However, he does not once from all his known writings quote from Paul as of the publicly known documents. Paul is not mentioned until (or endorsed) the anti-Judaizer extrordinaire, Marcion. (Note: Until Marcion's time, Most Christian Churches were Jewish Sects, the Romans couldn't tell them apart at first).
Why does JM not quote Paul once? Could there be some lost buried manuscript somewhere? Or can it be logically assumed that JM had never heard of the Pauline epistles for all his acquiantance with the gospels. Is it rational to conclude that JM would have written about Paul just once somewhere in what is known from him and about him?
The Dutch "Radical" Critics were in their day a major force in scholarship, what exactly is the reason their work wasn't picked up on much? Was it too "radical?" (More radical than the "Documentary Hypothesis?") Is it possible that if the Dutch Radical Critics are right, that Paul was not quoted by Justin Martyr for a reason? What other than the "anti-Judaizing" is the exact reason why the scholars are "unanimously" in agreement to Galatians being a Pauline work? Is it because Galatians appears to be the archetypal epistle of anti-Judaizing that it becomes distinctly Pauline?
At what point do we conclude that the Marcionites edited what exactly, or that the "orthodox" added things later? What was the "Epistle to the Laodecians" and was it the original title for what became another name in the current canon?
JM is one of the earliest known "Church Fathers", regardless of his Theology, he is noted most for attesting to the circulation of 4 written Gospels (One which goes unnamed that resembles John).
|In all his major investigations into the Pauline Epistles (Rom, 1 and 2 Cor), Van Manen stereotypically begins by inquiring after the nature of the work, the unity of the book, and the composition of the epistle, in the course of which he deals mainly with questions of a literary-critical character. The results attained are always the same: as shown by the seams and flaws clearly delineated by Van Manen everywhere in the structure of the text, the Epistles at issue are not works written straight through, but "patchworks" brought together over a longer period to compose a relatively uniform entity from various minor compositions.30 It seems that all the Epistles were preceded by a shorter edition still attested by Marcion.
Since the documents are already seen as compositions made from diverse textual elements, the question also arises, at least implicitly, whether we are really dealing with genuine letters, and the doubts thus arising all anticipate a subsequent chapter in which Van Manen examines this aspect of the origin of the Epistles. The theological notions developed in them, the connection with the Gnosis, the state of the development of the congregations, the notices of persecutions of Christians, isolated retrospective views of the rejection of Israel (e.g., Rom. 9-11), errors in the epistolary form, the existence of a written Gospel (which is presumed), all these examples, according to Van Manen, clearly contradict an origin of the Epistles in the first century and speak for their derivation from the second century C.E.
The inquiry into the ethnicity of the author of the Epistles also leads to the result that in all probability we have to do not with a Jewish but with a Gentile Christian, or rather several of them, because, for all the apparent familiarity with Judaism, the argumentations clearly come from the consciousness of the non-Jew.
In a further chapter Van Manen finally justifies his theses and in the end develops his theories about the probable origin of the Epistles as well as their age. He transplants them in their totality into the first half of the second century and seeks their origin in a Pauline School, in Paulinism, fencing the latter off from Marcionism as a one-sided further development of Paulinism. According to Van Manen, Paulinism developed alongside and in reaction/imitation to Petrinism until it flowed together with the latter into Catholicism. The historical Paul himself was, according to Van Manen, probably neither the initiator of the school of thought named for him, nor the author of epistles, but only performed the duty of "patron" of that school. Paulinism only used his name to legitimate itself, and wrote under his name "Epistles," i.e., various didactic writings formed into an entity in which it explained its views and defended them against Judaism. After an initial period of skepticism "Paul" was also accepted by the Catholics (whose position lay somewhere between Jewish Christians and Paulinists). His writings were finally (after being essentially rewritten) recognized as authoritative and canonized.31