Tertullian Accepts Paul had a Written Gospel, Matthew (!)

[TedM]

But what 'evidence is weak'? This demonstrates the narrowness of your mind. The subject of the thread? Is that evidence weak for that? Is the evidence decisively against the proposition that Tertullian thought that Paul had a written gospel? Really? Of course not.

The evidence 'for' it is weak, from the Tertullian passage, and from the silences I mentioned from the earliest sources who would have known and had ample opportunity to discuss it. I already said that if you believe orthodoxy was successful in perverting the 'true' gospel of LUKE into GLUKE, then there is no reason to have excised mention of it by Paul, Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, and Justin, nor to avoid adding it to other documents (1 2 Peter), and as one of the 4 new gospels. You ignored this powerful argument.

If no one before the fifth century (at least as far as I can see so far) held that Paul only knew an 'oral gospel' (whatever the fuck that means)

Are you serious? If you don't know what an oral gospel message is, then you are hopelessly lost and it explains your obsession with the idea of a written gospel. I gave you references that clearly are referring to an oral gospel by Paul, and they are also littered througout the actual written gospels also.

then a case could be made that the proposition that Tertullian should not be seen as acknowledging Paul had or knew a written gospel with Matthew chapter 5 contained within it.

Clearly Tertullian is referring to a gospel message--one he knew about only through the written gospel. How else would Tertullian have known the passage Stephan? 150 years of oral tradition? No, he of course was referencing a written gospel--Matthew I guess, but that isn't problematic at all from my view, which retrojects into Paul what Tertullian THOUGHT was a well known oral tradition during Paul's time, and that he (Tertullian) only knew about through the written words of Matthew. I don't see any problem here--what is your case?

Maybe I've missed the value of using Matthew as opposed to something in Luke. Wouldn't all these references you are coming up with be supportive of a Luke gospel = Paul gospel and not Matthew? Are you suggesting it was removed from Luke by the later perverters/forgerers and put into Matthew instead? For what purpose?

But if as we have seen almost everyone at least acknowledged the Alexandrian understanding that Paul did have access to a written gospel

I don't deny it. I just don't think it means anything given the silences from all the ones I mentioned above. 150 years after the fact people can make all kinds of assumptions--especially when their opposition is claiming x, y, z.

- why is the evidence 'weak' for something which Andrew Criddle acknowledged might well be implied by the written word of Tertullian? It is at best 'undecided' but hardly 'weak.'

I've given you a number of reasons, and you have chosen to pretty much ignore them. That's not a discussion on your part.

(or someone trying to prevent an open door to the Marcionite position as you are).

I'm not trying to prevent progress. I see what you are doing as noisy distractions based on weak evidence and driven not by a desire for truth but a desire to discover something so you can thumb it in everybody's 'fucking stupid' faces.

In any event let's move on

until you REALLY address my points against Tertullian I will not be moving on with you.

[Stephan Huller]

The evidence 'for' it is weak, from the Tertullian passage, and from the silences I mentioned from the earliest sources who would have known and had ample opportunity to discuss it. I already said that if you believe orthodoxy was successful in perverting the 'true' gospel of LUKE into GLUKE, then there is no reason to have excised mention of it by Paul, Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, and Justin, nor to avoid adding it to other documents (1 2 Peter), and as one of the 4 new gospels. You ignored this powerful argument.

So the wall you put up is that ALL the early sources have to acknowledge a point of view for it be to be true! How un-apologetic of you The starting point for your understanding of the early Christianity is that all the sources agreed and where there is silence in a source like for instance Justin who principally debated Jews and wrote to Emperors THEREFORE he agrees with you and not with the Alexandrian tradition. You are a joke.

Similarly Clement of Rome. Please gather together Clement's attested witnesses to 'the written gospel' and 'the Pauline epistles' and try and draw any connective argument to any doctrine or belief of the apostle. Another joke argument or of someone who is too stupid and uninformed to make a real argument.

Papias? Really? You are going to use Papias to decide whether Paul knew Luke when Papias doesn't mention either Luke's gospel or Paul's letters. You are a complete fucking imbecile and these objections don't even make sense other than you don't like me or Marcion or anything which challenges your inherited faith in Jesus Christ. Stop wasting my time with these stupid objections.

It is not a settled question that Paul used the gospel of Luke only that the understanding that the mention of 'my gospel' or 'the gospel' in his letters was acknowledged in antiquity to refer to a written text. This opinion is certainly 'Marcionite' but it survived as a legitimate position within Christianity through to at least the fifth century because of its association with the Alexandrian tradition and especially Origen. The idea that Tertullian had a similar idea is not 'weak' just unproven. It is at least 'possible' and perhaps even likely given the fact that Tertullian cites Matthew 5:10 verbatim and implies (according to another scholar not just me) in his reading of Galatians 1 and 2 that he believed that Paul and the Jerusalem Church had two written gospels which 'agreed' with one another and Paul read the gospel of the apostles (= Matthew? proto-Matthew?) and acknowledged according to Tertullian that it agreed with his own. This would seem to fit the idea that Tertullian again would have thought that Paul knew Matthew 5:10 - i.e. that he still believed that Luke was his gospel (like the Alexandrian tradition) but that he could have known the bit about Jesus saying that martyrs were blessed from a text like Matthew in the possession of the Jerusalem Church.

[TedM]

The evidence 'for' it is weak, from the Tertullian passage, and from the silences I mentioned from the earliest sources who would have known and had ample opportunity to discuss it. I already said that if you believe orthodoxy was successful in perverting the 'true' gospel of LUKE into GLUKE, then there is no reason to have excised mention of it by Paul, Barnabas, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Papias, and Justin, nor to avoid adding it to other documents (1 2 Peter), and as one of the 4 new gospels. You ignored this powerful argument.

So the wall you put up is that ALL the early sources have to acknowledge a point of view for it be to be true! How un-apologetic of you

Where did you get that? No, instead of ALL I would find it really helpful to your hypothesis if just ONE of them did! That's my point.

The starting point for your understanding of the early Christianity is that all the sources agreed and where there is silence in a source like for instance Justin who principally debated Jews and wrote to Emperors THEREFORE he agrees with you and not with the Alexandrian tradition. You are a joke.

Justin is perhaps the least likely, since he didn't reference Paul at all. However, he DID reference the memoirs of the apostles -- plural several times. One would think that if he knew that Paul wrote one gospel before all the others -- he would have mentioned it -- especially if he disagreed with it because of Marcionite elements. No joke.

Similarly Clement of Rome. Please gather together Clement's attested witnesses to 'the written gospel' and 'the Pauline epistles' and try and draw any connective argument to any doctrine or belief of the apostle. Another joke argument or of someone who is too stupid and uninformed to make a real argument.

If you are claiming Paul wrote a gospel, why wouldn't Clement have mentioned it? He lived in Rome -- and surely would have known of Paul's presence there, and surely the one 'true gospel' would have warranted his mention.

Papias? Really? You are going to use Papias to decide whether Paul knew Luke when Papias doesn't mention either Luke's gospel or Paul's letters. You are a complete fucking imbecile and these objections don't even make sense other than you don't like me or Marcion or anything which challenges your inherited faith in Jesus Christ. Stop wasting my time with these stupid objections.

You are again demonstrating a failure in comprehension. Had there been an existing 'true' gospel don't you think Papias would have mentioned it along with the ones that he did mention? The absence of Luke helps your argument some here but we have no evidence that Luke really pre-existed the others. IF Paul's original gospel really existed then why would Papias not have mentioned it?

It is not a settled question that Paul used the gospel of Luke only that the understanding that the mention of 'my gospel' or 'the gospel' in his letters was acknowledged in antiquity to refer to a written text.

All too late to mean much. be careful. Uniformly? And yet Paul never quotes from his own gospel nor does he refer to it in an unambigious way in which anyone reading Paul without preconceptions would know that it is a written document. Not buying the written interpretation.

It is at least 'possible' and perhaps even likely given the fact that Tertullian cites Matthew 5:10 verbatim and implies (according to another scholar not just me) in his reading of Galatians 1 and 2 that he believed that Paul and the Jerusalem Church had two written gospels which 'agreed' with one another and Paul read the gospel of the apostles (= Matthew? proto-Matthew?) and acknowledged according to Tertullian that it agreed with his own.

pure fabrication. How can you believe this crap? Again you have no evidence and failed to address my objection to this as well as pointing out how using Matthew instead of Luke really makes your argument quite convoluted.

[TedM]

1 Clement:

1Clem 47:1-2
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

1Clem 42:1
The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

Clement mentions Paul's epistle but says nothing of a written gospel.

Both clearly are referring to an oral gospel. If Clement of Rome had heard of a written gospel by Paul he missed the opportunity to mention it. Why?

[ficino]

Justin is perhaps the least likely, since he didn't reference Paul at all. However, he DID reference the memoirs of the apostles -- plural several times.

Hi Ted, I don't know whether you saw the long thread we had on this question back in the spring:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=494&hilit=skarsaune

While you are right that Justin does not name Paul, he seems to quote from his writings. bcedaifu and I and some others went into this in great detail; I can't bear to go back and sift through it now! But you'll see lots of material on that thread. It may be a derail, but if you see a firm basis for denying that Justin makes use of Paul's writings, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Cheers, f

Whoops, sorry, I see you did participate in that thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=494&hilit=skarsaune#p8604

[TedM]

yeah I remember, and if he indeed was referencing Paul that only strengthens my argument here. I should have written "didn't directly reference Paul" to be clearer.
thanks!

[Stephan Huller]

Ted

You can't see how stupid your line of reasoning is here:

Clement mentions Paul's epistle but says nothing of a written gospel.

You provide one bare allusion and then throw up your hands and say 'It's proved - no written gospel.' This is beyond silly. In 2 Clement we see the author (same author? different author?) used a harmonized gospel. What 'facts' can you tease out of these sources to 'prove' that there was a 'Paul didn't know a written gospel' WHEN REAL SCHOLARS HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THESE SOURCES AND SAY THERE IS NOTHING DEFINTIIVE EITHER WAY. Learn to read a book once and a while that isn't overtly apologetic, Ted.

The bottom line is that you can't prove anything about the use of Paul or Luke in any of the sources you brought forward as such it won't help you demonstrate that Paul didn't or didn't use Luke or another gospel. Are you able to comprehend that Ted or do you completely reside in your version of reality?

[Stephan Huller]

Had there been an existing 'true' gospel don't you think Papias would have mentioned it along with the ones that he did mention?

Can you at least demonstrate why Papias should be used to determine anything related to Paul given that he doesn't mention his letters? Is this too much to ask Ted? Can you at least try and be reasonable at least for a minute? a second? Why not cite Julius Caesar?

[TedM]

Ted

You can't see how stupid your line of reasoning is here:

Clement mentions Paul's epistle but says nothing of a written gospel.

You provide one bare allusion and then throw up your hands and say 'It's proved - no written gospel.' This is beyond silly.

I mentioned ALL of the people, gave reasons, and then decided to look up ONE of them-Clement, and sure enough his is evidence against your position, but in no way am I saying that because of just one 'it's proved - no written gospel'. You appear to have a serious comprehension problem. How you ignore the other silences and focus on this one and then falsely claim that I said anything is proved by just this one is beyond me. It's very sloppy of you and frankly makes you look careless at best.

Can you at least demonstrate why Papias should be used to determine anything related to Paul given that he doesn't mention his letters?

So you think it is reasonable that he knows origins of other written gospels, but doesn't know about an original 'true' gospel written by Paul, despite Paul's widespread popularity and the close proximity in time to Marcion? I don't.


Again you also ignored my argument regarding the unlikelihood of excising out Paul's own references to his written gospel by the orthodoxy.

Do you or don't you agree that if Paul had written his own gospel (or Luke had written it according to Paul's teachings) that Paul would have mentioned it multiple times in his epistles, and unambiguously? If you say no, then there is little hope for you. If you say yes then you obviously have to agree that they were excised out by orthodoxy, instead of embracing it after they have perverted it -- the very thing you believed they did with LUKE! But if they were going to pervert Luke then there was no need to excise Paul's mentions of a written gospel. How do you solve this dilemma?

[outhouse]

It is at least 'possible' and perhaps even likely given the fact that Tertullian cites Matthew 5:10 verbatim and implies (according to another scholar not just me) in his reading of Galatians 1 and 2 that he believed that Paul and the Jerusalem Church had two written gospels which 'agreed' with one another and Paul read the gospel of the apostles (= Matthew? proto-Matthew?) and acknowledged according to Tertullian that it agreed with his own.

Historically worthless im afraid, in context to the possibility of a written gospel of any kind by Paul or his communities.


You would retain more credibility leaving the possibility open, then making unsubstantiated claims.

We know there was written material during this period by all counts of plausibility, but it is unknown. These later sources far to removed help nothing in any substantiation.