The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Peter Kirby »

The word "contemporary" might not be the best way to express the distance in time at fifty years, but it could be worse.

Yes, Hegesippus is known only from references and quotations. Your protest against using them is noted.

By the way, I found something interesting about the archaeology of Judea in the time period between these two Jewish wars:

http://www.bollettinodiarcheologiaonlin ... KLONER.pdf

As reported by Dio Cassius with reference to "mines" in which the Jews found safety, fighting a war with guerrilla tactics, the archaeology of the region substantiates that there was large number of such underground tunnels / hiding places constructed in the period from 70 AD to 135 AD.

If "Simon the Zealot" and "Simon the Stone" were the same person, here's a plausible etymology for the nickname.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Peter Kirby »

I also found this, which allows us to understand more exactly the nature of the civilian settlement between the wars based on the archaeological evidence. [Elsewhere there is evidence that the Roman legion continued for quite some time to be stationed nearby, in the Antonia fortress which escaped destruction.]

http://www.academia.edu/983856/_The_Jew ... _2011_1-25

Finally, Price points to recent archaeological, rather than epigraphic
evidence that sheds important new light on the Jewish population of
Jerusalem between the two revolts. Salvage excavations in Shuʿafat,
about 4 km north of the Old City of Jerusalem revealed the remains of
a settlement that was founded after 70 c.e. and abandoned and partly
destroyed, at the latest, in the first or second year of the Bar Kokhba
revolt. The excavators interpreted the site as a prosperous Jewish set-
tlement just 4 km north of Jerusalem, established in the last year or
two of the revolt or immediately afterwards, which must have had the
approval of the Roman authorities. Price refers to Josephus’ account
of Titus treating Jewish prisoners of higher social standing with special
consideration and argues that this settlement fits the description of
Givʿat Shaul, mentioned by Josephus.

Wars 5.2 - "Now Titus, according to the Roman usage, went in the front of the army after a decent manner, and marched through Samaria to Gophna, a city that had been formerly taken by his father, and was then garrisoned by Roman soldiers; and when he had lodged there one night, he marched on in the morning; and when he had gone as far as a day's march, he pitched his camp at that valley which the Jews, in their own tongue, call "the Valley of Thorns," near a certain village called Gabaothsath, which signifies "the Hill of Saul," being distant from Jerusalem about thirty furlongs."
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Duvduv
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Duvduv »

The fact is that no ancient sources presented a canon of three gospels and twenty epistles or six gospels and ten epistles, or acanon rejecting Acts as a fraud. The canon was always presented as the traditional set. And that is more important than insulting me with argumentum ad hominem.
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by dewitness »

Duvduv wrote:The fact is that no ancient sources presented a canon of three gospels and twenty epistles or six gospels and ten epistles, or acanon rejecting Acts as a fraud. The canon was always presented as the traditional set. And that is more important than insulting me with argumentum ad hominem.
It is for that very reason why the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen's Against Celsus and Arnobius are extremely significant since they do not show any knowledge of a Canon with four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, with Pauline and Catholic Epistles.

These writings are evidence against an early NT Canon.

1. Aristides did not acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Corpus.

2. Justin Martyr admitted ONLY the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' were read in the Churches on Sundays.

3. Origen admitted that Celsus wrote Nothing of Paul.

4. In Minucius Felix Octavius there is no use of the Pauline Corpus, The Catholic Epistles and Acts of the Apostles.

5. In the Christian writings of Theophilus there is virtually no use of the Entire NT Canon.

6. In the Christian writings of Athenagoras there is virtually no use of the Entire NT Canon.

7. In the Christian writings of Arnobius there is virtually no knowledge of the NT Canon.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Bernard Muller »

Peter, I read what you posted but there is no sign of reconstruction in Jerusalem mentioned from 71 to 135. Tunnels, citernes and the "prosperous" village were outside Jerusalem.
BTW, the Antonia fortress was totally destroyed in 70 and the Roman camp was situated in the west end of old Jerusalem. The city walls west of the camp were not destroyed in order to offer protection to the camp.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Peter Kirby »

Bernard Muller wrote:Peter, I read what you posted but there is no sign of reconstruction in Jerusalem mentioned from 71 to 135. Tunnels, citernes and the "prosperous" village were outside Jerusalem.
Right, I see that the best interpretation of the evidence is that the main civilian settlement from 70-135 AD was in this village 4 km from where the legion was stationed in Jerusalem (while some poor people apparently took to living among the rubble, as told by Josephus and Epiphanius). It's fine if we want to distinguish very sharply and clearly this village from Jerusalem, but we don't have evidence that our sources did the same.

Odes of Solomon 4 may be written as a criticism against the people living in this village from 70-135 AD who have taken the holy place and changed it because they "put it in another place." The stones of old Jerusalem would be a natural quarry for people living on "Saul's Hill."

Ode 4
No man can pervert Your holy place, O my God; nor can he change it, and put it in another place.
Because he has no power over it; for Your sanctuary You designed before You made special places.
The ancient one shall not be perverted by those which are inferior to it. You have given Your heart, O Lord, to Your believers.

The relationship of this village with Jerusalem can be most clearly seen from the fact that it is not inhabited after 135 AD, following the proscription against Jews living in Aelia Capitolina. Understandable since it was the regional center (I'm referring to farmers selling at market there) that used to be sustained economically in part by the legion stationed nearby, a role now being played by the pagan city Hadrian built.
Bernard Muller wrote:BTW, the Antonia fortress was totally destroyed in 70 and the Roman camp was situated in the west end of old Jerusalem. The city walls west of the camp were not destroyed in order to offer protection to the camp.
I understand it is not a consensus idea, but I got that here:
http://askelm.com/temple/t001211.htm
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by andrewcriddle »

Hi Peter

One thing I find a bit puzzling about your use of Hegesippus.

IF Hegesippus is a historically valid source at all, then he provides evidence of a James the Just the brother of the Lord at Jerusalem before 70 CE. This must be the James the brother of the Lord who Paul supposedly interacted with hence the Pauline letters are at least claiming to come from before 70 CE.

(Hegesippus may possibly be historically worthless but in that case we have little evidence for a Christian community at Jerusalem between 70 and 130 CE.)

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:Hi Peter

One thing I find a bit puzzling about your use of Hegesippus.

IF Hegesippus is a historically valid source at all, then he provides evidence of a James the Just the brother of the Lord at Jerusalem before 70 CE. This must be the James the brother of the Lord who Paul supposedly interacted with hence the Pauline letters are at least claiming to come from before 70 CE.

(Hegesippus may possibly be historically worthless but in that case we have little evidence for a Christian community at Jerusalem between 70 and 130 CE.)

Andrew Criddle
Hi Andrew,

I agree. There are elements of the Pauline epistles (James the brother of the Lord, the couple references we mentioned earlier in 1 Corinthians) that show that the author understands Paul to live before 70 AD.

I'm fairly content with the idea of a historical James 'the Just,' brother of the Lord, living up to 66-70 AD, as found in the traditions behind Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Pauline epistles themselves (whether pseudepigraphic or authentic epistles).

I was always clear in my "devil's advocate" dispute with Bernard earlier that I was only against his use of the premise that it would be impossible to speak of a Christian community of Jerusalem after 70 AD. I never have actually advocated that the epistles of Paul were imagined to have been written by Paul after 70 AD, only that I did not accept that argument presented by Bernard. I now accept other arguments (the two just mentioned) for thinking that Paul is pictured in the epistles as living before 70 AD.

The two rival interpretations of the data are that Paul wrote some of these letters pre-70, or that they are pseudepigraphically attributed to a Paul.

Best regards,
Peter Kirby
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Duvduv
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:07 pm

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by Duvduv »

I was specifically referring to anything that could be identified with the orthodox Christian religion. In addition, there is no reason to assume that these writings were originally Christian documents at all, as opposed to composites and texts ADOPTED into Christianity in their form with a few changes.
dewitness wrote:
Duvduv wrote:The fact is that no ancient sources presented a canon of three gospels and twenty epistles or six gospels and ten epistles, or acanon rejecting Acts as a fraud. The canon was always presented as the traditional set. And that is more important than insulting me with argumentum ad hominem.
It is for that very reason why the writings of Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Origen's Against Celsus and Arnobius are extremely significant since they do not show any knowledge of a Canon with four named Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, with Pauline and Catholic Epistles.

These writings are evidence against an early NT Canon.

1. Aristides did not acknowledge Paul or the Pauline Corpus.

2. Justin Martyr admitted ONLY the 'Memoirs of the Apostles' were read in the Churches on Sundays.

3. Origen admitted that Celsus wrote Nothing of Paul.

4. In Minucius Felix Octavius there is no use of the Pauline Corpus, The Catholic Epistles and Acts of the Apostles.

5. In the Christian writings of Theophilus there is virtually no use of the Entire NT Canon.

6. In the Christian writings of Athenagoras there is virtually no use of the Entire NT Canon.

7. In the Christian writings of Arnobius there is virtually no knowledge of the NT Canon.
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: The Pauline Gospel was a Late Invention

Post by dewitness »

Duvduv wrote:I was specifically referring to anything that could be identified with the orthodox Christian religion. In addition, there is no reason to assume that these writings were originally Christian documents at all, as opposed to composites and texts ADOPTED into Christianity in their form with a few changes.
Your statement makes very little sense. It is you who have no reason at all to assume that obvious Christian writings were not. You would not assume Jewish writings were not Jewish.
Post Reply