Earliest attestation for Paul's letters?

[Giuseppe]

The Epistles attributed to Paul and Ignatius appear to be part of massive forgeries to historicise the fiction called the Gospels [fables of Jesus and the disciples].

in order to prove this, in my modest opinion you shold prove before that Paul is historicist: a mission impossible.

[MrMacSon]

The Epistles attributed to Paul and Ignatius appear to be part of massive forgeries to historicise the fiction called the Gospels [fables of Jesus and the disciples].

in order to prove this, in my modest opinion you should prove before that Paul is historicist: a mission impossible.

Giuseppe, do you mean 'prove that Paul is historical'? or prove that Paul is 'a historicist' with regard to Jesus?

I'm not sure it matters: hakeem's point is it's the epistles that "appear to be part of massive forgeries to historicise the ...Gospels"

[Giuseppe]

I mean clearly to prove that Paul is ''Jesus historicist'' in order to prove the not-authenticity of the epistles (or at least to prove the former as a corollary of the latter point).

It seems that hakeem's point is that the epistles are forged ''evidence'' in support of a HJ. Where is trace of historicity in the epistles? I don't see it!

[MrMacSon]

It seems that hakeem's point is that the epistles are forged ''evidence'' in support of a HJ. Where is trace of historicity in the epistles? I don't see it!

I think hakeem means 'that the epistles are forged to give the appearance of being ''evidence'' in support of a HJ'.

Hopefully he will correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean clearly to prove that Paul is ''Jesus historicist'' in order to prove the not-authenticity of the epistles (or at least to prove the former as a corollary of the latter point).

I don't understand that.

• eta: Do you mean Paul portrays Jesus as historical, and that means the epistles are not based on history?

[Ben C. Smith]

Writings attributed to Ignatius do not attest any writings called Pauline Epistles.

....

It must be noted that the supposed writer called Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians implying that Paul wrote to the Ephesians however the so-called Epistle is a forgery or falsely attributed to Paul.

This is not true. I gave the quote above: "When I attain to God, may I be found in his footsteps, this one who mentions you in every epistle in Christ Jesus." The claim here is that Paul wrote about the Ephesians; nothing is said (at least directly) about Paul writing to them.

Your other points, in favor of doubt concerning the historicity of Ignatius, have merit.

[neilgodfrey]

Is there any attestation for the existence of any of the letters attributed to Paul prior to their having been popularized by Marcion?

I guess that depends on what dates we assign for Marcion -- and also what date we assign to 1 Clement:

1Clem 47:1
Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle.

1Clem 47:2
What wrote he first unto you in the beginning of the Gospel?

1Clem 47:3
Of a truth he charged you in the Spirit concerning himself and Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then ye had made parties.

If 1 Clement along with that passage was composed in the last decade of the first century, and if Marcion begins his career in the second century, .... then if those two 'ifs' hold, and if 1 Clement included that passage in its original form, then we have, according to Richard Pervo in The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity (2010),

the earliest extant explicit reference to a Pauline letter. (p. 129)

But 1 Clement does not appear to know of 2 Corinthians which, Pervo suggests, would also have been extremely useful to the author. That detail adds weight to the possibility of chapter 47 being early.

[Giuseppe]

It seems that hakeem's point is that the epistles are forged ''evidence'' in support of a HJ. Where is trace of historicity in the epistles? I don't see it!

I think hakeem means 'that the epistles are forged to give the appearance of being ''evidence'' in support of a HJ'.

precisely. My problem with this view is that I don't see "evidence" of a HJ in the epistles even when that "evidence" is claimed (by hakeem) as forged in fabricated epistles. You would expect that a forger of the epistles would have made references to a HJ, if he had that purpose in mind (to give the appearance of being "evidence" in support of a HJ).

[davidbrainerd]

Writings attributed to Ignatius do not attest any writings called Pauline Epistles. There is no historical corroboration for any person called Ignatius and no historical source to show an actual person named Ignatius wrote Epistles at the end of the 1st century.

The writings attributed to Ignatius appear to be forgeries or false attribution and most likely written no earlier than the late 2nd century.

It must be noted that the supposed writer called Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians implying that Paul wrote to the Ephesians however the so-called Epistle is a forgery or falsely attributed to Paul.

Ignatius to the Ephesians 12.1-2: 1 I know who I am and to whom I am writing. I am condemned, you have been shown mercy; I am in danger, you are secure. 2 You are a passageway for those slain for God; you are fellow initiates with Paul, the holy one who received a testimony and proved worthy of all fortune. When I attain to God, may I be found in his footsteps, this one who mentions you in every epistle in Christ Jesus.

The Epistles attributed to Paul and Ignatius appear to be part of massive forgeries to historicise the fiction called the Gospels [fables of Jesus and the disciples].

Yes, the Ignatian epistles have been monkeyed with (if not outright forged). But perhaps not in order to support Paul. In that case wouldn't the monkeyer have made Ignatius have accurate information on the Pauline epistles rather than something false like that Paul mentions the Ephesians in all his letters? Also why no real knowledge of the gospels? Ignatius' canon (or the forger's) is "the archives and the Lord" (OT and oral doctrine about Jesus) The purpose then is to establish the rule of bishops primarily, secondarily to point out he rejects some Marcion-like view that the OT doesn't prophecy Jesus, and Paul is mentioned in a lame way perhaps to dismiss his writings by asserting they're of little doctrinal importance (contra Marcion or some proto-Marcionite group). Although he claims to accept Paul as one of approved testimony, where is his Paul quote-fest or suggestion that Paul's epistles are scripture that we would expect from a forger eager to show an early acceptance of Paul's epistles as acripture?

[Ben C. Smith]

Yes, the Ignatian epistles have been monkeyed with (if not outright forged). But perhaps not in order to support Paul. In that case wouldn't the monkeyer have made Ignatius have accurate information on the Pauline epistles rather than something false like that Paul mentions the Ephesians in all his letters?

I once read an argument somewhere (does anyone know?) to the effect that, based on possible allusions to the Pauline corpus, Ignatius may have had only 1 Corinthians and 1 & 2 Timothy in his possession: three epistles which mention the church at Ephesus.

[MrMacSon]

It seems that hakeem's point is that the epistles are forged ''evidence'' in support of a HJ. Where is trace of historicity in the epistles? I don't see it!

I think hakeem means 'that the epistles are forged to give the appearance of being ''evidence'' in support of a HJ'.

precisely. My problem with this view is that I don't see "evidence" of a HJ in the epistles even when that "evidence" is claimed (by hakeem) as forged in fabricated epistles. You would expect that a forger of the epistles would have made references to a HJ, if he had that purpose in mind (to give the appearance of being "evidence" in support of a HJ).

I also "don't see 'evidence' of a HJ in the epistles", but I think the point is that the epistles were formulated or favoured (or both) to give an illusion of evidence. I think that applies as much or more to texts/books such as Acts [of the Apostles].