Secret Alias wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:50 am
But let's stop pretending that the surviving material isn't associated with Irenaeus - that it isn't tainted - or isn't problematic when trying to determine the origins of Christianity. It is.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:48 am
... about Paul. ... second and third century Christians believed he had "the Holy Spirit." He knew "by prophesy" ... But if this is removed can any sort of "Christianity" be reasonably explained in the so-called apostolic age?
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:59 am
robert j wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 11:24 am
... trying too hard to make sense of the apologetics and polemic ravings of Tertullian and his ilk.
But what else is there? Is Acts really a superior source of information?
No, not Acts. But Paul’s letters.
I think the author of Acts belonged among --- within reasonable parameters --- the same doctrinal compadres with Tertullian and Irenaeus --- as well as with the author(s) of the Pastorals. And also those who polluted chapters 1 and 15 of Romans (perhaps not even different from some of those mentioned).
For example, in all the letters attributed to Paul by the majority of critical scholars, nowhere does Paul identify his Jesus Christ as Davidic --- except in chapters 1 and 15 of Romans that is (Romans 1:3 and 15:12). And not coincidentally in my opinion, early MSS and early attestations reveal evidence of those two chapters having been tampered with. Gamble presents evidence that can be interpreted for an original 14-chapter version of Romans lacking most or all of chapter 15.
One can only speculate why the emerging catholics were bold enough to interpolate the first chapter of Romans and to add most or all of a chapter 15. But I have argued why I think they were
not bold enough to insert much in the way of other significant doctrinal material in the rest of Paul’s letters (see the link at the end of this post).
I think it’s also interesting to note that some other NT texts seems to demonstrate that there may have been from early-on some difference of opinion about the Davidic nature of Jesus Christ. In GMark and perhaps GJohn, the authors appear to express equivocation on the issue --- Mark 10:47 and 11:9-10 vs Mark 12:35-40 from Jesus' own mouth no less; and John 7:40-44. In the Epistle of Barnabus 12:10-11, the author expresses the same equivocation as in GMark.
However, the other NT Gospels, and especially other relatively late texts, are clearly on-board with a Davidic Jesus --- GMatthew, GLuke, Acts, 2 Timothy, Revelation, Justin, and Tertullian.
Back to Romans, only in chapters 1 and 15 is there any mention in the letter of writing to, or planning a visit to Rome. And I suspect that for Paul, just like for Peter, and for Marcion with his ‘Simonian’ bag of silver in hand --- in the traditions of the emerging catholics, all roads must lead to Rome. I don’t buy it, most especially for Peter and Paul.
I think Paul’s letters survived relatively intact, that is, clearly excepting chapters 1 and 15 of Romans, and perhaps a very-few other significant interpolations in the letters, and of course several entirely expected instances of, for the most part, relatively less significant scribal errors and scribal initiative.
I certainly recognize that Secret Alias is not at all likely to be persuaded in any way by opinions of how Paul’s letters may have survived relatively intact. But for others that might be interested in arguments in this regard, see ---
“How Paul’s Letters Survived Marcion” (perhaps a better title would be ‘How Paul’s Letters Survived the Emerging Catholics Reasonably Intact’) ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3470