Thursday, December 20, 2012

Perhaps the Best Argument for Our Pauline Epistles Being Understood to Have Been 'Centonized' (i.e. Like a Mosaic Whose Stones Were Moved From Their Original Places Making a New Picture With the Same Pieces)

The letters make no sense beyond individual sections of text. There is no consistent train of thought. No one in the history of humanity has ever written letters so obscure. If they were actually sent to 'real people' the recipients must have written back - WTF?

And please don't cite the other epistles of early Christianity. They prove the point exactly.  The Epistles of Ignatius were corrupted not once but at least three times.  The writings of the Church Fathers were interpolated over and over again.  And so somehow we are to believe that the incredible denseness (I use that term both in its literal and figurative meaning) of the Pauline epistles is a result of some mystic communion on the part of the author with the Holy Spirit?  Really?  That's an insult against God.

We have not only the testimony of the anti-Marcionite writings that long and short versions of the Pauline Epistles existed.  We have the testimony of Irenaeus and his crew that the heretical Apostolikon appeared 'centonized.'  Moreover we have references to 'long' and 'short' versions of 'the gospel' in the same circle of Irenaeus as well as Clement's famous letter.

And with all of this evidence how many papers do you think have investigated whether there is evidence of centonized New Testament references in the writings of the Church Fathers?  It's not a conspiracy which keeps these ideas from being investigated - it's the business of scholarship.  The mediocrity of the herd animal.

Email with comments or questions.

Stephan Huller's Observations by Stephan Huller
is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.