The start of the Jesus story

[hakeem]

.... If NT Paul claimed NT Jesus lived and died then stories of NT Jesus must predate the writings of the Epistles.

1. NT Jesus was said to be God's son and made of a woman before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

2. NT Jesus had apostles before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

3. NT Jesus was crucified before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

4. NT Jesus resurrected and appeared to the twelve before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

5. Believers in NT Jesus were persecuted by NT Paul before he wrote his Epistles.

6. NT Paul preached the same Gospel of Jesus as those he persecuted before he wrote his Epistles.

7. There were Pillars of the Church before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

8. NT Paul was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus before he wrote his Epistles.

9. NT Jesus carried out the ritual of the Eucharist before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

10. NT Jesus stories were known to NT Paul before he wrote his Epistles.

The Gospels, stories of Jesus, predate the writing of Epistles by NT Paul.

I feel that your premise doesn't account for later additions to the letters of Paul and that you are treating the letters as if they were the unnaturally long letters that we have today.

You have made baseless assumptions about later additions to the so-called Pauline Epistles.

No existing manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles show any significant differences between them. In fact, the Pauline Epistles have far less variants than the Gospels. Later NT writings usually have far less variants per page than the Gospels which would support the argument that the Pauline Epistles are later than the Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Tes ... anuscripts

The Pauline writers show that they were aware of the Gospels or written stories about Jesus when it was claimed they received information from the resurrected Jesus about the ritual of the Eucharist which is almost a word for word copy of gLuke or the Memoirs of the Apostles.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed before the Gospels--none.

[Jax]

.... If NT Paul claimed NT Jesus lived and died then stories of NT Jesus must predate the writings of the Epistles.

1. NT Jesus was said to be God's son and made of a woman before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

2. NT Jesus had apostles before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

3. NT Jesus was crucified before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

4. NT Jesus resurrected and appeared to the twelve before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

5. Believers in NT Jesus were persecuted by NT Paul before he wrote his Epistles.

6. NT Paul preached the same Gospel of Jesus as those he persecuted before he wrote his Epistles.

7. There were Pillars of the Church before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

8. NT Paul was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus before he wrote his Epistles.

9. NT Jesus carried out the ritual of the Eucharist before NT Paul wrote his Epistles.

10. NT Jesus stories were known to NT Paul before he wrote his Epistles.

The Gospels, stories of Jesus, predate the writing of Epistles by NT Paul.

I feel that your premise doesn't account for later additions to the letters of Paul and that you are treating the letters as if they were the unnaturally long letters that we have today.

You have made baseless assumptions about later additions to the so-called Pauline Epistles.

No existing manuscripts of the so-called Pauline Epistles show any significant differences between them. In fact, the Pauline Epistles have far less variants than the Gospels. Later NT writings usually have far less variants per page than the Gospels which would support the argument that the Pauline Epistles are later than the Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Tes ... anuscripts

The Pauline writers show that they were aware of the Gospels or written stories about Jesus when it was claimed they received information from the resurrected Jesus about the ritual of the Eucharist which is almost a word for word copy of gLuke or the Memoirs of the Apostles.

There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed before the Gospels--none.

Percentage wise, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the Gospels/Acts and the letters. 45 - 67% for Gospels/Acts versus 68 - 78% for Paul's letters. IIRC, NT writings were usually bundled together, like the Gospels with acts or Paul's letters with Hebrews or just the other letters by themselves. Perhaps Paul's letters were simply felt to carry more weight than the other material and were therefore copied with more care.

Mark, John, 2 Peter, and Revelation have the most variants 45 - 52% over all and we know that John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were all contested writings. The letters with the least variants are 1 and 2 Timothy 79 -81% and these are felt to be written last around the time of Acts 67%.

So if anything it looks like they were just more careful to preserve Paul. Of course YMMV.

[Jax]

Yeah. Hebrews has very few variants also.

[robert j]

In what follows, I will write of Marcion doing X or Y, but please mentally replace that shorthand with Marcion doing X or Y according to our patristic sources as interpreted by the usual scholars of Marcion's texts. I do not want to keep having to write the full evidentiary chain out in full:

• Marcion does not deal explicitly with noncomposite Corinthian epistles, by which I mean that his canon has exactly two Corinthian epistles, and the Marcionite material in each one cuts across a lot of our modern partition theories. For example, with respect to 2 Corinthians, Tertullian deals with Marcionite material both from chapters 1-7 and from chapters 11-13 of that epistle. Thus, if chapters 10-13 were originally a separate epistle from chapters 1-7, as is often thought, then Marcion did not know about it, and he treated them all as a single epistle. Likewise, with respect to 1 Corinthians, material from all chapters except for chapter 16 and possibly also chapter 13 are attested as belonging to the epistle which Marcion agreed was the first to the Corinthians.
• 2 Cor 7.2-11.1 is not attested at all for Marcion, meaning that, if chapters 8 and 9 of that epistle were originally separate epistles, as if often thought, we have no evidence that Marcion's version of 2 Corinthians included them. In fact, as BeDuhn points out, we have no evidence that Tertullian himself knew chapters 8 and 9 as part of his own copy of 2 Corinthians. Tertullian "shows a conspicuous void here, with no quotations or allusions to anything between 7.10... and 10.2..." (BeDuhn, page 293).

As you have noted, the text from 2 Corinthians in Tertullian's Adv Marc has a large gap. BeDuhn spends more than half a page discussing the possible composite nature of 2 Corinthians, focusing on the large missing gaps in Adv Marc (p. 220). After dismissing Adamantius and Epiphanius as “doing little to fill the gaps”, and that "Epiphanius provides nothing”, BeDuhn wrote this ----

Thus, what is known about the Apostolikon allows for some of these hypotheses about the composite nature of 2 Corinthians, without offering any definitive proof. (p. 220)

I suppose it would be difficult to determine if the missing blocks of text were due to Marcion’s alleged butchery, or to material Tertullian chose to leave unaddressed for some reason, or to portions of our received text that had not yet been incorporated into the material Tertullian was working from.

[hakeem]

Percentage wise, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the Gospels/Acts and the letters. 45 - 67% for Gospels/Acts versus 68 - 78% for Paul's letters. IIRC, NT writings were usually bundled together, like the Gospels with acts or Paul's letters with Hebrews or just the other letters by themselves. Perhaps Paul's letters were simply felt to carry more weight than the other material and were therefore copied with more care.

Mark, John, 2 Peter, and Revelation have the most variants 45 - 52% over all and we know that John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were all contested writings. The letters with the least variants are 1 and 2 Timothy 79 -81% and these are felt to be written last around the time of Acts 67%.

So if anything it looks like they were just more careful to preserve Paul. Of course YMMV.

There is a massive difference between gMark 45.1 % and Romans 75.5%, 1 Cor. 75.7%, 2 Cor. 78.1%, Galatians 76.5%, Philippians 70.2%, and 1 Thesalonians 68.5%.

The earliest Gospel gMark would have far more variants than the later so-called Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline]

It is far more likely that earlier writings are copied and copied multiple times more which would inherently cause more variants than later writings.

The very NT Gospels show how Jesus stories evolved over time. The author of gMatthew used gMark and/or his sources and the author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew and/or their sources which eventually changed the Jesus story.

However, no NT author used the so-called Pauline Epistles to shape their Jesus story which is evidence that they were late. [written after the Gospels]. The Epistles are essentially unknown until at least the late 2nd century.

And not only did the Gospel writers not use the Pauline Epistles, they did not hear him preach, they did not attend his Churches and did not know he was an apostle.

[Jax]

Percentage wise, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the Gospels/Acts and the letters. 45 - 67% for Gospels/Acts versus 68 - 78% for Paul's letters. IIRC, NT writings were usually bundled together, like the Gospels with acts or Paul's letters with Hebrews or just the other letters by themselves. Perhaps Paul's letters were simply felt to carry more weight than the other material and were therefore copied with more care.

Mark, John, 2 Peter, and Revelation have the most variants 45 - 52% over all and we know that John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were all contested writings. The letters with the least variants are 1 and 2 Timothy 79 -81% and these are felt to be written last around the time of Acts 67%.

So if anything it looks like they were just more careful to preserve Paul. Of course YMMV.

There is a massive difference between gMark 45.1 % and Romans 75.5%, 1 Cor. 75.7%, 2 Cor. 78.1%, Galatians 76.5%, Philippians 70.2%, and 1 Thesalonians 68.5%.

The earliest Gospel gMark would have far more variants than the later so-called Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline]

It is far more likely that earlier writings are copied and copied multiple times more which would inherently cause more variants than later writings.

The very NT Gospels show how Jesus stories evolved over time. The author of gMatthew used gMark and/or his sources and the author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew and/or their sources which eventually changed the Jesus story.

However, no NT author used the so-called Pauline Epistles to shape their Jesus story which is evidence that they were late. [written after the Gospels]. The Epistles are essentially unknown until at least the late 2nd century.

And not only did the Gospel writers not use the Pauline Epistles, they did not hear him preach, they did not attend his Churches and did not know he was an apostle.

I find myself wondering, as I have stated before, the NT writings were usually bundled together by type, Gospels, Paul's letters, etc. When we look at the surviving copies, how do they shake down as far as how many are Paul's letters as opposed to the Gospels or other letters.

If the Gospels are more popular perhaps that would result in more copies being made resulting in more variants.

Not a given of course, just something to consider.

[hakeem]

Percentage wise, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the Gospels/Acts and the letters. 45 - 67% for Gospels/Acts versus 68 - 78% for Paul's letters. IIRC, NT writings were usually bundled together, like the Gospels with acts or Paul's letters with Hebrews or just the other letters by themselves. Perhaps Paul's letters were simply felt to carry more weight than the other material and were therefore copied with more care.

Mark, John, 2 Peter, and Revelation have the most variants 45 - 52% over all and we know that John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were all contested writings. The letters with the least variants are 1 and 2 Timothy 79 -81% and these are felt to be written last around the time of Acts 67%.

So if anything it looks like they were just more careful to preserve Paul. Of course YMMV.

There is a massive difference between gMark 45.1 % and Romans 75.5%, 1 Cor. 75.7%, 2 Cor. 78.1%, Galatians 76.5%, Philippians 70.2%, and 1 Thesalonians 68.5%.

The earliest Gospel gMark would have far more variants than the later so-called Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline]

It is far more likely that earlier writings are copied and copied multiple times more which would inherently cause more variants than later writings.

The very NT Gospels show how Jesus stories evolved over time. The author of gMatthew used gMark and/or his sources and the author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew and/or their sources which eventually changed the Jesus story.

However, no NT author used the so-called Pauline Epistles to shape their Jesus story which is evidence that they were late. [written after the Gospels]. The Epistles are essentially unknown until at least the late 2nd century.

And not only did the Gospel writers not use the Pauline Epistles, they did not hear him preach, they did not attend his Churches and did not know he was an apostle.

I find myself wondering, as I have stated before, the NT writings were usually bundled together by type, Gospels, Paul's letters, etc. When we look at the surviving copies, how do they shake down as far as how many are Paul's letters as opposed to the Gospels or other letters.

If the Gospels are more popular perhaps that would result in more copies being made resulting in more variants.

Not a given of course, just something to consider.

You must have forgotten that it is claimed the so called Paul not only wrote letters to
Churches but also physically preached the Gospel at the very same cities to which the Epistles are addressed.
If Paul found Churche, documented his teaching and had revelations from Jesus then we would have expected Paul to be the most important evangelist. However we see that the Gospel writers appear to have no awareness of this apostle and evangelist and had to use gMark whose author is unknown and of whom there is not even an Epistle.

[Textus Unreceptus]

Percentage wise, I'm not seeing a huge difference between the Gospels/Acts and the letters. 45 - 67% for Gospels/Acts versus 68 - 78% for Paul's letters. IIRC, NT writings were usually bundled together, like the Gospels with acts or Paul's letters with Hebrews or just the other letters by themselves. Perhaps Paul's letters were simply felt to carry more weight than the other material and were therefore copied with more care.

Mark, John, 2 Peter, and Revelation have the most variants 45 - 52% over all and we know that John, 2 Peter, and Revelation were all contested writings. The letters with the least variants are 1 and 2 Timothy 79 -81% and these are felt to be written last around the time of Acts 67%.

So if anything it looks like they were just more careful to preserve Paul. Of course YMMV.

There is a massive difference between gMark 45.1 % and Romans 75.5%, 1 Cor. 75.7%, 2 Cor. 78.1%, Galatians 76.5%, Philippians 70.2%, and 1 Thesalonians 68.5%.

The earliest Gospel gMark would have far more variants than the later so-called Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline]

It is far more likely that earlier writings are copied and copied multiple times more which would inherently cause more variants than later writings.

The very NT Gospels show how Jesus stories evolved over time. The author of gMatthew used gMark and/or his sources and the author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew and/or their sources which eventually changed the Jesus story.

However, no NT author used the so-called Pauline Epistles to shape their Jesus story which is evidence that they were late. [written after the Gospels]. The Epistles are essentially unknown until at least the late 2nd century.

And not only did the Gospel writers not use the Pauline Epistles, they did not hear him preach, they did not attend his Churches and did not know he was an apostle.

I find myself wondering, as I have stated before, the NT writings were usually bundled together by type, Gospels, Paul's letters, etc. When we look at the surviving copies, how do they shake down as far as how many are Paul's letters as opposed to the Gospels or other letters.

If the Gospels are more popular perhaps that would result in more copies being made resulting in more variants.

Not a given of course, just something to consider.

If Paul found Churche, documented his teaching and had revelations from Jesus then we would have expected Paul to be the most important evangelist. However we see that the Gospel writers appear to have no awareness of this apostle and evangelist and had to use gMark whose author is unknown and of whom there is not even an Epistle.

What you say seems very confusing. On one hand, you state that Paul founded a 'Churche'. I am not aware of this addition of an extra e in modern research. Can you expand on this? Is the e silent? Is your statement evidence of a breakthrough in research? Is the e an interpolation??

Also, how could Paul found anything if you had admitted in a previous post that he was indeed fictional? It seems that in light of this, your previous point of Paul founding a 'Churche' has been utterly destroyed! (regardless if the e was silent!)

[andrewcriddle]

In what follows, I will write of Marcion doing X or Y, but please mentally replace that shorthand with Marcion doing X or Y according to our patristic sources as interpreted by the usual scholars of Marcion's texts. I do not want to keep having to write the full evidentiary chain out in full:

• Marcion does not deal explicitly with noncomposite Corinthian epistles, by which I mean that his canon has exactly two Corinthian epistles, and the Marcionite material in each one cuts across a lot of our modern partition theories. For example, with respect to 2 Corinthians, Tertullian deals with Marcionite material both from chapters 1-7 and from chapters 11-13 of that epistle. Thus, if chapters 10-13 were originally a separate epistle from chapters 1-7, as is often thought, then Marcion did not know about it, and he treated them all as a single epistle. Likewise, with respect to 1 Corinthians, material from all chapters except for chapter 16 and possibly also chapter 13 are attested as belonging to the epistle which Marcion agreed was the first to the Corinthians.
• 2 Cor 7.2-11.1 is not attested at all for Marcion, meaning that, if chapters 8 and 9 of that epistle were originally separate epistles, as if often thought, we have no evidence that Marcion's version of 2 Corinthians included them. In fact, as BeDuhn points out, we have no evidence that Tertullian himself knew chapters 8 and 9 as part of his own copy of 2 Corinthians. Tertullian "shows a conspicuous void here, with no quotations or allusions to anything between 7.10... and 10.2..." (BeDuhn, page 293).

Tertullian Apparel of Women

what the same (God) has said through the apostle: Let your probity appear before men.

probably paraphrases 2 Corinthians 8:21

For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of man.

Andrew Criddle

[hakeem]

If Paul found Churche, documented his teaching and had revelations from Jesus then we would have expected Paul to be the most important evangelist. However we see that the Gospel writers appear to have no awareness of this apostle and evangelist and had to use gMark whose author is unknown and of whom there is not even an Epistle.

What you say seems very confusing. On one hand, you state that Paul founded a 'Churche'. I am not aware of this addition of an extra e in modern research. Can you expand on this? Is the e silent? Is your statement evidence of a breakthrough in research? Is the e an interpolation??

Also, how could Paul found anything if you had admitted in a previous post that he was indeed fictional? It seems that in light of this, your previous point of Paul founding a 'Churche' has been utterly destroyed! (regardless if the e was silent!)

Have you not read Acts of the apostles? It is claimed Saul/Paul physically preached the gospel in the same cities as the letters are addressed.
In the Epistles the writer claimed he abode with Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days after Jesus was dead yet in gMark and gMatthew it is claimed Peter was a fisherman living in Galilee and was told to meet Jesus in Galilee after he was resurrected which eventually happened in gMatthew and gJohn.
It is clear to me that the authors of gMatthew, gMark and gJohn did not know of Paul ,did not know of his Epistles and did not hear him publicly preach that Peter was living in Jerusalem after Jesus was was raised from the dead.

The story that Peter and the apostles lived in Jerusalem and were commanded to live there comes from gLuke which is evidence that the authors of the so called Pauline Epistles were alive after gLuke was written.