raymond Brown of the Union Theological Seminary specifically rejects "Bishop John A.T. Robinson's maverick attempt."[39] J.V.M. Sturdy said regarding Robinson's work that he "one sidedly ignores difficulties for his views, steamrollers the evidence, again and again advances from an improbable possibility to a certainty."[40]

Look up the foot notes. Read the Scholarship. Learn the Methodology. Then start trying to change the Academic view of these things.

What you are doing is pseudohistory. Please stop.

 

[dejudge]

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

I do not start with opinion.

I start with the evidence. I start with sources of antiquity.
This is a partial list of the sources that I use.

Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Arnobius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Lucian, Optatus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome Julian, Chrysostom, Ephraem, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio and others

Look up the foot notes. Read the Scholarship. Learn the Methodology. Then start trying to change the Academic view of these things.

What you are doing is pseudohistory. Please stop.

Wikipedia is your source of Scholarship? Paul the Herodian is fringe. You actively promote fringe and then become upset when you are challenged.

Paul the Herodian is psuedohistory.

No writer of antiquity claimed Paul was a Herodian.

You promote theories about Paul which are baseless and without a shred of evidence.

Any person who is familiar with Scholarship and historical methodology would have known that Paul the Herodian is wholly unsupported by historical sources of antiquity.

Paul is a fictitious character invented to historicise the apostles of the myth character called Jesus.

Not even the Jesus cult writers of the Church knew when Paul lived , what he wrote and when he died.

Church writers claimed Paul died under Nero but simultaneously claimed he was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed.

gLuke was composed AFTER Nero was dead.

 

[Brainache]

I do not start with opinion.

I start with the evidence. I start with sources of antiquity.
This is a partial list of the sources that I use.

Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Arnobius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Lucian, Optatus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome Julian, Chrysostom, Ephraem, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio and others

Well, that's great. Read them in the original Greek do you?

Wikipedia is your source of Scholarship? Paul the Herodian is fringe. You actively promote fringe and then become upset when you are challenged.

Paul the Herodian is psuedohistory.

No. Wikipedia is a good place for you to start to find out what actual experts are saying.

No writer of antiquity claimed Paul was a Herodian.

You promote theories about Paul which are baseless and without a shred of evidence.

Except for that Ebionite text about him converting to Judaism to marry the high Priest's daughter. But you know that because you've read this thread. Right?

Any person who is familiar with Scholarship and historical methodology would have known that Paul the Herodian is wholly unsupported by historical sources of antiquity.

Paul is a fictitious character invented to historicise the apostles of the myth character called Jesus.

Now you are denying Paul? How deep is this rabbit hole?

Not even the Jesus cult writers of the Church knew when Paul lived , what he wrote and when he died.

Church writers claimed Paul died under Nero but simultaneously claimed he was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed.

gLuke was composed AFTER Nero was dead.

You seem to know a lot about this stuff.

When can we expect your peer reviewed article on the matter? It will turn Academia on its head. I can't wait.

 

[Craig B]

I do not start with opinion.

I start with the evidence. I start with sources of antiquity.
This is a partial list of the sources that I use.

Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Arnobius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Lucian, Optatus, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome Julian, Chrysostom, Ephraem, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio and others.

That doesn't help much. It's just a list of all the available ancient writers. ("And others", indeed!) Tell us what you find there, in each of the sources you think relevant, with proper textual references please. And a few will do, not hundreds.

 

[dejudge]

That doesn't help much. It's just a list of all the available ancient writers. ("And others", indeed!) Tell us what you find there, in each of the sources you think relevant, with proper textual references please. And a few will do, not hundreds.

Your post is most amusing. Please tell us what you use and what you have found?

 

[Craig B]

Your post is most amusing. Please tell us what you use and what you have found?

Glad you're having a laugh. More than I can say for myself.

I asked you first. If you won't respond, fair enough. But the idea that Paul's epistles post date 180 AD is unusual enough to warrant further elucidation. I have rejected the use of the order of canonical works for the purpose of establishing relative chronology, and I have given my reasons, with appropriate sources. Over to you.