The Jesus Wars Go Thermonuclear

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

No, in the case of Tertullian, it is better than an argument from silence. He explicitly says that the accusations of forgery flew in both directions, Marcion claiming that the Catholics had done it and the Catholics claiming that Marcion had done it, and he explicitly says that there is only one way to decide who is right: to look at which one corrupted the doctrine of the other, since one cannot corrupt what one does not already have in hand. This is an exegetical argument, and it is, according to Tertullian himself, the only argument that can be made. Granted, he fills it out a bit more, supplementing it, as it were, but the supplements are exegetical in nature, and depend on his reading (for example) the Antitheses; in each case, Tertullian's argument is not without rival. The only tradition he points to is that Marcion once made a donation to the Roman church; Tertullian takes this to mean that he once agreed with the Catholic church and then fell away from the truth into heresy. But any fool can list alternative and equally plausible explanations for this account that do not involve Marcion having deliberately corrupted canonical Luke.

"I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin" (AM 4:4)
Does "Marcion" here stand for Marcion (dead by then), or contemporary Marcionites of Tertullian's times?
Of course Marcion or Marcionites would say that.
Anyway I do not see here counterclaims between Catholics and Marcion(ites), just between Tertullian and Marcion(ites).
Anyway, it occurs to me (better late that never) Marcion claimed that gLuke was written after his gospel (itself written earlier), but with gLuke redacted before Marcion's times (I do not see any evidence to the contrary in Tertullian's works). But Marcion issued his gospel around 130, a gospel which was not known before. That's very suspect. Anyway, that would not affect gLuke as written in the first century, with gMarcion (or proto-Luke) pretended to be written earlier. I think you suggested something like that.
Anyway, if gLuke was written in the first century (and before 65-70 as believed by Christians then & now), and gMarcion claimed by Marcionites to be written earlier than gLuke, it would be rather impossible for Tertullian some 150 years later) to prove that gLuke was written before gMarcion (or proto-Luke), except through comparing gMarcion with gLuke.

According to Tertullian, Marcion claimed that there was a gospel that the Catholics corrupted into canonical Luke. That would be a proto-Luke. On the Marcionite side of the evidence, it remains, at least theoretically, an open question whether (A) Marcion was claiming that his gospel owed its very existence to Marcion himself or (B) Marcion was claiming that the gospel was an already extant text. I do not think Tertullian gives us enough to decide on that score.

Yes, but the gospel that Marcion accused Catholics to have corrupted is gMarcion. Why? Certainly Marcion could not have implied he himself corrupted a proto-Luke gospel for his own use, that his gospel was not that proto-Luke but a proto-Luke he edited himself. Marcion would have claimed that his gospel was the proto-Luke gospel, the earliest and authentic. I do not see any other way which makes sense.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

@Michael_BG

Giuseppe, I am not sure if you have accepted that the answers to the questions in 1 Cor 9:5 have to be answered yes? I am not sure if you are modifying your position and now arguing that it isn’t Paul because he is claiming equality with Peter, the apostles and the brothers of the Lord. I don’t know if you are rejecting the whole of 1 Cor 9?

My position is this:

if the epistle is genuine, then:
Paul is complaining that a set of rights (rights of all the Christians, apostles and not-apostles) are not recognized to him, unlike the other apostles, the brothers and Cephas.
The fact that these rights regard all the Christians implies that the conflictual difference is not described in the following terms:

Paul versus a selected group of Christians (the apostles and the brothers of Jesus)

but at contrary so:

Paul versus all the Christians (of lover and higher rank)

Therefore it's 100% expected, under the hypothesis of authenticity of the epistle, that Paul complains ONE BY ONE that:
1) the apostles (higher rank Christians) have that set of rights, but him, Paul, not (even if Paul is an apostle, too),
2) (even) all the not-apostles Christians (lower rank Christians: the ''brothers of the Lord'') have that set of rights but him, Paul, not (even if Paul is a higher rank Christian, as apostle),
3) even Cephas -- an apostle of equal rank with Paul (because Peter is the apostle of Jews, while Paul is the apostle of the gentiles, according the pacts in Gal 2) -- has that set of rights but him, Paul, not (even if these two apostles have divided the world).

Note that here I repeat only the Carrier's argument.

But what happens if you move the epistle in II CE, reflecting the polemical conflict marcionites versus proto-catholics?

That the entire 1 Cor 9 is proto-catholic (therefore interpolated on a original marcionite ''letter''), because only catholics had the interest in making Paul a man that complains about his condition. The Carrier's argument falls because the object of conflict is not more a set of rights (regarding ALL the Christians, apostles and not-apostles) but only about the specific right to have a wife (because the letter is an entire). Therefore the conflict is:

Paul versus all the higher rank Christians that have the special single right of having a wife during the missions.

In other terms:

Paul versus all the other apostles and the brothers of Jesus.

Therefore Paul is complaining here (!) that him, Paul, has not the same special rights of the brothers of Jesus and of the supremest apostle Cephas!
This situation is historically improbable, because how could this parvenu Paul claim to be regarded as equal as the biological brothers of an archangel? At a minimum he would have worshiped and served these representatives of Jesus on earth.
But the Catholic interpolator has however painted the scene just to establish this paradox: that Paul complains pathetically and grotesquely (think about the hunchback of Notre Dame ) because he aspires to a state de facto impossible for him (the equality with the carnal brothers of an archangel), and then at the end he humbly recognizes his ''eternal'', ''ontological'' inferiority, by remaining in a celibate state without no sister with him.

However before moving on I would like to clarify what you think 1 Cor 9:5 in the context of the verses around it, saying it in simple terms so I can get my head around it and not have to interpret it.

Note that Carrier's argument wins totally ONLY under the condition (recognized by the traditional consensus) that:

Note that this passage is out of place: the argument that Paul is answering
has been lost (whatever charge he says he is defending himself against
in 9.3). It would have been explained in the preceding verses, but in fact
in the present letter, those verses are on a different and largely unrelated
controversy ( 1 Cor. 8.1 - 13), and then the subject abruptly and inexplicably
changes. Like other epistles, I Corinthians seems to be a mishmash of
several letters, this being an example of where two were mashed together.
and here the preceding part of whatever letter this came from was left out
(a curious fact in itself).
(OHJ, p.582)

But that ''the subject abruptly and inexplicably changes'' is 100% expected when you assume the Detering's scenario where the same single epistle (originally marcionite) is later catholicized with interpolations here and there. Therefore, in virtue of this concrete major possibility (that excludes a priori that 1 Corinthians is the ''mishmash of several letters''), I think that the scenario described by the Dutch radical critics is more probable.

But, if you force me to accept the authenticity of the epistle, by pointing a gun at my temple, then I recognize that the genius of Richard Carrier has the best argument of all.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

No, in the case of Tertullian, it is better than an argument from silence. He explicitly says that the accusations of forgery flew in both directions, Marcion claiming that the Catholics had done it and the Catholics claiming that Marcion had done it, and he explicitly says that there is only one way to decide who is right: to look at which one corrupted the doctrine of the other, since one cannot corrupt what one does not already have in hand. This is an exegetical argument, and it is, according to Tertullian himself, the only argument that can be made. Granted, he fills it out a bit more, supplementing it, as it were, but the supplements are exegetical in nature, and depend on his reading (for example) the Antitheses; in each case, Tertullian's argument is not without rival. The only tradition he points to is that Marcion once made a donation to the Roman church; Tertullian takes this to mean that he once agreed with the Catholic church and then fell away from the truth into heresy. But any fool can list alternative and equally plausible explanations for this account that do not involve Marcion having deliberately corrupted canonical Luke.

"I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin" (AM 4:4)
Does "Marcion" here stand for Marcion (dead by then), or contemporary Marcionites of Tertullian's times?
Of course Marcion or Marcionites would say that.

Yes, and of course Tertullian would say that, too. Our task is to figure out which of the two sides is telling the whole truth or part of the truth. Until now, you have always seemed to me to simply be taking Tertullian's word for it.

Anyway I do not see here counterclaims between Catholics and Marcion(ites), just between Tertullian and Marcion(ites).

And Epiphanius and Marcion. And Irenaeus and Marcion. And pseudo-Origen and Marcion....

Anyway, it occurs to me (better late that never) Marcion claimed that gLuke was written after his gospel (itself written earlier), but with gLuke redacted before Marcion's times (I do not see any evidence to the contrary in Tertullian's works).

According to Tertullian, yes, Marcion knows either about canonical Luke or about something that looks like our hypothetical proto-Luke, but with additions. So yes, it seems quite possible that some version of canonical Luke hails from Marcion's times or before. I personally have been wondering whether the additions made to the body of the gospel (Luke 3-23 or 3-24) were made first, long before the birth narrative was tagged on. I wonder this simply because the addition of Luke 1-2 to the gospel looks suspiciously anti-Marcionite to me (as I think it does to Peter, as well), whereas a lot of the additions to the body of the gospel (like the parable of the good Samaritan) do not. If there is nothing to my suspicion about Luke 1-2, then none of this has to have happened, of course, and the birth narrative could have been tagged on at any time. And, of course, we have to deal with the datum that Basilides may well have known the Lucan birth narrative: but did he know it as part of the gospel of Luke, or as (part of) a separate infancy gospel?

I also think it quite possible that, just like Tertullian, Marcion himself was simply reacting to the texts in front of him. For example, what if his proto-Luke was simply the gospel that he grew up on in Pontus? Then he came to Rome, toting a copy of it along with him, and found that Rome was using a gospel that looked very much like his gospel from Pontus, but with additions to the text. He reasoned that "his" gospel had been tampered with, and he set out to repopularize what he saw as the original text.

Nothing is certain about any of that, of course. I am just thinking out loud, trying to come up with scenarios that account for all the data.

One thing I have become fairly certain of (well, as certain as one can be on this issue) is this: Marcion did not take the gospel that we know as canonical Luke and then shave off things that he found objectionable. On that premise, he left way too much damaging stuff in his text, making it all too easy for Tertullian and Epiphanius (and you!) to score easy points on him. If his purpose was to carve down canonical Luke and shape it according to his own Marcionite tendencies, he failed, and massively. It is easier to believe that he was basically dealing with a text that he already knew than that he crafted his gospel in his own image.

But Marcion issued his gospel around 130, a gospel which was not known before. That's very suspect.

How do you know it was not known before? Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius are too late to tell us, from their own personal knowledge, whether the gospel circulated earlier or not. They are dealing with texts just like we are.

Anyway, that would not affect gLuke as written in the first century, with gMarcion (or proto-Luke) pretended to be written earlier. I think you suggested something like that.

You need to change your designations (gLuke and so forth) to reflect what I am actually saying. I am saying that a proto-Luke may well have been penned in the first century, containing much of what we now think of as canonical Luke, but also missing a lot. And I am saying that Marcion may have reissued this gospel for his own church (that is, he took an already extant text, genuinely hailing from century I, and bundled it up with his Pauline epistles for use in his churches). Whether or not he substantially changed this reissued proto-Luke when he published it for his churches (in other words, whether or not the word "pretended" in your sentence is apt) is a question to be answered by close textual examination, if at all, not by appealing to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, who are in exactly our position when it comes to such matters: having to rely on the texts.

Anyway, if gLuke was written in the first century (and before 65-70 as believed by Christians then & now), and gMarcion claimed by Marcionites to be written earlier than gLuke, it would be rather impossible for Tertullian some 150 years later) to prove that gLuke was written before gMarcion (or proto-Luke), except through comparing gMarcion with gLuke.

Yes, exactly my point. It is impossible for Tertullian to prove that canonical Luke was written before the Marcionite gospel except through a textual comparison.

Yes, but the gospel that Marcion accused Catholics to have corrupted is gMarcion. Why? Certainly Marcion could not have implied he himself corrupted a proto-Luke gospel for his own use, that his gospel was not that proto-Luke but a proto-Luke he edited himself. Marcion would have claimed that his gospel was the proto-Luke gospel, the earliest and authentic. I do not see any other way which makes sense.

If you are correct, then Marcion is claiming to have taken up and republished an already extant proto-gospel from century I. That makes sense to me.

My suspicion, based on what I have seen so far, is that there really was a proto-gospel, a proto-Luke, from century I, but that both sides made alterations to it. I think that you and I both have caught Marcion out on two or three occasions, and I think that I have caught the Catholics (canonical Luke) out on two or three occasions.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

One thing I have become fairly certain of (well, as certain as one can be on this issue) is this: Marcion did not take the gospel that we know as canonical Luke and then shave off things that he found objectionable. On that premise, he left way too much damaging stuff in his text, making it all too easy for Tertullian and Epiphanius (and you!) to score easy points on him. If his purpose was to carve down canonical Luke and shape it according to his own Marcionite tendencies, he failed, and massively. It is easier to believe that he was basically dealing with a text that he already knew than that he crafted his gospel in his own image.

Did Marcion fail? I do not think so because gMarcion was used by Marcionite communities for centuries as part of their canon, and their only gospel. In my views, Marcion removed or changed from gLuke what he thought was clear-cut passages which were against his doctrine or were "outdated". He left passages seemingly against his teachings, but could be interpreted not conflicting with them. He also made some mistake: by keeping the "so also you" we discussed before, he made Jesus as a false prophet because those "you", that is Jesus' own disciples, could not be alive when "things" would announce the arrival of the Kingdom, from the perspective of 2nd century Christians, contemporaries of Marcion.

How do you know it was not known before? Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius are too late to tell us, from their own personal knowledge, whether the gospel circulated earlier or not. They are dealing with texts just like we are.

What make you think gMarcion was known before (Marcion, I guess)? Evidence, please.

You need to change your designations (gLuke and so forth) to reflect what I am actually saying. I am saying that a proto-Luke may well have been penned in the first century, containing much of what we now think of as canonical Luke, but also missing a lot. And I am saying that Marcion may have reissued this gospel for his own church (that is, he took an already extant text, genuinely hailing from century I, and bundled it up with his Pauline epistles for use in his churches). Whether or not he substantially changed this reissued proto-Luke when he published it for his churches (in other words, whether or not the word "pretended" in your sentence is apt) is a question to be answered by close textual examination, if at all, not by appealing to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius, who are in exactly our position when it comes to such matters: having to rely on the texts.

If you are correct, then Marcion is claiming to have taken up and republished an already extant proto-gospel from century I. That makes sense to me.

My suspicion, based on what I have seen so far, is that there really was a proto-gospel, a proto-Luke, from century I, but that both sides made alterations to it. I think that you and I both have caught Marcion out on two or three occasions, and I think that I have caught the Catholics (canonical Luke) out on two or three occasions.

You make it sound that proto-Luke was a well known early gospel, because (allegedly) "both sides made alteration to it". Unfortunately we do not have any evidence on this proto-Luke, which you qualified as "hypothetical" earlier.
And Marcion accused Catholics to have corrupted gMarcion, not any other gospel.
And if Marcion did that, certainly he knew he could not be accused to have himself corrupted a known proto-Luke (because that hypothetical proto-Luke did not exist!).

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

Did Marcion fail? I do not think so because gMarcion was used by Marcionite communities for centuries as part of their canon, and their only gospel. In my views, Marcion removed or changed from gLuke what he thought was clear-cut passages which were against his doctrine or were "outdated". He left passages seemingly against his teachings, but could be interpreted not conflicting with them. He also made some mistake: by keeping the "so also you" we discussed before, he made Jesus as a false prophet because those "you", that is Jesus' own disciples, could not be alive when "things" would announce the arrival of the Kingdom, from the perspective of 2nd century Christians, contemporaries of Marcion.

Like I said on another thread, an author always has the option of simply copying the text in front of him. He does not have to change it, even if it looks like a problem. That so many authors did change things is certain. But they also left some things alone, even problematic things, apparently relying on personal interpretation or on the addition of other materials to take care of the problem.

What make you think gMarcion was known before (Marcion, I guess)? Evidence, please.

If by "gMarcion" you mean proto-Luke, then you already gave the evidence yourself; you stated that Marcion must have been claiming to have received a gospel and transmitted it; you wrote: "Marcion would have claimed that his gospel was the proto-Luke gospel, the earliest and authentic." That gospel he claims to have received would be proto-Luke. Now, he may be lying, of course, or misled in some way, but the same goes for Tertullian and company. It is our job to sort that out, not to pretend that it is already sorted out just because Tertullian says so and we no longer have what Marcion himself said on the matter except through the words of his enemies.

You make it sound that proto-Luke was a well known early gospel, because (allegedly) "both sides made alteration to it". Unfortunately we do not have any evidence on this proto-Luke, which you qualified as "hypothetical" earlier.

Yes, of course it is hypothetical. So is Q or anything like Q.

And Marcion accused Catholics to have corrupted gMarcion, not any other gospel.

Right. But did he claim (A) that his gospel was something that he himself wrote from scratch? Did he claim (B) that his gospel was a modification of a previous gospel? Or did he claim (C) that he received the gospel and was putting it out there so that people would have the early and authentic gospel, not the interpolated Catholic version? You yourself have already argued that he claimed C: "Marcion would have claimed that his gospel was the proto-Luke gospel, the earliest and authentic." That means that Marcion is claiming to have received an early gospel text and transmitted it authentically. We may now evaluate his claims and weigh them against the opposite claims from Tertullian, to wit, that he received an early gospel and mutilated it. Maybe Marcion is correct; maybe Tertullian is correct; maybe neither is correct and the truth lies in the middle.

Ben.

[Michael BG]

Giuseppe, unfortunately we do not seem to be on the same page. Hopefully we can get to the same page by considering 1 Cor 9:1-5.

“[1] Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
[2] If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
[3] This is my defense to those who would examine me.
[4] Do we not have the right to our food and drink?
[5] Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

My position is that every question here should be answered yes. This is Paul building a case and I agree he is claiming the right of an apostle. He has the same rights as Peter and the brothers of the Lord (i.e. Jesus).
Therefore Paul is free, an apostle, and has seen the Lord Jesus.
The members of the Church of Corinth are Paul’s “work in the Lord”; the mark of his apostleship.
He is defending himself from those who are questioning his apostleship.
Paul and Barnabas have the right to their food and drink and a wife who travels with them.

It seems you don’t agree, but I don’t understand how you reach this position from the text.

Of course if you are saying that Paul is being attacked as not being an apostle and not equal to Peter, or the brothers of the Lord (Jesus) I can agree with you.

Paul defends his position as an apostle another an example is Gal 1:16-17a (God) “reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him (Jesus Christ) among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, [17] nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me”. I see Gal 2:9b as a downgrading of the leaders of the Jerusalem church - “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars”.

Therefore my position is that 1 Cor 9:1-5 presents the same picture of Paul as we see in Galatians.

You quoted 1 Cor 9:15-16, but I think we need to consider it in its context – 1 Cor 9:14-18

“[14] In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
[15] But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting.
[16] For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!
[17] For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission.
[18] What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel.”

I think Paul is saying I have a right to get my upkeep from members of the church, but I do not make use of this right, (he still carries out work to so he can pay for his own upkeep). He boasts about this, but not about preaching the gospel, because he had been commissioned (by God).

I think that for Gal 2:7-8 a case can be made out for it to be an interpolation.

According to Ben C Smith “based on the work of Jason BeDuhn” some of 1 Cor 9 is attested to as part of the Marcion version, including part of verses 7-10 and this is evidence against your position that the whole is a “proto-Catholic interpolation.

Does Carrier provide evidence for his assertion that Paul always provides the argument he is answering, I do not have that impression and I would have liked Paul to do it a lot more often than I think he does?

I don’t want to force you to accept anything you are not happy accepting.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Like I said on another thread, an author always has the option of simply copying the text in front of him. He does not have to change it, even if it looks like a problem. That so many authors did change things is certain. But they also left some things alone, even problematic things, apparently relying on personal interpretation or on the addition of other materials to take care of the problem.

Yes, an author has options. But in the case of Marcion, for his "gospel of the Lord", I find very odd that gospel looks like a truncated version of gLuke, with the most blatant parts against his doctrine deleted, with some other left (but less blatant), and some modifications.
Why Marcion did not wrote in secret a gospel, one which would avoid discontinuities, awkwardness and anything against his doctrine and, more so, be specific in it about that doctrine? (and claim that gospel was the first one ever written)
An explanation would be that gLuke was THE gospel in use in Synope, Pontus, where Marcion grew up. Because that gospel was not according to Marcion's ideas, he started to say that gospel was corrupted with add-ons. And that was known and remembered by people in his entourage. So when Marcion perceived the need to have a gospel for his followers, he had no other choice than to "work" on gLuke.

If by "gMarcion" you mean proto-Luke, then you already gave the evidence yourself; you stated that Marcion must have been claiming to have received a gospel and transmitted it; you wrote: "Marcion would have claimed that his gospel was the proto-Luke gospel, the earliest and authentic." That gospel he claims to have received would be proto-Luke. Now, he may be lying, of course, or misled in some way, but the same goes for Tertullian and company. It is our job to sort that out, not to pretend that it is already sorted out just because Tertullian says so and we no longer have what Marcion himself said on the matter except through the words of his enemies.

By proto-Luke (which I think & stated never existed), I meant gMarcion (which may look like a proto-Luke). Maybe, I should have said original uncorrupted Luke (according to Marcion's perspective!). And "Luke" is just for identification, because before Irenaeus' times, the gospel was not assigned an author.

Right. But did he claim (A) that his gospel was something that he himself wrote from scratch? Did he claim (B) that his gospel was a modification of a previous gospel? Or did he claim (C) that he received the gospel and was putting it out there so that people would have the early and authentic gospel, not the interpolated Catholic version? You yourself have already argued that he claimed C: "Marcion would have claimed that his gospel was the proto-Luke gospel, the earliest and authentic." That means that Marcion is claiming to have received an early gospel text and transmitted it authentically. We may now evaluate his claims and weigh them against the opposite claims from Tertullian, to wit, that he received an early gospel and mutilated it. Maybe Marcion is correct; maybe Tertullian is correct; maybe neither is correct and the truth lies in the middle.

All I can say, you put a lot of faith about the possible existence of that proto-Luke, when the evidence for it is lacking.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

All I can say, you put a lot of faith about the possible existence of that proto-Luke, when the evidence for it is lacking.

That comment may feel like it wraps everything up in a bow neatly, but for someone who considers the next-best alternative to be canonical Luke's use of the Evangelion (... or who is merely undecided ...), it hardly makes your case. Even if the hypothesis to which you object is demonstrably false (... which is a much stronger statement than the one you make above ...), you could (and would) still be unconvincing when arguing for your own "faith" about these matters.

[Giuseppe]

@Michael_BG

Giuseppe, unfortunately we do not seem to be on the same page. Hopefully we can get to the same page by considering 1 Cor 9:1-5.

“[1] Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord?
[2] If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
[3] This is my defense to those who would examine me.
[4] Do we not have the right to our food and drink?
[5] Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

My position is that every question here should be answered yes.

Even if I accept that every question should be answered yes, we should agree at least on a point (under the authenticity scenario, obviously), that is the following words of Richard Carrier (already quoted above by me):

Note that this passage is out of place: the argument that Paul is answering
has been lost (whatever charge he says he is defending himself against
in 9.3). It would have been explained in the preceding verses, but in fact
in the present letter, those verses are on a different and largely unrelated
controversy ( 1 Cor. 8.1 - 13), and then the subject abruptly and inexplicably
changes. Like other epistles, I Corinthians seems to be a mishmash of
several letters, this being an example of where two were mashed together.
and here the preceding part of whatever letter this came from was left out
(a curious fact in itself).
(OHJ, p.582)

There words are not an invention of Carrier. These words reflect already the consensus. Therefore I can't go with you when you say:

Does Carrier provide evidence for his assertion that Paul always provides the argument he is answering, I do not have that impression and I would have liked Paul to do it a lot more often than I think he does?

Because Carrier himself already a time explained me about this point.

On the first point:

Correct.

Dykstra has fallen victim to a common Christian faith assumption about the 1 Cor. 9 passage (you find this same mistake from the pulpit often; yet rarely in academic commentaries on 1 Corinthians). Worse, Paul’s argument entails that Paul or Barnabas had a wife whose living Paul is arguing for. He is thus not against supporting the wives of missionaries; he is actually claiming that as something he and his entourage have the right to. We can suppose from his other remarks elsewhere that probably Paul did not have a wife, so this must be about Barnabas (we can’t know for sure, because the original rest of that letter is missing, where Paul would have explained the argument he is answering and to what purpose).

Dykstra has also lost track of the fact that there is a break between chapter 8 and 9: these were not originally in the same letter. Someone has clipped 9 out of some other letter and pasted it in here (as I show in OHJ), since it sort of loosely connects with the subject of chapter 8 (both are about disputes connected to food, but the connection is too loose for the transition to make any sense for Paul to have written it as-is; and the explanation of the argument he is answering in 9 is missing).

(my emphasis)

This fact alone (that ''there is a break between chapter 8 and 9'') makes a priori a gratuitous hypothesis any attempt to extend the contingent dispute on a particular set of rights (concerning all Christians) -- the unique dispute that is in evidence in 1 Cor 9 -- to the most dramatic problem that assailed Paul in relation to a particular subset of Christians (the elite).

This fact prohibits you to call other passages in Paul (es. Galatians) where he is in conflict against only the higher rank Christians.

All that that is in evidence is a dispute about a particular set of rights: too much generic rights to interest only the clash at the top of the Christian movement (Paul versus Pillars + hypothetical biological brothers of Jesus).

All this under the hypothesis of authenticity of 1 Cor.

While what you say (that lurks in reality, behind the casus belli of the dispute on generic rights, not a fierce confrontation between Paul and the rest of the Christian world, but between Paul and a special elite of Christians), immediately becomes true only if you move this letter in the second century, because only in the second century a quarrel over next-to-nothing in the letters hides really an ideological clash as big as a house.

But since the moment you are assuming here the authenticity of the epistle, then you can advance your argument only if:
1) you agree with academic commentary on 1 Cor that ''there is a break between chapter 8 and 9''
2) you agree that it's speculative any claim to turn a fact in itself contingent (the polemic about a set of rights that every Christian should have, THAT IS IN EVIDENCE) in the casus belli of a more dramatic ideological conflict between Paul and only the Christians of high rank (THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE, at least here, via the point 1).

Obviously, I'm not opposing dogmatically a priori against your point:

Therefore my position is that 1 Cor 9:1-5 presents the same picture of Paul as we see in Galatians.

But note the difference:
A) in Gal you have Paul addressing his general conflict with particular Christians.
B) In 1 Cor 9 you have Paul addressing his particular conflict with all the Christians (until proven otherwise, forthe point 1 above).

You cannot reduce the Paul of A to the Paul of B and viceversa: until proven othervise, these two situations are different (and not only because they are described respectively in different epistles).

Viceversa, if you assume all the letters inauthentic (as I do), only then I can agree on all the line with you (the ''brothers of Lord'' being the biological brothers of Jesus debtly catholicized in anti-marcionite function), because in that case there is nothing, nothing!, of vague, contingent and specific behind any apparent conflict in the epistles: all betrays the ideological clash between Marcionites and Proto-Catholics.


I hope you appreciate the difference between a letter considered authentic and the same letter considered inauthentic: in the first case at 80% of the cases it is all very vague, obscure, indeterminate (so it is extremely risky to do as you do, that is to say that this passage of letter A calls another passage of letter B and so forth hereinafter) while in the second case all at 100% must be reduced (by force if necessary) to a pure ideological controversy, nothing excluded.

[Michael BG]

…
Even if I accept that every question should be answered yes, we should agree at least on a point (under the authenticity scenario, obviously), that is the following words of Richard Carrier (already quoted above by me):

Note that this passage is out of place: the argument that Paul is answering
has been lost (whatever charge he says he is defending himself against
in 9.3). It would have been explained in the preceding verses, but in fact
in the present letter, those verses are on a different and largely unrelated
controversy ( 1 Cor. 8.1 - 13), and then the subject abruptly and inexplicably
changes. Like other epistles, I Corinthians seems to be a mishmash of
several letters, this being an example of where two were mashed together.
and here the preceding part of whatever letter this came from was left out
(a curious fact in itself).
(OHJ, p.582)

There words are not an invention of Carrier. These words reflect already the consensus. Therefore I can't go with you when you say:

Does Carrier provide evidence for his assertion that Paul always provides the argument he is answering, I do not have that impression and I would have liked Paul to do it a lot more often than I think he does?

Because Carrier himself already a time explained me about this point.

On the first point:

Correct.

Dykstra has fallen victim to a common Christian faith assumption about the 1 Cor. 9 passage (you find this same mistake from the pulpit often; yet rarely in academic commentaries on 1 Corinthians). Worse, Paul’s argument entails that Paul or Barnabas had a wife whose living Paul is arguing for. He is thus not against supporting the wives of missionaries; he is actually claiming that as something he and his entourage have the right to. We can suppose from his other remarks elsewhere that probably Paul did not have a wife, so this must be about Barnabas (we can’t know for sure, because the original rest of that letter is missing, where Paul would have explained the argument he is answering and to what purpose).

Dykstra has also lost track of the fact that there is a break between chapter 8 and 9: these were not originally in the same letter. Someone has clipped 9 out of some other letter and pasted it in here (as I show in OHJ), since it sort of loosely connects with the subject of chapter 8 (both are about disputes connected to food, but the connection is too loose for the transition to make any sense for Paul to have written it as-is; and the explanation of the argument he is answering in 9 is missing).

(my emphasis)

This fact alone (that ''there is a break between chapter 8 and 9'') makes a priori a gratuitous hypothesis any attempt to extend the contingent dispute on a particular set of rights (concerning all Christians) -- the unique dispute that is in evidence in 1 Cor 9 -- to the most dramatic problem that assailed Paul in relation to a particular subset of Christians (the elite).

This fact prohibits you to call other passages in Paul (es. Galatians) where he is in conflict against only the higher rank Christians.

All that that is in evidence is a dispute about a particular set of rights: too much generic rights to interest only the clash at the top of the Christian movement (Paul versus Pillars + hypothetical biological brothers of Jesus).

All this under the hypothesis of authenticity of 1 Cor.

While what you say (that lurks in reality, behind the casus belli of the dispute on generic rights, not a fierce confrontation between Paul and the rest of the Christian world, but between Paul and a special elite of Christians), immediately becomes true only if you move this letter in the second century, because only in the second century a quarrel over next-to-nothing in the letters hides really an ideological clash as big as a house.

But since the moment you are assuming here the authenticity of the epistle, then you can advance your argument only if:
1) you agree with academic commentary on 1 Cor that ''there is a break between chapter 8 and 9''
2) you agree that it's speculative any claim to turn a fact in itself contingent (the polemic about a set of rights that every Christian should have, THAT IS IN EVIDENCE) in the casus belli of a more dramatic ideological conflict between Paul and only the Christians of high rank (THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE, at least here, via the point 1).

Obviously, I'm not opposing dogmatically a priori against your point:

Therefore my position is that 1 Cor 9:1-5 presents the same picture of Paul as we see in Galatians.

But note the difference:
A) in Gal you have Paul addressing his general conflict with particular Christians.
B) In 1 Cor 9 you have Paul addressing his particular conflict with all the Christians (until proven otherwise, forthe point 1 above).

You cannot reduce the Paul of A to the Paul of B and viceversa: until proven othervise, these two situations are different (and not only because they are described respectively in different epistles).

Viceversa, if you assume all the letters inauthentic (as I do), only then I can agree on all the line with you (the ''brothers of Lord'' being the biological brothers of Jesus debtly catholicized in anti-marcionite function), because in that case there is nothing, nothing!, of vague, contingent and specific behind any apparent conflict in the epistles: all betrays the ideological clash between Marcionites and Proto-Catholics.

I hope you appreciate the difference between a letter considered authentic and the same letter considered inauthentic: in the first case at 80% of the cases it is all very vague, obscure, indeterminate (so it is extremely risky to do as you do, that is to say that this passage of letter A calls another passage of letter B and so forth hereinafter) while in the second case all at 100% must be reduced (by force if necessary) to a pure ideological controversy, nothing excluded.

Maybe I understand what is going on. You are defending your position, I assume because you see me attacking it, but I am only questioning the logic of your position, because I don’t understand how you reach your conclusions.

So you quote the words of Richard Carrier “that this passage is out of place” and state this is the consensus view as if therefore I should accept this view just because it is the consensus, but I haven’t been convinced it is the consensus. Of course the consensus changes over time and I am most likely not aware of the state of the current consensus. Therefore I am saying – Convince me that the consensus is correct?

I go further I ask for a specific thing – what is the evidence that Paul always provides the argument he is answering.

You say one of the proof is that chapter 9 does not link into chapter 8, but I say please provide the evidence that this is always the case? (This assumes that some people do not accept the “consensus” and question this proof and these questions have been answered by the consensus.)

You say the subject abruptly changes, but is this within the letter as a whole or within chapter 9, you haven’t made it clear. Maybe you are assuming I know this argument, but I do not.

Carrier believes, 1 Corinthians is a mishmash of several letters, but this is news to me. I thought it was only 2 Corinthians where a minority view held that it was made up of several parts of letters. (This seems to be the consensus as known to the author of the Wikipedia articles on these letters and as presented by Peter Kirby.)

If I wanted to convince you that 1 Cor 15:3-12 is an interpolation I would quote some scholars who state that the language is not Pauline, I would quote David Catchpole about the development of the tradition behind, what lots of scholars believe is a pre-Pauline tradition and I would quote Robert Price and try to make out a case that the timings of the events and the nature of Paul makes it unlikely he knew the tradition or would write it. I hope that by building a case I would convince you, but I wouldn’t just state it as a supposition if I wanted to convince others.

Carrier states that 1 Cor 9:5 supposes that either Paul or Barnabas had a wife, but I don’t see that.

In the comment section to the Carrier article you wrote, when discussing 1 Cor 9:5, “that it assumes Paul is talking about the right to be married. But you refute this false assumption (at p. 583 of OHJ).” So what is Carrier’s case?

Carrier wrote in the article you post to, “Meanwhile, it is a demonstrable fact that all baptized Christians were brothers of the Lord”. However it has not been demonstrated to me. It appears to me that Carrier asserts that “brothers of the Lord” = “brothers” as in Christian brothers. He states he has established this in element 12 p 108 and when discussing 1 Cor 9 p582-88. So how does he do this? Carrier states that the two references to the bothers of Jesus and the two references to Jesus’ mother are not evidence of historicity, but “I actually think these argue the reverse”, this seems very odd to me.

Are you saying that if Paul’s letter was written before 70 CE then you would agree with me when I wrote, “that 1 Cor 9:1-5 presents the same picture of Paul as we see in Galatians”?

It seems you are saying it is my responsibility to “prove” that the situation in 1 Cor 9 is the same as in Galatians. This would be true if I was trying to convince you of something, but I am asking you to convince me and therefore it is your task if you wish to convince me to prove a case that the situation is not the same, because I see both as disputes over Paul’s claim to be an authority figure.

Again I have not asked you to agree with me, but I have requested that you try to convince me. Therefore if you wish to convince me that the Pauline letters were not written before 70 CE and they are still older than Mark, you would need to try to persuade me Mark was not written before Josephus, because I am not convinced it is easy to date the Pauline epistles if you reject that Paul lived close to when Jesus lived, as the only other semi-clear reference to a historical figure is in 2 Corinthians.

I do understand the importance of understanding the assumptions being made, and I recognise I don’t always do this, but I just assume that my assumptions are shared by everyone.