Paul or Marcion First?

[maryhelena]

Here is a list from a thread by Jake Jones IV from FRDB. Thread: Dating Paul

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthreadcf3c.html

PAUL NOT NAMED AND EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED

Revelation (late 90's CE)
Quadratus (120's CE), Apology
Aristedes (120's CE), Apology
Gospels (120's-180's CE)
Papias (130's CE)
Didache (130's CE)
Ariston (early 140's CE)
Epistle of Barnabas (early 140's CE)
Epistle of James (early 140's CE)
Shepard of Hermas (140's CE)
Justin, 1 Apology (approximately 150 CE)
Justin, Dialogue (approximately 160 CE)
2 Clement (approximately 160 CE)
Tatian, early 160's CE
Miltiades, early 160's CE
Minucius Felix, early 160's CE
Clausius Apollinaris, early 160's CE
Hegesippus, Commentaries, 165-75 CE
Dionysius of Corinth, ca 170 CE
Melito of Sardis, early 170's CE
Rhodon, early 170's CE
Celsus, True Word, 170's CE
Athenagoras, Apology, late 170's CE
Theophilus of Antioch, early 180's CE
Maximus, 180's CE
Serapion, approximately 190 CE
Athenagoras, Apology 170's CE

PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED

Episcula Apostolorum, 170's CE
Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE

BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN

Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
Polycarp, 160's CE
Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
2 Peter, 180-200 CE
Irenaeus, 180's CE
Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Tertullian, Third century CE
Origen, Third century CE

Best,
Jake Jones IV

[Bernard Muller]

Deleted

[MrMacSon]

Here is a list from a thread by Jake Jones IV from FRDB. Thread: Dating Paul

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthreadcf3c.html

• PAUL NOT NAMED AND EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
  

  • Revelation (late 90's CE)
    Quadratus (120's CE), Apology
    Aristedes (120's CE), Apology
    Gospels (120's-180's CE)
    Papias (130's CE)
    Didache (130's CE)
    Ariston (early 140's CE)
    Epistle of Barnabas (early 140's CE)
    Epistle of James (early 140's CE)
    Shepard of Hermas (140's CE)
    Justin, 1 Apology (approximately 150 CE)
    Justin, Dialogue (approximately 160 CE)
    2 Clement (approximately 160 CE)
    Tatian, early 160's CE
    Miltiades, early 160's CE
    Minucius Felix, early 160's CE
    Clausius Apollinaris, early 160's CE
    Hegesippus, Commentaries, 165-75 CE
    Dionysius of Corinth, ca 170 CE
    Melito of Sardis, early 170's CE
    Rhodon, early 170's CE
    Celsus, True Word, 170's CE
    Athenagoras, Apology, late 170's CE
    Theophilus of Antioch, early 180's CE
    Maximus, 180's CE
    Serapion, approximately 190 CE
    Athenagoras, Apology 170's CE

  
  PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED
  

  • Episcula Apostolorum, 170's CE
    Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE

  
  BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN
  

  • Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
    Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
    Polycarp, 160's CE
    Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
    1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
    2 Peter, 180-200 CE
    Irenaeus, 180's CE
    Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
    Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
    Tertullian, Third century CE
    Origen, Third century CE

  
  Best, Jake Jones IV

A significant discrepancy/outlier there is

• • Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
  in the "both Paul and Epistles known" list

It would be interesting to look at those texts as to spatial geography and spatial geography in a time sense.

[Peter Kirby]

A lot of the names on the list are far too fragmentary to say what was not in their works.

A lot of the others may even be noticeably influenced by Paul anyway, without the presence of his name.

Pervo has a good overview of the reception of Paul called, The Making of Paul. I would recommend it for a much better overview of the subject than that list.

[Bernard Muller]

PAUL KNOWN BUT EPISTLES NOT MENTIONED

Episcula Apostolorum, 170's CE
Acts of the Apostles, ca 180 CE

BOTH PAUL AND EPISTLES KNOWN

Marcion and the Gnostics, Apostilicon 130's CE
Ignatians, Marcionite (or Appelean) version, approximately 160 CE
Polycarp, 160's CE
Pastoral Epistles, (by Polycarp?) 160's CE
1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE
2 Peter, 180-200 CE
Irenaeus, 180's CE
Ignatians (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Pauline Epistles (Catholic redaction), 170-180 CE
Tertullian, Third century CE
Origen, Third century CE

Here is the trick: you greatly postdate these writings (except for Marcion, Irenaeus, Tertullian & Origen) and then:
Marcion is the first one to come up with Paul & his epistles (and by a lot of years!). Bravo!!!

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

A lot of the names on the list are far too fragmentary to say what was not in their works.

A lot of the others may even be noticeably influenced by Paul anyway, without the presence of his name.

Pervo has a good overview of the reception of Paul called, The Making of Paul. I would recommend it for a much better overview of the subject than that list.

I have bought this book but have not got around to reading it yet....

[maryhelena]

Thinking back to the another book by Pervo......and a thread on FRDB.

Paul as Jesus Reboot:

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthreada191.html

I'm beginning to think that perhaps the Marcion of 140 c.e. is a reboot of the Paul of Acts pre 70 c.e...i.e. the Acts story of Paul is replayed 70 years later as the story of Marcion. Both figures are not historical figures. Both figures prefiguring developments within early christianity. Yes, I know the story early christian writers have produced re Marcion. At this stage I'm not buying it....One reason that tips the scales is the time-slot in which the Marcion story is set - around 70 years from the fall of Jerusalem. That 70 years is a red flag. gLuke placing his gospel story 70 years from 40 b.c.e. Whatever happened historically around 140 c.e. - indeed there may well have been some conflict within the early christian movement - the Marcion story is, as it were, replaying earlier history and entwining it with the current situation: Paul verse the Jerusalem apostles. Marcion against the christian leaders of around 140 c.e.

Perhaps it was around the 140 c.e. time-frame that the real division came about. Marcion and his non-Jewish Jesus. Easily read as Marcion not being Jewish but, on reflection, maybe it was a case that the Jesus of Marcionism was not a historical Jesus but a symbolic literary figure - and the christians of 140 c.e. were already reading the gospel story literally.....

If, as Klinghardt now seems to be suggesting, the gospel of Marcion was the source of the synoptic gospels, it would follow, if one accepts the church 'fathers' on Marcion, that the synoptic gospels were written post 140 c.e. That 70 plus years from the Acts dating of Paul is a very long time to be without a gospel story. Moving Paul post 70 c.e. - well, one might as well move Marcion back to pre 70 c.e....Paul and Marcion are were they have been put - 70 years apart. Since that 70 year placing is questionable on biblical prophetic/numerology grounds - the placing of Paul at the beginning and Marcion at the end is also questionable. i.e. what is at stake is not history but origin story 'history'. If, as would be necessary if the gospel writers were intent on moving their story away from any connection to Jewish political history, backdating the later Pauline movement to pre-70 c.e. would be high on their agenda. This would mean that the early Marcionite movement would have to be moved forward - moved forward 70 years - the Marcion story.

Anyway, methinks, there is more to this Marcion story than at first meets the eye.....

From the book: The Mystery of Acts: Richard I. Pervo, page 107. Table 6:1: Jesus and Paul:

Jesus	Paul
1. "Passion Predictions"	1. "Passion Predictions"
Luke 9:22	Acts 20:23-25
Luke 9:34	Acts 21:4
Luke 18:31	Acts 21:11-13
2. Farewell Address	2. Farewell Address
Luke 22:14-38	Acts 20:17-35
3. Ressurrection: Sadducees Oppose	3. Ressurrection: Sadducees Oppose
Luke 20:27-39	Acts 23:6-10
4. Staff of High Priest Slap Jesus	4. Staff of High Priest Slap Paul
Luke 22:63-64	Acts 23:1-2
5. Four "Trial" of Jesus	5. Four "Trials" of Paul
A. Sanhedrin: Luke 22:66-71	A. Sanhedrin: Acts 22:30-23:10
B. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:1-5	B. Roman Governor (Felix) 24:1-22
C. Herodian King (Antipas) Luke 23:6-12	C. Herodian King (Agrippa) 26
D. Roman Governor (Pilate) Luke 23:13-25	D. Roman Governor (Festus) 25:6-12
6. Declarations of Innocence	6. Declarations of Innocence
Pilate: Luke 23:14 (cf.23:4,22)	Lysias (Tribune) Acts 23:29
Herod: Luke 23:14	Festus: Acts 25:25
Centurian: Luke 23:47	Agrippa: Acts 26:31
7. Mob Demands Execution	7. Mob Demands Execution
Luke 23:18	Acts 22:22

[maryhelena]

Richard Pervo questions Luke’s characterization of ‘Paul’: This Paul looks a better fit for a 140 c.e. time-frame than a pre-70 time-slot....

• Page 148
  
  Paul may have been born in Tarsus, and he had been a Pharisee, but he could not have received both the Jerusalem education of which be boasted and spent the time in Tarsus required to receive citizenship there. The Jerusalem background is dubious, and the claims of citizenship at Tarsus unlikely. Was Paul a Roman citizen? It is possible, but not certain. More importantly, he was not likely to have been a citizen of the high standing presented in Acts, where his procession of the franchise works as a “get out of jail free” card that is never played before the last possible minute (if then) and not played at all where one expects it - as grounds for an appeal to Caesar.
  
  The purpose of Luke’s portrait is clear. Paul is certainly heroic, multi-cultural and omnicompetent, but Luke did not wish simply to paint a larger than life character. His “Renaissance man” is a universal figure, the all-but-perfect representative of an aspirating world religion that would clothe it’s Jewish message in Greek finery and conquer the Roman world. History would show that Luke was an insightful portrait painter.
  
  .....Acts is replete with historical implausibility, an almost non-existent chronology, and a quite improbably characterization of its leading personality, none of which elements serve history and all of which serve the purpose of the author.
  
  The Mystery of Acts: Richard Pervo

my bolding