The genre of the gospels.

[Secret Alias]

I can't for the life of me understand why you would object to me making reference to the Samaritan origins of the Marcionite concept of THE apostle (via Moses) when Hebrews makes the very same fucking point. It's like you wanted to nominate yourself arbiter of the forum.

[Secret Alias]

The facts are that:

1. the concept of THE apostle is fundamental to Marcionism (via 'Paul')
2. the concept of THE apostle is fundamental to Samaritanism (= Moses)
3. the emphasis on a (severely) limited canon is fundamental to Marcionism
4. the emphasis on a (severely) limited canon is fundamental to Samaritanism

I think that the Marcionite idea of THE apostle being the spokesman of God via the gospel is related to the Samaritan preservation of the original 'pure' Israelite conception of Moses as spokesman of God via the Torah. And in a discussion of 'the genre of the fucking gospel' such an observation has great relevance unless of course it comes up against the objection of the great proponent of mythicism(TM) on the internet.

[neilgodfrey]

I can't for the life of me understand why you would object to me making reference to the Samaritan origins of the Marcionite concept of THE apostle (via Moses) when Hebrews makes the very same fucking point. It's like you wanted to nominate yourself arbiter of the forum.

If this is meant for me -- maybe it wasn't because I can't figure out what it has to do with anything I have ever said or thought -- then it only demonstrates why it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. I at no time "objected to you making reference to" anything.

The point is you just make all sorts of crazy assumptions and interpretations of what others say -- assuming some sorts of hidden "real agendas" all the way along the line, because they don't see things your way. I have attempted to explain why and where I disagree with your interpretation but that got us nowhere except for more gratuitous insinuations and insults. We simply have no common ground on which to have a conversation. That's it.

Sheesh, we can't even disagree on a point like this without you accusing me of wanting to be the boss of the whole world or something.

[Secret Alias]

Whatever. You keep with the white bread assumptions and I will explore the other colors in the spectrum

[Secret Alias]

Some more observations for the general acceptance of Marcionitism as developing from Samaritanism. We are left with one of two choices for Paul's self identification as 'the apostle' - i.e. either he used the Samaritan text or the LXX.

The Samaritan Pentateuch reads "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years." Paul was either influenced by the LXX or the Samaritan text but as a rule where the NT cites the Pentateuch is never disagrees with the SP where the SP disagrees with the MT.

This isn't a 'proof' of course that Paul was influenced by Samaritan conceptions but it leaves his peculiar use of THE apostle as a self-designation open to the possibility that he was influenced by the Samaritan interpretation of Moses as THE apostle. But when it is coupled by other unusual statements such as his self-identification as a “slave of Jesus Christ” (Rom. I:I; Gal. 1:10; 35) the likelihood that this metaphor of slavery was developed from Pentateuch references to Moses (e.g., Exod. 14:31 and Num. 12:7—8) the situation that Paul saw himself as a second Moses clearly becomes more likely IMHO.

And since delights in kooky books (pretending inevitably that when he stumbles upon one he likes it is 'decisive' in regard to this or that issue ignoring that there appears to be no end to the writing of books) Peter Jones and Ernst Bammel have argued that Paul sees himself as a second Moses to the new community.

They ignore the self-identifications of Paul as 'the apostle' and 'slave' of God (not mention the appeal to meekness cf. 2 Corinthians 10:2). Instead their two main passages are 1 Corinthians 3,4 (where Paul identifies himself as the foundation layer) and 2 Corinthians 3, where Paul as minister of the New Covenant compares himself with Moses.

Let's take 1 Corinthians 3 and Numbers 1:1. Here we find a combination of mother imagery and that of a nursing father. Despite his frustration with the community of Israel, Moses seems to identify himself as their nursing father. In 1 Corinthians, Paul also identifies himself as the nursing father of the Corinthian community (3.1-2; 4.14-5). As one commentator notes:

the combination of nurse and father imagery in 1 Corinthians 3-4 came from Numbers 1:1, as Peter R. Jones suggests (cf . also 1 QH 3.1-18; 7.20-22).31 Interestingly, Numbers 1:1 is the only place where human speaker uses nursing-father imagery for himself in the first-person account (cf. Mal. 1.6). Furthermore, like Moses, Paul uses this imagery in a situation in which his authority is apparently at stake (cf. Gal. 4.19).

With the second argument it is difficult not to suspect that a clear effort on the part of the orthodox editors to go so far as to remove the identification as - is often the case - what was likely a first person reference has now been deliberately watered down into a plural reference. Who can't see that:

We are not like Moses, who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory, even though it was destined to fade away.

was originally

I am not like Moses who put a veil over his face so the people of Israel would not see the glory, even though it was destined to fade away.

The frequent use of 'we' characterizes Lukan corruption of original material generally (cf. Clement's comments about Lukan alteration of Hebrews where Moses is identified as 'the apostle' and moreover an abundance of Samaritanisms have also been noted).

Again as long as we pretend that THE canon of Christian writings was not heavily interpolated we end up feeding into your typical white bread arguments because the editor was likely a Gentile convert to Judaism who wrote and think in strongly Hellenistic terms. The evidence seems to suggest IMO that Paul developed his ideas about the angel Ishu from traditional (even fundamental) Israelite ideas and these were later corrupted by 'Luke' = Irenaeus (or a combination of Polycarp and Irenaeus)

[Secret Alias]

I wish I could find an argument in print which makes the case for the 'we' substitutions in Paul. Even one example of this difference in the Marcionite canon vs the orthodox corruption would be useful.

[Secret Alias]

So is it likely or even certain that Paul identified himself as a second Moses?

Yes

Does that make it likely (even the MOST LIKELY possibility) that his self-description as THE apostle was developed from a traditional (even fundamental) understanding of Moses as THE Apostle (from various Pentateuch passages)

Of course.

It's just white bread pseudo-apologetics (now for the Hellenistic origins of Christians rather than the disguised sympathies inherent in a traditional appeal to 'the religion of our forefathers') that pretends that this isn't true (or at least 'truer' than the alternatives)

[Secret Alias]

And if Paul was THE apostle - viz the returning Moses figure still preserved in the Samaritan Ta'eb - then it stands to reason that his 'gospel' was rooted in the expectation for a second Torah via the announcement (bassorah) in the year of the messianic Jubilee (already identified as corresponding with the dating of the year of the gospel to 21 CE in Eusebius and various other sources). As Boid notes:

The Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus XXV:9. Slightly condensed translation. “The High Priest and the King acting together are to send heralds out on the Day of Atonement to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region [not just Canaan] with the announcement [bashâ’ir, plural of bashîrah] of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives”. The Arabic bashîrah = the Hebrew bassorah. The person doing it is the mubashshir = Hebrew mevasser, or the bashîr. Notice carefully that the bashîrah is not the information, but the announcement of it. This is the connotation of the Greek euangelion. Notice that the meaning only becomes clear and sharp in the context of the SAMARITAN halachah.

Thus Paul the second Moses and evangelist announced the gospel (or proclamation in the messianic Jubilee) from the same angel as visited Moses centuries earlier.

[Secret Alias]

While I can't find a clear example of Marcion 'changing' (or vice versa) 'we' into 'I' it is worth noting that many scholars have connected the number of 'we's' and 'I's' and perhaps (a weak maybe?) casually inferred a connection with Luke or 'associates.' Cf Green on Thessalonians:

The language and the style of the letter are distinctly Pauline,16 but, as in the first letter, first person plural verbs dominate (we encounter the first person singular only in 2.5 and 3. 17). 17 Like 1 Thessalonians, this book appears to be written by Paul, with some collaboration by his associates in ministry. https://books.google.com/books?id=gzwjt ... 22&f=false

It's a start ...

[Secret Alias]

The logic of such a corruption (i.e. I into we) is clearly to transform Paul from renegade against the royal 'we' (i.e. the Jerusalem church) into Acts lies i.e. that Paul eventually bowed in submission. The Marcionite understanding of Paul as second Moses then CANNOT AGREE with the claims of Acts. Hence the 'we' additions.