Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Iam = now. So it is not as strong. But is it strong enough to identify Marcionism as the context for Clement's beliefs about Paul? Yes I think so.

Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord now/once He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him

Denique audiens postea eum a domino allectum, iam in caelis quiescente, quasi inprovidentiam existimo si non ante scivit illum sibi necessarium Christus

outhouse wrote:Paul in Philemon is an old man. Ph dates early 60's

The dependency of Acts of Pauls own text is still debated heavily, which many arguments would hinge upon.

But it is obvious the authors of Acts View the stoning of Stephan close to the ascension, which writing say 60 ish years later 5 years would be considered very close when Paul was much younger.

Of possible relevance is how the ancients themselves calculated youth and old age.

Pythagoras: "A boy for twenty years, a young man for twenty years, a middle aged man for twenty years, and an old man for twenty [παῖς εἴκοσι ἔτεα, νεηνίσκος εἴκοσι, νεηνίης εἴκοσι, γέρων εἴκοσι]."

Cicero, On Old Age 2: "To this class old age especially belongs, which all men wish to attain and yet reproach when attained; such is the inconsistency and perversity of Folly! They say that it stole upon them faster than they had expected. In the first place, who has forced them to form a mistaken judgement? For how much more rapidly does old age steal upon youth than youth upon childhood [citius adolescentiae senectus quam pueritiae adolescentia obrepit]?"

John Chapman, Papias on the Age of Our Lord:


One should probably differentiate between Greek and Latin evidence. But at least those are some points of data to consider.

Ben.

If, as I strongly suspect, Paul's ascent to Paradise/the third heaven is the 'call' which - on his return - leads to him preaching the doctrines of Christianity, it is difficult to imagine an equivalent 'historical narrative' to what is written in Acts. Did the world around him 'know' that Jesus was crucified or did the Marcionites understand that Paul literally learned about Jesus's 'ministry' from his heavenly ascent?

Ben C. Smith wrote:

outhouse wrote:Paul in Philemon is an old man. Ph dates early 60's

The dependency of Acts of Pauls own text is still debated heavily, which many arguments would hinge upon.

But it is obvious the authors of Acts View the stoning of Stephan close to the ascension, which writing say 60 ish years later 5 years would be considered very close when Paul was much younger.

Of possible relevance is how the ancients themselves calculated youth and old age.

Pythagoras: "A boy for twenty years, a young man for twenty years, a middle aged man for twenty years, and an old man for twenty [παῖς εἴκοσι ἔτεα, νεηνίσκος εἴκοσι, νεηνίης εἴκοσι, γέρων εἴκοσι]."

Cicero, On Old Age 2: "To this class old age especially belongs, which all men wish to attain and yet reproach when attained; such is the inconsistency and perversity of Folly! They say that it stole upon them faster than they had expected. In the first place, who has forced them to form a mistaken judgement? For how much more rapidly does old age steal upon youth than youth upon childhood [citius adolescentiae senectus quam pueritiae adolescentia obrepit]?"

John Chapman, Papias on the Age of Our Lord:

Of course 'youth' lasted longer in the view of the ancients. A Roman was technically a iuvenis until 46, when he became a senex. .... Sallust calls Caesar adulescens at 33 or 35 (Cat. 49). Varro counts pueri up to 15, adulescentes up to 30. Cicero calls Cassius an adulescens at 34; he applies the same word to Brutus and Cassius at 41, and to himself when consul at 44 (Orat. ii 2; Phil. ii 44 and 46).

One should probably differentiate between Greek and Latin evidence. But at least those are some points of data to consider.

Ben.

Thank you Ben.


I knew context was different but never knew the details of such.


hats off to you!

MrMacSon wrote:

The question of the dating of Paul's activities have little in the way of supporting evidence outside of the documents of the Church

outhouse wrote: Regardless, they have historicity as being from the 50's, and two late second century traditions, "if" your you're correct have no chance of competing against the original Pauline text.

outhouse uses amphiboly to assert the Paul texts "have historicity as being from the '50s" - Yes there is a tradition of belief they are from the '50s, but nothing really substantiates that they really are.

Determining hat happened in second century century, especially determining the relationships of second century texts to each other, may be our best hope of finding out whether these texts existed in the first century.

Thank you for the grammar correction. I know it and still make it blindly.

But Pauls community writing in the 50s carries historicity despite your own personal view, or anyone elses for that matter.


I like Stephans view and methodology of shoving square holes in round pegs, because you will find surprises that way, that can rewrite what is known or not known. And in participation I'm also looking up my own ideas furthering knowledge besides keeping our pal Stephan company.

So you don't think there was an early tradition that understood Paul to have had his heavenly ascent immediately following Jesus's heavenly ascent which led to his ministering on behalf of the Christian religion?

Secret Alias wrote: If, as I strongly suspect, Paul's ascent to Paradise/the third heaven is the 'call' which - on his return - leads to him preaching the doctrines of Christianity, it is difficult to imagine an equivalent 'historical narrative' to what is written in Acts. Did the world around him 'know' that Jesus was crucified, or did the Marcionites understand that Paul literally learned about Jesus's 'ministry' from his heavenly ascent?

Secret Alias wrote: ...there was an early tradition that understood Paul to have had his heavenly ascent immediately following Jesus's heavenly ascent which led to his ministering on behalf of the Christian religion?

That is quite interesting (though I don't know why you tie it to what is written in Acts).

Do you think it increases that chance that some of (or a lot of) the Pauline narratives were a literary device?

It's hard to say with absolute certainty of course. I've just stumbled across this now. But my sense is that, yes, it provides a historical foundation for 'mythicism.' Of course a lot of this has been covered before. 'Paul' as Simon Magus in the Pseudo-Clementines and the open mockery of the emphasis of 'visionary experience' in the Pauline writings. But the idea that Paul went up to third heaven and came back down as a missionary immediately following Jesus's heavenly ascension raises questions about the historicity of the crucifixion.

The one thing I haven't come across or figured out yet - did the Marcionites think Paul was a witness to the crucifixion. There is something in De Recta in Deum Fide worth considering.

Secret Alias wrote:It's hard to say with absolute certainty of course. I've just stumbled across this now. But my sense is that, yes, it provides a historical foundation for 'mythicism.'

.... the idea that Paul went up to third heaven and came back down as a missionary immediately following Jesus's heavenly ascension raises questions about the historicity of the crucifixion.

I was wondering if it raises questions about the historicity of Paul --or at least historicity of that aspect of the Paul-narrative.

Does it provide more clout to a proposition that Paul is a composite character? or aspects of Paul are a literary device?