Making sense of the Pauline Epistles

[Peter Kirby]

Vaticanus is a multi-quire codex, so the "missing pages" have an unclear extent.

More relevant is P46, which is a single quire codex, with about six missing pages of Romans, containing Pauline epistles + Hebrews, where the last extant text is 1 Thessalonians.

There's enough room in this single quire to accommodate 2 Thessalonians, maybe Philemon.

The economical hypothesis is that P46 did not have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. However, some might suppose that the codex also had additional quires beside the one that is in evidence.

[ebion]

Vaticanus is a multi-quire codex, so the "missing pages" have an unclear extent.
...
The economical hypothesis is that P46 did not have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. However, some might suppose that the codex also had additional quires beside the one that is in evidence.

Marcion's Faulines didn't have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. You point out that P46, which I gather is seen as the oldest extant manuscript, doesn't have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. I don't know them well, but they seem to me different theologically to the "hauptbriefe".

Are there many people that conjecture, or try to demonstrate. that these 3 are later than Marcion (138-144) and are later compositions perhaps by a different author(s), rather than just ignored or overlooked or omitted in the earlier work?

[Peter Kirby]

Vaticanus is a multi-quire codex, so the "missing pages" have an unclear extent.
...
The economical hypothesis is that P46 did not have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. However, some might suppose that the codex also had additional quires beside the one that is in evidence.

Marcion's Faulines didn't have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. You point out that P46, which I gather is seen as the oldest extant manuscript, doesn't have 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus. I don't know them well, but they seem to me different theologically to the "hauptbriefe".

Are there many people that conjecture, or try to demonstrate. that these 3 are later than Marcion (138-144) and are later compositions perhaps by a different author(s), rather than just ignored or overlooked or omitted in the earlier work?

I am led to understand that some do think that the pastoral epistles are (partly) anti-Marcionite and thus in some way post-Marcionite, not ignored or overlooked by Marcion.

[ebion]

I am led to understand that some do think that the pastoral epistles are (partly) anti-Marcionite and thus in some way post-Marcionite, not ignored or overlooked by Marcion.

That's the way they feel to me, so I'll characterize them as (partly) anti-Marcionite and thus post-Marcion. Thanks - I'll keep my eye out for citations that support this view.

[Peter Kirby]

The reference to drinking alcohol (moderately) and gnosis falsely so-called are a couple common citations here.

[ebion]

The reference to drinking alcohol (moderately) and gnosis falsely so-called are a couple common citations here.

How are those anti-Marcionite?

What citations would you quote to support "(partly) anti-Marcionite"?

[Peter Kirby]

The reference to drinking alcohol (moderately) and gnosis falsely so-called are a couple common citations here.

How are those anti-Marcionite?

Genuine question or an invitation to argument?

Marcionites are said to have forbade alcohol.

[ebion]

How are those anti-Marcionite?

Genuine question or an invitation to argument?

"(2) Assume Good Faith."

Marcionites are said to have forbade alcohol.

"Are said to have" - citation? That's very weak to me because 1Tim says drink for infirmities:

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. (I Timothy 5:23 [KJV])

and otherwise repeatedly emphasises sobriety: 1Tim 3:2, 1Tim 3:11, Titus 1:8, Titus 2:2, Titus 2:4, Titus 2:6. I see nothing particularly anti-Marcion; if anything parts remind me of the Didache.

What I do see is the invoking of Jesus' name all through 1Tim and 2Tim and Titus (30 times), something the Faulines practically never do, so they are un-Fauline to me. I don't however see much citation of, or teaching from, the synoptics, unlike for example the Gospels of Thomas or Philip; as Albert Schweitzer pointed out:

Where possible, he (Paul) avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the `Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord.

Indeed, with the sole exception of the eucharistic formula at 1 Cor 11:24-25, Paul does not quote any sayings of the historical Jesus as found in the written Gospels. Furthermore, Paul never even once alludes to the panorama of the Savior's life story from the Nativity up to the Passion, as well as Jesus's elaborate teaching, which fill the pages of the first four books of the New Testament.

So I don't see the Tims and Titus as particularly teaching what Christ taught - they're just the authors' (not Paul/Faul) take on Christianity.

[Peter Kirby]

How are those anti-Marcionite?

Genuine question or an invitation to argument?

"(2) Assume Good Faith."

Marcionites are said to have forbade alcohol.

"Are said to have" - citation? That's very weak to me because 1Tim says drink for infirmities:

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. (I Timothy 5:23 [KJV])

and otherwise repeatedly emphasises sobriety: 1Tim 3:2, 1Tim 3:11, Titus 1:8, Titus 2:2, Titus 2:4, Titus 2:6. I see nothing particularly anti-Marcion; if anything parts remind me of the Didache.

What I do see is the invoking of Jesus' name all through 1Tim and 2Tim and Titus, something the Faulines practically never do, so they are un-Fauline to me. I don't however see much citation of, or teaching ftom, the synoptics, unlike for example the Gospels of Thomas or Philip, so I don't see them as teaching what Christ taught

That's enough to answer my question. I am not looking to argue the point. I was offering references if you were unfamiliar with them. You can investigate it further yourself.

[lsayre]

Although scholars today do not generally associate Marcion with a Gnostic movement, it seems fair to presume that this was not the prevailing opinion of the proto-Orthodox.