Here is a summary of Professor Nina Livesey claims: 1) they [the letters of Paul] know too much. They know about the dying and rising of Jesus. They know about figures uh such as Peter, James, and John. 2) we don't have classical sources that are talking about Paul as an intellectual writer who had a way of keeping the collection if you see what I mean. 3) I thought seriously about those inter relationships, these people and events that hop between the letters and the gospel in Acts, you might say, I could no longer consider one set of writings, the seven letters of Paul, as actual correspondence, historical. 4) it's not like fictive letters are so odd. 5) this that the way it's refer to the way Paul refers to himself as the Apostle Paul. 6) this complex, of ideas around the notion of circumcision.
professor Nina Livy and today we're just today's discussion is based on our book the letters of Paul in the Roman literary context reassessing
apostolicship. we think that Marcion's born around 85 or 90 in Turkey, modern day
Turkey, and he died perhaps around 160. So that's Marcion, the person Marcion, according to sources.
he was wealthy and that he's associated with the shipping industry. so-called Christian writers such as Justin and Jerome say that he was a teacher and that he was widely known as a teacher. It's also thought that Marcion came to Rome in the aftermath of Bar Kokhba revolt ( took place from 132 to 135 CE) an event that is said to have even influenced his move to Rome.
importantly, he was a writer known for writing a work called the antitheses. but no copies are extent since he comes across as a bit of a oppositional figure by the victors of Christianity the so-called orthodox group one can imagine that his work was just never recopied All of those notions put him in opposition to these other Christian writers, who relied actually on the Hebrew Bible to foreshadow Christ. They relied on the prophecies in particular. but the fact that these writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian so strongly oppose the views of Marcian, it implies, it gives a tip, you might say, of his influence.
he's known for having published what has been called the first New Testament which consisted of one gospel the called the first gospel or evangelon and that's similar to the gospel of Luke only it omits the first few chapters... There's also another work called the apostolic and that is a collection of 10
Pauline letters . Paul is in the book of Acts.
Then the letters, where's the first mention of the letters?
I can back up a little bit and say the first external evidence for the letters [of Paul] points to Marcion's Apostolic which is perhaps dated to around 140 or so of the second century. But then if we go branching out a little bit further about the mention of the Pauline letters, we do see that in first clement
another work which exhorts take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle.
That letter also hints at knowing other Pauline letters, namely the 10 Pauline letters or maybe even the canonical Pauline letters. because that letter, even though it's called first clement, is really a letter from a community in Rome to a community in Corinth. So that seems to be a a play, you might say, on
the notion that there was Romans and there was Corinthians, if you see what I mean.
Second Peter also has evidence provides evidence of Pauline letters at 3:16.
And another thing that you might think about as far as evidence of Pauline letters, although
it's not explicit mention, are the pastorals, which is first and second Timothy and Titus.
You can think of those as a collection in and of themselves, three letters, but they also
um implicitly suggest that there were these other letters Pauline letters and they you might say copycat of those Pauline letters that's already known in the Pauline scholarship.
for the letters thought to have been written, which is the standard view around the middle
of the first century, let's say 50s to 60s of the first century, they know too much. They know about the dying and rising of Jesus.
They know about figures uh such as Peter, James, and John.
They are aware of apostles and of Christian disciples in Jerusalem. And this information, that stuff, I argue comes from written Christian sources. And recent scholarship would place those sources in the early part of the second century or, you know, some views the late first century. But in any event after the 50/60 date of the in the standard dating of the Pauline letters the actual letters of 50 and 60 if you know what I mean.
As for external evidence on more problems, the letters in my research are only known to as a collected work together and at a relatively late date. So collection first. Okay. So if they were actual letters and I do talk about this in the book sent to various communities in diverse cities or regions as the standard view assumes then you have a problem with how to gather those letters into a collection.
You'd have to somebody would have had to known where those communities are that
there were these different letters. How would anyone know there was a letter to Rome, a letter to Corinth, two letters to Corinth, letters to Thessalonica?
Somebody would have had to have known all of that which is already um a push, a
conceptual push it seems to me. To collect those letters. One reasonable solution to that
logistical problem it seems to me big logistical problem is to say that a person Paul
made copies of those letters. There you have a person Paul he wrote letters to these
communities but he kept a copy. So there you can say well Paul had the collection right and that makes logical and logistical sense.
However we have no evidence that the person Paul kept the letters even though that seems like a reasonable solution to the collection problem.
One would also, it seems to me, have to imagine or know, not imagine, but know
and have evidence of Paul as a figure in history, sort of like a Philo figure. you have his works and it's not just letters. There's there were other works by Philo. And Philo known from other sources. Philo was a known figure.
but we don't have that for this figure Paul. we don't have classical sources that are talking about Paul as an intellectual writer who had a way of keeping the collection if you see what I mean. Those seem to be problems and not small
ones for the standard view of those authentic letters. But what is
clear is I noticed after writing a second book, Galatians and the rhetoric
of crisis, ....the letters especially Galatians while I focused on Galatians was highly rhetorical constructed strategic you might say the letter had a theological agenda. So already I'm starting to question that this is a genuine or even an ordinary letter. there's special kind of letter you might say doctrinal letters
Another thing that plays in here is I started to notice and pay more attention and find more significance in the fact that there are these maybe you can even say strategic inter relationships between Pauline letters and um other biblical literature the gospels and acts.
Once I thought seriously about those inter relationships, these people and events that hop between the letters and the gospel in Acts, you might say, I could no longer consider one set of writings, the seven letters of Paul, as actual correspondence, historical . and the gospel in Acts as literary works.
...and finally adding to this, it's not like fictive letters are so odd. They really were used and they were known. So I could get over that hurdle that it wasn't a real letter, that these weren't real letters because there are other fictive letters.
And one such example is the epistle of Jeremiah that shows up in some Bibles,
not in the Protestant Bibles, but in Catholic Bibles. You have a standalone letter there. It's a fictive letter from a prophet Jeremiah. What internal clues exist within the Pauline epistles for dating them after 70 CE?
the letters assume uh the bases of the Christ narrative namely that Christ died and rose from the dead. So in my view that narrative, that central Christian message you might say is developed first in a gospel, whatever that gospel you might think that gospel is. and many scholars or most scholars would now date whichever first gospel you might consider as the first gospel as a post70 writing. So already we've gotten to 70 just with from that Galatians uh going a little further beyond 70 here I think Galatians knows of events in Acts at the very least there's compatibility between Galatians and Acts in terms of the reference of Paul having an earlier life in Judaism and persecuting the Christ followers.
Galatians knows that there were disciples in Jerusalem all narrated in Acts and that circumcision was an issue that too is mentioned in Acts. the letters also and I think this is important too.
They know about the notion of an apostle and that is something that we see in in
the gospels but also in acts acts of the apostles right in the letters Paul is
exclusively apostle Paul and it seems to me and I think I would be followed on this that the way it's refer to the way Paul refers to himself as the Apostle Paul.
It's said in such a way that the audience is to assume what the heck that means. Apostle Paul. What does it mean to be an apostle? In other words, that word apostle already carries some weight in the context of this these works. It's already known. I don't think that notion first appears in other works in the letters which is what you'd have to assume in that standard view. I think from where the letters are just assuming that the audience knows Paul is significant because he's an apostle.
And what is an apostle? Well, that's defined in the gospels. That's defined in Acts. And Paul calls himself divinely appointed as an apostle. But if there's just shorthand there uh short
references. So, you've got to have a smart audience to know what the heck that is. And I
think we have been assuming that all along. Readers of those letters know that. But
where does it come from? And I think it comes from these other works, these later works.
What internal clues exist within the Pauline epistles to date them after the Bar Kokhba revolt ?
Okay, so now we're pushing a little later. so in the book, and I still think push the letters later into the second century after Bar Kokhba even, concerns this complex, of ideas around the notion of circumcision. That is one of the clues.
Circumcision, my first book was on circumcision.
parallels ...the negative connotation in Paul finds uh natural organic you might say parallels in the mid century and not earlier.
Justin's dialogue something that I also looked at earlier you see very negative of circumcision um instead of a sign of the covenant between the Jewish people and Abraham and God major sign of a Jew in Judaism.
You see in Justin, Christian Justin in the mid-second century that circumcision for Jews he says is a
sign of your suffering. Why? Because you revolted and now look at you. You got nothing. So
that's in Justin's dialogue.
So another text is the epistle of Barnabas. It's addressed to those in the Lord. and Barnabas or Epistle of Barnabas the author there finds that or says that circumcision of the flesh is to be abolished. So similar complex of ideas you might say.
Barnabas also contends that the real circumcision or the important circumcision is of the heart
again diminishing that physical circumcision or circumcision of the flesh. And Barnabas
also reports there's many things but a third one here is that while Abraham is the father of the nations
it wasn't because he became circumcised he believed in God before he was circumcised.
So you see some of that paralleled in all direct parallels, but in the Pauline letters, you see Abraham was not made just by the works of the law, namely circumcision.
That's in Romans 4. In Galatians 2:3, and here's another just hint or just a statement, but you
wonder why it's put in there. It must and I think because it's important. it was an issue. Paul
insists that Titus wasn't made to be circumcised. And in Galatians 5:6, you see that circumcision
is not important. And then you see this allegory in Galatians 4 to at the end of Galatians 4
which puts the law and slavery on equal sides of an equation and makes circumcision and the practice of Jewish law equal to a state of slavery. So even though those discussions are a not exact parallel statements you might say they all have their own way of saying circumcision no more circumcision not
important especially for those in Christ but even for Jews they're the circumcision they are diminishing it for Jews as well we don't see these discussions earlier than Bar Kokhba and I will say the book of Acts does I believe begin the discussion of the non-necessity of circumcision there's an official
letter about that in Acts that seems uh kind of neutral or even lame by comparison to the what I
think are later works the dialogue and Barnabas and even the letters which strengthen the antagonism
or the disinterest you might say dislike maybe a better word of the of physical circumcision.
Barnabas and Justin assume a Christian perspective and alternate evaluations of salvation.
They all revolve around being in Christ or having faith in Christ, not in the Jewish law.
And one more thing that might parallel Barnabas and Pauline letters you see in the epistle of Barnabas statements like the present age is evil. He also deploys allegorical interpretations of scripture and exhorts the audience to be spiritual people. So there's some other parallels there with Pauline literature.
Did Paul exist?
I think Paul is not an actual person. I think Paul is a biblical character invented by the author of Acts. or maybe there are several authors of Acts, but that's where he shows up for the first time. And after that, of course, he takes on various afterlives, but he's a hero in Acts. he starts out as a
Jewish figure, Saul, and this is all for literary purposes, a Jewish figure.
when he starts his missionary activity he becomes his name changes to Paul or Paulus
put a finer point on that which is a Roman name before that it's Saules which is a Jewish
name so there's a play on the name of the character too assuming Paul was invented did
Marcian or did the other person that wrote Acts credo before Marion. So the other another
subsidiary question to this is did Marciano know Acts?
I think Marcian must have known Acts. I don't know that Marcian liked acts
because Mar Oh, well let me get back to answering your question. I don't think Marcian
developed the character Paul. I think he pulled the character Paul from Acts. So then to answer your question, he must have known something about Acts, but he used that character,
strengthening that character, taking him to where he wanted that character to go,
making him much more an apostle, um, and making him more dualistic in his view, anti-
law, anti-circumcision.
So he strengthened the Paul figure over the Acts figure of Paul. The tradition or most of the scholarship would reverse that of course because they would say the letters are early. So you have a more radical person in the first century and then acts tonesdown the radicality of the Pauline character. You've probably heard that.
I think you have to have a character first and I think the letters strengthen that character even as and I do agree with Marcus Vincent and others who see a difference between the canonical writing, the canonical Pauline letters and the Marcianite Pauline letters where you yet then in the canonical
a more Jewish facing Paul not such a radical Paul where there is more compatibility with Acts but I think that I see this situation slightly differently I believe than he does so there's some more interchange there that first step I'm pretty
sure we disagree on that I see Acts first, then the Marcianite letters, and then the canonical Pauline letters.
that definitely explains it. and for my final question,
what do you think was the likely purpose for creating Pauline Epistles?
I think they're teachings and I think it was very convenient for a figure such as Marcion or Marcion school to take a character already known character and make him the authoritative teacher a divinely appointed apostle.
already the hero of one narrative and let him dispense the teachings. So there It was a clever move I think to use or reuse that character Paul for Marcion teachings
