Interpreting Galatians 1:13-17 (3 possible readings)

[gryan]

Re: Parallel Usages of "Pursuing the Eklesia" in Philippians and Galatians

It seems to me that a solution might be found in translating the two usages of "pursuing the eklesia" with the same words, indicating a similar sense in both instances:

Phil 3:2f
Watch out for those dogs, those workers of evil, those mutilators of the flesh!
2Βλέπετε τοὺς κύνας βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν
3For [it is] we [who] are the circumcision, we who worship by [the] Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and [who] put no confidence in [the] flesh—
3ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή οἱ Πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες
4though I myself could have such confidence. If anyone else thinks he has grounds for confidence in [the] flesh, I [have] more:
4καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί Εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί ἐγὼ μᾶλλον
5circumcised on [the] eighth day, of [the] people of Israel, of [the] tribe of Benjamin; a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to [the] Law, a Pharisee;
5περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος
6as to zeal,
persecuting pursuing the eklesia;
as to righteousness under [the] Law, faultless.
6κατὰ ζῆλος
διώκων τὴν ἐκκλησίαν
κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν νόμῳ γενόμενος ἄμεμπτος
7But whatever was an asset to me I count as loss for the sake of Christ.
7Ἀλλὰ ἅτινα ἦν μοι κέρδη ταῦτα ἥγημαι διὰ τὸν Χριστὸν ζημίαν

Gal 1:12f
I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught [it]; rather, [ I received it ] by revelation from Jesus Christ.
12οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
13For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism,
how severely I persecuted pursued the eklesia of God
and tried to destroy it.
13Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ
ὅτι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ
καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν
14I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries [and] was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
14καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων

-----------

In the Galatians usage, it is possible that the eklesia Paul "pursued" with the intent to destroy was a law-observant Christ movement still operating within the eklesia of synagogues and in the temple. This movement may have attracted God-fearing Gentiles who were open to a gospel requiring circumcision for full participation. Paul, considering himself more zealously law-observant, may have felt compelled to destroy this eklesia of Christ.

Likewise, in the Philippians usage, Paul's zealousness for the law is evident when he was "pursuing" the eklesia under the law.

[Stuart]

But what is the basis for not including those verses?

On multiple grounds. The first of which is that the verses are not attested in the Marcionite text, nor alluded to in the anti-Marcionite writings as a point of engagement with the Marcionites; whether it was there or not, it was probably a nothing burger in the sectarian debates. This in and of itself is not conclusive (absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence), but it does render the passage inclusion or exclusion one that requires deeper evaluation.

The other reasons have to do with the incongruity of the content in contrast to the main narrative and inconsistent with Marcionite opinions concerning Paul. The references are meant to align with Acts, not actually to counter (remember, the rough timeline has the Marcionite version of Galatians before the writing of the revised Luke and Acts, although the constituent parts of Acts were likely already known, likely even popular). There are also a few vocabulary issues, though secondary, they raise concerns.

Let's go through the process at how I arrived at the conclusion that the text I show was the Marcionite text, or rather the text at the time the Marcionites withdrew or split from the main church. The first thing is, you start with the clearly attested text (although you have to test that too, but that is "second pass" as it were). Then you build from there, what is necessary and consistent with the narrative (the narrative will be important in the decision to exclude these two verses). Note, I always keep in mind how Tertullian characterized the Marcionite text, as having "cut out" both large sections and other places single words, which implies everything in between. (I firmly fall in the camp that the Marcionite text is an earlier version, consistent with the mainstream text contemporary with their exiting the main church.)

There are some characteristics of Paul in the Marcionite text, which differ dramatically from the Catholic or received text. Most obvious is the presentation of his imperialness; he is large and in charge, bows to nobody, no slave to God, but free through/in Christ (2:4 τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ, 5:1 Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠγευθέρωσεν). He gives orders and needs no explanations. Letters are addressed "Paul an Apostle," the clear leader, with all authority, and he proceeds to give orders and instructions. This contrasts sharply with the Catholic text presentation of Paul as at times apologetic, presenting his shortcomings, couching his authority and pleading to be headed; the "gimpy" Paul. (Note, there are significant differences in the presentation of Jesus as well,

Galatians heads the Marcionite collection. As such it opens with a clear statement of his authority and whence it derives. Paul states his authority is above men, and importantly came from no men nor interaction with men. What is more it came from direct revelation (δι' ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), and that he was selected even prior to birth (ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου) for this mission. There is no blinding incident in the Marcionite Paul, at least not originally, as this is not the Jewish God for whom no man can see his face and live. For the proto-orthodox to accept Paul it is necessary that he be blinded and only hear a voice like Moses and the burning bush. This is what the distinction between seeing and hearing is all about.

Note, Romans heads the Catholic/Received collection, and as such also begins with a statement of Paul's source of authority, and also of his subservience (δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; δοῦλος IMO substituted for the original ἀπόστολος that was in the Marcionite text, supported by Irenaeus in AH 5.16.2). In Catholic Romans Paul is also set apart, but this time not from the womb, but here like in Acts apart from other men, not from birth.

Now verses 13-14 are clearly a digression. The interfere with the straight forward declaration of Paul's authority, followed on logically by his declaration of mission. No concessions present. But these two verses intrude, having the authoritative, accept no challenges Paul, with the humbler, forgive my faults Paul of the Catholic presentation. "Let's interrupt my statement with a personal confession, to address comments from the peanut gallery." And so in these verses, it starts with the Catholic phrase "You have heard" Ἠκούσατε (which I will get to in a vocabulary analysis later) we also find in the anti-Marcionite pairs of counter antithesis pairs found Matthew chapter 5 (5:21, 5:27, 5:33, 5:38, 5:43). Paul then break his authority to say he persecuted the "Church of God," which alerts us immediately of a problem. Paul says he persecuted the "church of God," a phrase absent in the attested Marcionite text, and more consistent with the Catholic phrasing such as "gospel of God" (e.g., Romans 1:2 as part of the Catholic Paul authority formula) as opposed to the "gospel of Christ" (e.g., Galatians 1:7). This cannot be the same author as the earlier verses in Galatians.

There are more problems in verse 1:14, inconsistencies with the Marcionite presentation, but I think I have given enough for you to see the basic problem. We have a digression, a break in character of Paul, detracting from the main narrative (which BTW is never referenced again), that seems mostly present to begin the association of the coming travelogue in the later half of Galatians chapter 1, with the presentation in Acts. The original author of Galatians chapters 1 and 2 was concerned more with dispelling the myths circulating which denigrated Paul, instead stamping his authority, without a shift in character or vocabulary.

[DrSarah]

(...)
The word used in Greek is ekklēsia, which is simply assembly. And the term "assembly of God" was used by Philo and other Jews to refer to bodies of Jewish worshipers of the Jewish God.

So anyone reading this letter in the 1st or 2nd century would have read this as Paul saying:
"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the Jewish assembly of God and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous for the traditions of my ancestors."

This is a very confusing statement.

I think the one key point that's getting left out of this analysis is that Paul wasn't writing for a random group of Jews of the time. He was writing for a group that he himself had set up and taught as a supposed offshoot of the original 'assembly of God' to which he referred. Given that context, his readers could be expected to know just which 'assembly of God' he was referring.

It's the difference between, for example, making a general unspecified reference to a company and making that same reference to one of your workmates in a context that implies you're talking about work; the workmate won't be head-scratching as to what company you could possibly be referring, they'll twig that you're talking about the company for which you both work.

[RandyHelzerman]

On the face of it, this statement seems not to make much sense. Hence I've argued that v 13 should instead be read, "For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how fervently followed the assembly of God."

It might help if you put on your Marcionite goggles before you read it:

"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism (the Old-Testament religion of that judgy, vengeful god). I was violently persecuting the assembly of (the merciful, loving) God (of the New Testament) and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism (learning about the judgy god) beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous (did I mention judgy?) for the traditions of my ancestors (which is why when this new God showed up, I was ready to fight him!!)"

It all flows pretty logically on that reading. Whether or not there was an earlier, pre-marcionite text with different wording, or even whether there *was* a Galatians before Marcion came along (Tertullian seems to indicate that Galatians was air-quotes "discovered" air-quotes by Marcion) who knows? The Marcionite version is the first one we can see, and it scans fine on a Marcionite interpretation.

Its only when you try to give it a later, proto-orthodox reading, that this difficulty arises, and, indeed, does seem pretty good evidence that the Marcionite reading was the original intent of the text.

[ebion]

Ok, rethinking this even more in a way that makes Galatians 1 make sense, and possibly sheds significant light on the origins of Jesus worship.

13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it; 14 and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.

So what the hell is this really talking about?

I think you might be getting led astray by your choice of words and the translation you're using.

I would avoid using Jews/Judaism for anything pre-8 c. (pre-Talmud) when the rabbis, the descent of the Pharasees, started to exert a monopoly in Babylon. Back in the time of the Jamesian church, I think it's more productive to think Pharasees vs. Sadducees vs. Essenes vs. Hebrews, and Collabos/Herodians vs. Zealots, to name a few.

Here's Tyndales wording of the verse:

For Ye have heard of my conversation in times past in the Judaens' ways, how that beyond measure I persecuted the congregation of God, and spoiled it: and prevailed in the Judaens' law, above many of my companions, which were of mine own nation, and much more fervently maintained the traditions of the elders.
(Galatians 1:13-14 [TyNT])

The "traditions of the elders" is the hint: Paul was a related to Herod (Acts. 13:1) and they were not only Collabos with a capital C, they were sorta judean - not actually Judean, but some Judean blood in past generations, that they sided with the Pharasees. Or the Pharasees sided with the Herodians for power - whichever.

The Pharasees also sided with the Sadducees when they could for power, to crucify Jesus, and to murder James. The Sadducees sided only with themselves (but liked James according to the Clementines I think), but got put out of business by the Romans, when their temple/reason-for-being was sacked by Titus.

The Paul of Acts was not accepted by the Jamesian church as an apostle, was not given a letter of credentials to teach, and was given penance to do for apostacy. I can't see the Jamesian apostles ever trusting him because of his Herodian birth, and Paul clearly fears them. The Jamesian rebuke of Paul in (Acts 21:25) clearly mentions "that they keep themselves from things offered to idols", which is the bottom of the apostacy barrel, and is much more serious than a mere difference of opinion over circumcising gentiles.

There are enough questions in my mind with Paul, along with those 13 lost years, to ask if he ever stopped being a Herodian; in which case I have to ask myself whose side he was really on? Which would explain why there in basically no mention of him between the time of James and of Marcion.

Does this help make sense of that Passage? (Personally I don't try to make sense of the Paulines as they were likely extrapolated from Acts by the Marcionites - I cling to Matthew like an Ebionite, and read Acts as history.)

[davidmartin]

It might help if you put on your Marcionite goggles before you read it:

"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism (the Old-Testament religion of that judgy, vengeful god). I was violently persecuting the assembly of (the merciful, loving) God (of the New Testament) and was trying to destroy it. I advanced in Judaism (learning about the judgy god) beyond many among my people of the same age, for I was far more zealous (did I mention judgy?) for the traditions of my ancestors (which is why when this new God showed up, I was ready to fight him!!)"

It all flows pretty logically on that reading. Whether or not there was an earlier, pre-marcionite text with different wording, or even whether there *was* a Galatians before Marcion came along (Tertullian seems to indicate that Galatians was air-quotes "discovered" air-quotes by Marcion) who knows? The Marcionite version is the first one we can see, and it scans fine on a Marcionite interpretation.

Its only when you try to give it a later, proto-orthodox reading, that this difficulty arises, and, indeed, does seem pretty good evidence that the Marcionite reading was the original intent of the text.

Interesting. But I think the picture presented in the epistles as a whole is a movement already very split into competing groups
Studying the epistles gets a good picture of one of these, but only one
It's why I've been promoting the Odes of Solomon as a look into an alternative one that might be earlier. I'd have thought a Jewish-Christian writing, evidently very early turning up would be of great interest, but the Odes get ignored and it's Paul all the way. I think the reason for that is a good many theories are based on Paul being the earliest or progenitor group so the Odes are an irritant to that (despite the epistles having major problems in that area!). The Odes are the only Jewish-Christian writing in existence, they are not Marcionite but certainly do present the merciful, loving God more consistently than the epistles do

[RandyHelzerman]

Interesting. But I think the picture presented in the epistles as a whole is a movement already very split into competing groups

Certainly. Christianity was diverse from the very earliest times, but even in the earliest visible strata (Marcion's recension) we see a very combative Paul who had strong opinions about other factions.

It's why I've been promoting the Odes of Solomon as a look into an alternative one that might be earlier.

Never looked into that; thank for the heads up.

I'd have thought a Jewish-Christian writing,

It's important to keep in mind that until Paul came along, all Christianity was Jewish Christianity. In all likelihood all of the evangelists considered themselves to be Jews in good standing, and indeed even Paul self-identifies as a Jew. He didn't think you had to become a Jew in order to follow Jesus, but even he can't really be construed as being anti-jewish Christianity. He made every effort to co-exist with it. It's not until the 2nd century that we see anything like a Christianity which has made a clear break.

but the Odes get ignored and it's Paul all the way.

*chuckle* we all have our own texts we plump for, for our own very diverse reasons. After the two Jewish wars, probably the only form of Christianity which could reach the kind of runaway, exponential growth we see in, say Pliny's letters, was a Pauline/Gentilized Christianity.

But Jewish Christianity did give three things which were absolutely necessary:
1. Lots of Christian babies. Paul (and the rest of the New Testament, for that matter) is remarkably un-eroticized, if not downright hostile to marriage and baby making.
2. A flair for making this practically work. Nobody had more experience than the Jews at being different, yet part of the greater society.
3. An organizational skill which could build the kind of hierarchy/institutions necessary for Christianity to become a universal religion.

My favorite Jewish Christian document, the didache, exemplifies this very well. You can really empathize with the author--this is all great stuff, but we're no longer with Jesus & the gang in the summer of love. He's out there trying to make this actually work, trying to spread the good news without being a sucker for every "Christmonger" (his word--I love that) which comes grifting a long.

The Odes are the only Jewish-Christian writing in existence,

Weeeell...not the only ones; the didache certainly qualifies, and indeed *all* the canonical gospels and the psudonimous letters in the NT are in some sense Jewish Christian as well. That fact is obscured because most everybody who has studied them across the ages has not been in any real conversation with any kind of living Judaism. Which has limited our understanding, alas.

they are not Marcionite but certainly do present the merciful, loving God more consistently than the epistles do

Thanks again for the reference, I'll definitely go read them and study up on the ancillary writings about them. BTW, is there any early branch of Christianity which *didn't* portray a merciful, loving God? The dualists certainly had an easier time making up a nice, tidy theology for why there was so much evil in the world, but everybody agreed that the God they worshipped was loving and merciful, no?

[RandyHelzerman]

On multiple grounds. The first of which is that the verses are not attested in the Marcionite text,

Well, this would pose a difficulty to my suggestion that the verses make more sense on a Marcionite reading

But the verses are not entirely absent from all reconstructions of the Apostolicon; e.g. Markus Vinzent's reconstruction (which our very own vocesanticae has translated into English for us) has most of them:

You heard that I was persecuting to an extreme the assembly of God and was waging war on it, living exceedingly rivalrous over the paternal traditions of mine.

All the problematic elements which RG Price picked up on are still there, in however vestigial of a form, and it still seems to make more sense on a Marcionite reading. Can you give me a pointer to your reconstruction?

The references are meant to align with Acts,

or perhaps vice-versa? I'd love to hear your arguments that the causal link run from Acts to Galatins here, not vice-versa.

There are some characteristics of Paul in the Marcionite text, which differ dramatically from the Catholic or received text.

Following are some great observations about Paul-the-boss vs. Paul-the-company-man, thanks for those. Very insightful.

There is no blinding incident in the Marcionite Paul, at least not originally, as this is not the Jewish God for whom no man can see his face and live. For the proto-orthodox to accept Paul it is necessary that he be blinded and only hear a voice like Moses and the burning bush. This is what the distinction between seeing and hearing is all about.

Another great point, I hadn't made that connection. We actually get 3 contradictory versions of that story in Acts; it does look like something was put in there for everybody.

Now verses 13-14 are clearly a digression.

Are they really entirely absent tho? Again, I'd love to read your arguments for that, if you can give me some pointers or even elaborate in a post here.

The interfere with the straight forward declaration of Paul's authority, followed on logically by his declaration of mission. No concessions present. But these two verses intrude, having the authoritative, accept no challenges Paul, with the humbler, forgive my faults Paul of the Catholic presentation.

Fascinating. Even Vinzent's reconstruction does show this, I have to admit.

[davidmartin]

Certainly. Christianity was diverse from the very earliest times, but even in the earliest visible strata (Marcion's recension) we see a very combative Paul who had strong opinions about other factions.

Indeed, I see them as quite opposed to each other and this state of affairs seems to endure down to the church fathers and is even picked up on by Celsus.
We get to play the game "guess the original one"

It's important to keep in mind that until Paul came along, all Christianity was Jewish Christianity. In all likelihood all of the evangelists considered themselves to be Jews in good standing, and indeed even Paul self-identifies as a Jew. He didn't think you had to become a Jew in order to follow Jesus, but even he can't really be construed as being anti-jewish Christianity. He made every effort to co-exist with it. It's not until the 2nd century that we see anything like a Christianity which has made a clear break.

Hmm that's where the picture could be painted a little differently
Any religion worth its salt is divided up into corners and they can be very different
The Odes portray a Jewish group that's already spiritualised much of the law, it's not so far from Paul. But what you see is the spiritualisation isn't due to anything Jesus did, it's the knowledge he reveals. Many other Pauline elements also are different... but back to the picture. It's not a bunch of really "religious" Jewish guys at all which challenges that stereotype we seem to have inherited from somewhere and asks "what is Jewish Christianity?". The Odes gives a surprising answer. They are anti-religious (those who serve in a fleshly way as they put it) and pro-spiritual

Galatians seems to make a break with Judaism with its Sarah and Hagar. I think in Paul he's sown the seeds for the break already. His statements are controversial and even offensive toward the law, in the Odes it's still all part of the original covenant, there is no Christianity. So Paul seems to be leveraging that break in a new way, and intentionally

*chuckle* we all have our own texts we plump for, for our own very diverse reasons. After the two Jewish wars, probably the only form of Christianity which could reach the kind of runaway, exponential growth we see in, say Pliny's letters, was a Pauline/Gentilized Christianity.

The Odes don't need my help, they're gold dust! Them and Thomas

My favorite Jewish Christian document, the didache, exemplifies this very well. You can really empathize with the author--this is all great stuff, but we're no longer with Jesus & the gang in the summer of love. He's out there trying to make this actually work, trying to spread the good news without being a sucker for every "Christmonger" (his word--I love that) which comes grifting a long.
The Odes are the only Jewish-Christian writing in existence,
Weeeell...not the only ones; the didache certainly qualifies, and indeed *all* the canonical gospels and the psudonimous letters in the NT are in some sense Jewish Christian as well. That fact is obscured because most everybody who has studied them across the ages has not been in any real conversation with any kind of living Judaism. Which has limited our understanding, alas.

Well ok Didache is close to kind of Judaism gentiles might have encountered, i assumed it most likely authored by a gentile.. not sure what the scholars say there.
I'm defining Jewish texts here quite rigidly as representing Semitic idioms and language and wisdom (no Greek philosophy, no Greek rhetoric). The Odes tick that box like no other. The only other one is Revelation but I don't personally see that as really Christian but "Christianised"

Thanks again for the reference, I'll definitely go read them and study up on the ancillary writings about them. BTW, is there any early branch of Christianity which *didn't* portray a merciful, loving God? The dualists certainly had an easier time making up a nice, tidy theology for why there was so much evil in the world, but everybody agreed that the God they worshipped was loving and merciful, no?

ahm, early orthodox fathers seem a bit wayward there. These are the guys that added hell which surely wasn't original. There's deviant writings like apocalypse of Peter describing hell. So these would be the outliers to a movement based on merciful, loving God originally
The Odes lacks any 'wrath' of God at all that seems to fill the epistles (is that in Marcion i wonder?)

Sure dualism does claim to answer the problem of evil, so does non-dualism (where I think the Odes/Christian origins are i think)
I see a split between dualism and non-dualism in this movement, as much as over anything else they couldn't agree on!

[ebion]

I'd have thought a Jewish-Christian writing, evidently very early turning up would be of great interest, but the Odes get ignored and it's Paul all the way. I think the reason for that is a good many theories are based on Paul being the earliest or progenitor group so the Odes are an irritant to that (despite the epistles having major problems in that area!).

If the Paulines are written by Marcion, can we not just ignore them? Exclude them from our canon the way the Ebionites did?

Paraphrasing "Jesus" in John's apocalypse (at the risk of committing blasphemy

I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience [in the forums], and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them to be [Marcion]:
(~Revelation of John 2:2 [KJV])

I don't think that:

The Odes are the only Jewish-Christian writing in existence, they are not Marcionite but certainly do present the merciful, loving God more consistently than the epistles do

I would say the Clementines are also early Jewish-Christian/Ebionite writing in existence, and they tell a very interesting, and detailed, story about Paul if the Simon Magus character is he. The greek version got Trinitized and rewritten by Rufinus (and the greek copies destroyed), but there are greek fragments for comparison. And there is at least one Syriac version which doesn't seem to me to have been through Rufinus. There's also the adjoined Letter from Peter to James which I really like, and think should be included.

And I definitely love the Didache too, and add it any early Jewish-Christian/Ebionite reading list, and it definitely presents the merciful, loving God . (I'm not sure I trust Codex Hierosolymitanus, which has the only complete copy of the Didache, because Tischendorf visited the library just before the Codex was "found" but the document seems innocuous enough, and very beautiful.)

I don't know the Odes: could you post something on their history and provenance and your favorite translation?

I really emphasize with your feeling that everything else gets ignored and "it's Paul all the way"; I feel that a lot of the churches in NAmerica today, if they haven't gone insipid woke, have gone back 1800 years and are full-blown Marcionite heresies. I'm getting the feeling we have to clear our debates of everything Pauline in order to be able to see what's there, the same way we have to clear the (Constantined) church dogma to find the Christianity.

It raises the question: if we wanted an Early Christian Ebionite Canon, and followed their lead and threw out the Paulines, what would we put in our canon?