Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 12:25 amI have made clear more times to GDon that, under the traditional dating of Paul, I refer to Richard Carrier as the proponent of the more probable reconstruction of the Origins.

Paul, the apostle of Valentinus, Marcion, Doherty, Carrier, Giuseppe, RG Price, GDon. All finding what they want in Paul, the creation of Marcion.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 12:25 amI was assuming that my interlocutor agreed with me about Revelation being from Bar-Kokhba's time...

But I think now that Paul is an invention of the Marcion's school.

Fine. Which means that, if Revelation is anti-Paul, then Paul was created pre-130 CEs (Bar Kochba revolution), and wasn't rehabilitated into the proto-orthodox church until after Justin Martyr (also anti-Paul) who wrote approximately 150s CE while Marcion was apparently still alive. But Irenaeus and Tertullian, who knew Justin Martyr's works and lived not much later, were pro-Paul. So Paul, a creation of Marcion's school, a docetist, created to be a colleague of Peter and James who agreed upon a common gospel message -- though with later conflicts -- is adopted as historical by the Christians of Justin Martyr's time though as a villian (why I don't know, the best option would have been 'Paul never existed as he wasn't mentioned by anyone pre-Marcion') but within a generation or two of Justin Martyr has been integrated into orthodoxy, conflicts and all. And not just adopted, but one of the recent spiritual heroes mentioned by the author of 1 Clement, whom Carrier dates to the 60s CE.

Giuseppe, I have no problems with you speculating. I do the same, and it's fun to do it. But you don't seem to take any responsibilities with your speculations. You need to be consistent within the framework of your own head canon. There are a series of texts, each blocks in a chain, and moving around the time a text was written has implications for other texts.

Can you explain the timeline of events, starting from the Marcion school creating Paul's letters, to Revelation and Justin Martyr's becoming anti-Paul, to proto-orthodox Irenaeus and Tertullian becoming pro-Paul? Just a time-line please.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 12:25 amWhat was object of discussion is the meaning of the silence of Justin about Paul. Even assuming the traditional dates for both Paul and Revelation (an assumption for a mere sake of discussion with the interlocutor GDon, who appears unable to believe otherwise) it is obvious that the Justin's use of Revelation makes Justin an anti-pauline just as Revelation is. Which explains sufficiently the silence of Justin about Paul.

Do you think that Justin believed that Marcion's forged letters of Paul represented real history, so that he thought Paul actually met Peter and James and they agreed upon the same gospel message, but later split over the Law? Or did Justin believe that there was no Paul at all? What does Justin being "anti-Paul" mean to you?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:13 am (why I don't know, the best option would have been 'Paul never existed as he wasn't mentioned by anyone pre-Marcion')

If you have difficulty with the idea of a Paul totally invented (man + epistles), then you can always accept the alternative: the man was historical, an obscure historical preacher (not even a Christian?), with 'epistles' totally fabricated and attributed post-mortem to the former. Van Manen followed the latter option, while Whittaker could accept both the options without problems (and so I do, too).

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:13 am Can you explain the timeline of events, starting from the Marcion school creating Paul's letters, to Revelation and Justin Martyr's becoming anti-Paul, to proto-orthodox Irenaeus and Tertullian becoming pro-Paul? Just a time-line please.

I follow Britt and Wingo when they write:


Britt, Matthew; Wingo, Jaaron. Christ Before Jesus: Evidence for the Second-Century Origins of Jesus (English Edition) (p.306). Cooper & Samuels Publishing, my bold.

Hence, the chronology of the texts is grossomodo the following:

1. "the belief that someone had seemingly undergone crucifixion among the Jews"

• 2. Marcion's school writes the first epistles.

• 3. Book of Revelation is written against Rome and en passant attacks 'Paul', i.e. Marcion.

• 4. Hebrews is written against Marcion.

• 5. Marcion's school writes *Ev.

• 6. Justin replies against *Ev by collecting the his own available written arsenal: Gospel of Peter and memories of the Apostles. Still none Canonical Gospel.

• 7. Fabrication of the Canonical Gospels. Marcion lives still and cries to conspiracy.

• 8. Acts of the Apostles is written against Marcion.

• 9. Marcion read Acts of the Apostles and writes Galatians against Acts.

• 10. proto-John and 1 and 2John are written by marcionites.

• 11. The epistles are sanitized in a Catholic sense.

• 12. Ignatius is fabricated, Papias is fabricated, 1Clement is fabricated, the Pastorals are fabricated, etc

Clearly the timeline is not complete, because probably I should place Aristides in some point after Marcion and before *Ev.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 12:25 am Do you think that Justin believed that Marcion's forged letters of Paul represented real history, so that he thought Paul actually met Peter and James and they agreed upon the same gospel message, but later split over the Law?

Justin didn't know Galatians, because Galatians was written by Marcion after the Acts of the Apostles, and Justin didn't know yet Acts of the Apostles.
Justin could know about Paul only that he was probably the Independent Exorcist, by learning it from *Ev 9:47-50:


Note that *Ev is a gospel designed, in the Marcion's intentions, to find a compromise between him and people as Justin. Hence the exhortation:


...is really addressed to people as Justin. Which talks a lot about the people as Justin being ambiguous about Paul. They are reluctant to accept Paul as 13° apostle. Hence the silence of Justin about Paul. My point is that without texts as *Ev 9:47-50 people as Justin would have been more hostile against Paul: they would have mentioned him negatively.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:57 am

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 3:13 am Giuseppe, I have no problems with you speculating. I do the same, and it's fun to do it. But you don't seem to take any responsibilities with your speculations. You need to be consistent within the framework of your own head canon.

... Hence, the chronology of the texts is grossomodo the following: <snipped>

Thanks for that. Giuseppe, I owe you an apology. I was wrong to accuse you of not taking responsibilities with your speculations/head canon. I won't comment on it at this time since I don't want to drive the thread further off-topic than I have already, but just wanted to note I appreciate your response, and I apologise for my comment above.

The Paul the Apostle project is a form of an intermediary transmitting religious content with divine attribution. A standard construct in many religions before and after Christianity. The First Apostle and the Last Prophet are the same concept under different names.
The environment that created Paul did not come up with the idea of ​​​​creating a myth about an earthly Jesus. Only Paul was developed by this environment as a literary hero.
The first to abandon the concept of Paul's exclusive teaching was Marcion. He did this for a simple reason - stories about an earthly Jesus were more effective in converting than Paul's teachings and narratives about him. It was easier to meke decission because both communication concepts of Great Apostle and Historical Walking-Talking Jesus were created at a similar time, before there was any wide distribution of Christianity. The first to start an organized missionary action was Marcion with two different gospels of earthly Jesus and First Apostle