Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?
Re: Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?
Robin Lane Fox dates the escape of Paul to 36/37 AD.
In 36/7 it is entirely credible to find Aretas’s agents active so far north in Damascus: Aretas had won a great victory over Herod Antipas in the wake of the divorce scandal and had overrun bits of the tetrarchy of Philip, Herod’s brother, who had died in 33/4 .Not until early 37 did Antipas manage to mobilize Roman support against the Petran king and defeat him.
Paul’s dangers in Damascus fit beautifully into the interval while Aretas’s troops could still make the most of their northern gains.
The Unauthorized version : truth and fiction the Bible
Robin Lane Fox
Penguin Books, 1991, page 305
ISBN 9780141022963
Unfortunately there is no evidence of Aretas IV having made any gains in the north, especially Damascus, and every good reason to expect that he did not. The Romans controlled that area at that time and Damascus was one of their cities. They would have responded with force had Aretas IV attacked and held those areas.
Actually, Paul's three year stay in Damascus fits in much better when Aretas III occupied Damascus from 85-72 BCE and then later from 69-63 BCE with Tigranes II occupying Damascus for three years from 72-69 BCE.
Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?
Re: Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?
Robin Lane Fox dates the escape of Paul to 36/37 AD.
In 36/7 it is entirely credible to find Aretas’s agents active so far north in Damascus: Aretas had won a great victory over Herod Antipas in the wake of the divorce scandal and had overrun bits of the tetrarchy of Philip, Herod’s brother, who had died in 33/4 .Not until early 37 did Antipas manage to mobilize Roman support against the Petran king and defeat him.
Paul’s dangers in Damascus fit beautifully into the interval while Aretas’s troops could still make the most of their northern gains.
The Unauthorized version : truth and fiction the Bible
Robin Lane Fox
Penguin Books, 1991, page 305
ISBN 9780141022963
Unfortunately there is no evidence of Aretas IV having made any gains in the north, especially Damascus, and every good reason to expect that he did not. The Romans controlled that area at that time and Damascus was one of their cities. They would have responded with force had Aretas IV attacked and held those areas.
Actually, Paul's three year stay in Damascus fits in much better when Aretas III occupied Damascus from 85-72 BCE and then later from 69-63 BCE with Tigranes II occupying Damascus for three years from 72-69 BCE.
Robin Lane-Fox :
paul.PNG
Why even mention Acts? Acts claims that Paul was on the hook from the Jews; no mention of Aretas at all.
Jax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:09 pm
Why even mention Acts? Acts claims that Paul was on the hook from the Jews; no mention of Aretas at all.
So which is it? Paul or Acts?
It makes no difference, but Corinthians was written by Paul and it is the text authored by Paul the one in need of an explanation compatible with an early Galatians.
Jax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:01 pm
As this thread is titled "Who existed ? When ? Where ?" I ask, aside from the narrative (completely dismissed by modern scholars) in Acts what makes you think that Paul, or as he calls himself, Paulos, was writing in the mid 1st century?
At this point, I am entirely UNcertain about 'Paul' / 'Saul' / 'Paulos' - his existence, and the writings attributed to him.
A trajectory common to all my studies in Christianity - the closer I look, the less certain things become.
So I'm 'starting over' on 'Paul' - time to study, learn, consider and evaluate. It's a buzz really - setting loose a faulty assumption leaves me free to try to find my way to better knowledge and understanding.
Without a genuine Paul, Christianity's record apparently starts with Marcion the Mysterious, and Tatian and Justin Martyr. An eye-opening possibility, even if unlikely.
Kapyong
I am starting over with Paul myself. At this point he is my primary focus.
Any help, or insight, that I can give you on this I will happily supply.
Jax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:09 pm
Why even mention Acts? Acts claims that Paul was on the hook from the Jews; no mention of Aretas at all.
So which is it? Paul or Acts?
It makes no difference, but Corinthians was written by Paul and it is the text authored by Paul the one in need of an explanation compatible with an early Galatians.
Sounds more likely to me that the author of Acts, being closer to the time in question, realized how unlikely Aretas IV in Damascus actually was and had to come up with a better sounding and more realistic story.
Jax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:09 pm
Why even mention Acts? Acts claims that Paul was on the hook from the Jews; no mention of Aretas at all.
So which is it? Paul or Acts?
It makes no difference, but Corinthians was written by Paul and it is the text authored by Paul the one in need of an explanation compatible with an early Galatians.
Sounds more likely to me that the author of Acts, being closer to the time in question, realized how unlikely Aretas IV in Damascus actually was and had to come up with a better sounding and more realistic story.
Verisimilitude is not out of the question as a motive, but it seems to me that it may simply be part of the author's standard vendetta against the Jews.
Jax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:09 pm
Why even mention Acts? Acts claims that Paul was on the hook from the Jews; no mention of Aretas at all.
So which is it? Paul or Acts?
It makes no difference, but Corinthians was written by Paul and it is the text authored by Paul the one in need of an explanation compatible with an early Galatians.
Sounds more likely to me that the author of Acts, being closer to the time in question, realized how unlikely Aretas IV in Damascus actually was and had to come up with a better sounding and more realistic story.
Verisimilitude is not out of the question as a motive, but it seems to me that it may simply be part of the author's standard vendetta against the Jews.
True. He really has the Jews needing to kill Paul.
Jax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:28 pm
I am starting over with Paul myself. At this point he is my primary focus.
Any help, or insight, that I can give you on this I will happily supply.
Jax
I'm sure anything you can share here about Paul will be welcome
Jax wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 3:31 pmI used to assume that Paul had written seven authentic letters: 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Romans and Philemon. But further research on this subject has convinced me that Philemon is rather part of the pseudepigraphy of Ephesians and Colossians.
I don't have my sources at hand but will be happy to supply them to you if you, or anyone here, would like them.
I would be interested in an argument against the authenticity of Philemon. Does it have something to do with the letter being a possible letter of recommendation for a certain bishop named Onesimus?
Hi again Ben, sorry for the wait.
As far as I can tell the arguments against Philemon being written by Paul are that the letter seems to be reliant on the letter to the Colossians as well as the letter to the Ephesians, the three together making up a set of letters reliant on each other for a common theme.
The argument goes that if Colossians and Ephesians are thought to be written by people (or person) other than Paul, at a much later date than the authentic letters, then a letter so reliant on those letters must also be non-Pauline. An argument that I agree with.
Twenty-five years ago I read an argument that Colossians, at least, is (partly) based on Philemon, and not vice versa. Is there anything in these two epistles which would indicate the opposite direction of dependence for you?
This of course could be true. Further study will always be in order. For now however I an treating Philemon as extra Pauline.
Jax wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2017 6:28 pm
I am starting over with Paul myself. At this point he is my primary focus.
Any help, or insight, that I can give you on this I will happily supply.
Jax
I'm sure anything you can share here about Paul will be welcome
Kapyong
In my opinion Paul really is the key. But who is Paul in the letters as opposed to others inserting themselves into his texts?
First we need to distill the letters down to those authentic to Paul, then we need to dissect those letters into their component parts, and finally we need to weed out the later interpolations.
Only then can we have a worthwhile conversation about the man himself.
