Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

[Bernard Muller]

to Secret Alias,

Come on. If I write a historical study of Alexander the Great today, that doesn't mean that Alexander the Great is a contemporary of mine. What is this?

Except we know histories about Alexander the Great which were written well before your times. That's not the case for these traditions (about Paul's gospel being a written document in the genre of the canonical gospels). I don't know of any traditions in that regard before Irenaeus' times.

The Patristic sources, more so from the mid 2nd century, are not to be trusted.

But what would be in Irenaeus's interest to say that the heretics said this or that about Paul and his ascension? Surely this is based on something real.

But now, you are getting away from Paul's gospel, which is the topic of this thread.
But I wonder:
Since when Irenaeus would describe heretics beliefs because he found in them something real?
For Irenaeus, heretics beliefs are all wrong.
And why would these heretics say something to be trusted?

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

Except we know histories about Alexander the Great which were written well before your times.

Clearly Irenaeus could only be writing about something which already existed. I don't understand your difficulty with the idea that the heretics preceded Irenaeus ... unless of course it challenges some of your inherited assumptions about the reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

[Secret Alias]

That's not the case for these traditions (about Paul's gospel being a written document in the genre of the canonical gospels).

No. If Paul wrote a gospel it wasn't 'in the genre' of other pre-existent gospels. As the Marcionites argued it was the ur-gospel.

[Secret Alias]

Since when Irenaeus would describe heretics beliefs because he found in them something real?
For Irenaeus, heretics beliefs are all wrong.
And why would these heretics say something to be trusted?

Donald Trump doesn't like Mexicans. The ones who come to this country are all criminals and drug dealers. Trump says many other things about Mexicans in America. Whether or not the things Donald Trump says about Mexicans are true the one thing historians in the future can't ignore or deny is the fact that Mexicans were in the country long before Trump made those comments.

[Secret Alias]

But now, you are getting away from Paul's gospel, which is the topic of this thread.

No I am not. Let me try to explain it to you another way. Take all the things we assume about Paul based on (a) the Pauline Epistles as we have them (b) Acts of the Apostles and (c) the things that Church Fathers pass on about Paul which they say is the truth about Paul. Put them all in a mental 'box.' This represents the Catholic understanding of Paul.

Now move your 'mental eye' over to another box. This contains all the things that (a) the Church Fathers said the heretics lie about Paul or misrepresent Paul and (b) all the textual variants in the collection of Pauline writings that the Church Fathers say are in the hands of the same heretics. This represents an entirely different tradition about Paul or at least 'another tradition' about the apostle.

Now we can use 'the Pauline writings' to help us make more sense of what the heretics believed about Paul. But we have to find a way to connect these passages which may or may not have been in the other collections of Paul's writings by connecting them to things said about the heretics in the writings of the Church Fathers. But the important point I am making is that all what you assume to be true about Paul likely comes from one of two or three or possibly many boxes containing traditions about Paul.

[Secret Alias]

And why would these heretics say something to be trusted?

Why are they better or worse sources of information (at least theoretically) when compared with the Church Fathers? I think they might be better sources because Paul can't have belonged to a 'college of apostles.' To this end, since this claim is bogus I feel more comfortable with a tradition such as the Marcionites who preserve an understanding of Paul which is more in keeping with what makes sense (i.e. a visionary lunatic).

[outhouse]

And why would these heretics say something to be trusted?

Why are they better or worse sources of information (at least theoretically) when compared with the Church Fathers? I think they might be better sources because Paul can't have belonged to a 'college of apostles.' To this end, since this claim is bogus I feel more comfortable with a tradition such as the Marcionites who preserve an understanding of Paul which is more in keeping with what makes sense (i.e. a visionary lunatic).

Regardless of your rhetoric.

The movement formed and originated as Hellenistic Proselyte Judaism divorced Cultural Judaism as these Hellenist did not want to be identified as a dirty rebellious Jew, in Roman eyes.


Monotheism was divorcing Judaism but moving forward, and the Paul we understand following non apologetic teachings fits this to a T. Your just making conclusions out of thin air completely out of context cherry picking ancient text.

At least we do know about your multiple boxes and address each individually instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


None of your conclusions can stay in the REQUIRED context.

[Bernard Muller]

to Secret Alias,

Clearly Irenaeus could only be writing about something which already existed. I don't understand your difficulty with the idea that the heretics preceded Irenaeus ... unless of course it challenges some of your inherited assumptions about the reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

So some "heretics" preceded Irenaeus. So what? That still does not mean these heretics were right on what you would accept from them as real, through Irenaeus' writings.

No. If Paul wrote a gospel it wasn't 'in the genre' of other pre-existent gospels. As the Marcionites argued it was the ur-gospel.

So in what genre would be this ur-gospel? Would it look like gMarcion, which looks itself like gLuke, which look itself like the other synoptics?
Where did the Marcionites argued Paul's gospel was the written ur-gospel?

I feel more comfortable with a tradition such as the Marcionites who preserve an understanding of Paul which is more in keeping with what makes sense (i.e. a visionary lunatic).

Where did you get that the Marcionites thought of Paul as a visionary lunatic?

No I am not. Let me try to explain it to you another way. Take all the things we assume about Paul based on (a) the Pauline Epistles as we have them (b) Acts of the Apostles and (c) the things that Church Fathers pass on about Paul which they say is the truth about Paul. Put them all in a mental 'box.' This represents the Catholic understanding of Paul.

I do not see anything wrong about studying Paul through his epistles. Acts might be 80% fiction, and depicts Paul more Jewish than he was, and in good relation with the Church of Jerusalem (which is wrong, more so after the clash in Antioch), but in some strictly non religious items, can complement the information extracted from the Pauline epistles. But I have no confidence on what the later Fathers and heretics said about Paul. They tried to use Paul for their own bias, agenda and theories.

Now move your 'mental eye' over to another box. This contains all the things that (a) the Church Fathers said the heretics lie about Paul or misrepresent Paul and (b) all the textual variants in the collection of Pauline writings that the Church Fathers say are in the hands of the same heretics. This represents an entirely different tradition about Paul or at least 'another tradition' about the apostle.

Now we can use 'the Pauline writings' to help us make more sense of what the heretics believed about Paul. But we have to find a way to connect these passages which may or may not have been in the other collections of Paul's writings by connecting them to things said about the heretics in the writings of the Church Fathers. But the important point I am making is that all what you assume to be true about Paul likely comes from one of two or three or possibly many boxes containing traditions about Paul

Lot of very ill-evidenced assumptions and a rather convoluted theory. You are walking on very thin ice here.

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

Just trying to find where the 'ill-evidenced assumptions' are in all this. Again:

1. Irenaeus writes about the heresies



2. Irenaeus writes about Paul



3. Irenaeus writes about the heresies and their traditions about Paul



1 and 3 are definitely older than Irenaeus (unless he's making the facts up). 2 is only older than Irenaeus if he isn't making things up.

[Secret Alias]

Again:

1. While writing Irenaeus cites from a canon of Pauline scriptures:



2. While writing Irenaeus cites from the heretical (and specifically Marcionite) canon of Pauline writings



The Marcionite canon of Pauline writings (cited by Irenaeus) is likely older than Irenaeus's own Pauline canon (though not certainly). Why? Because Tertullian's Latin translation of Adversus Haereses is most likely developed from Justin's original (lost) work. Andrew at least meets me part way (Book 4). But Irenaeus already hints that he has this book in his possession. There are two works in Tertullian's version of this treatise of Justin - one book on the gospel another on the apostle (or apostolic). The original book on the gospel developed from a super gospel. Somewhere along the trail of transmission the work was re-oriented against Luke (as if Luke was Marcion's source for his gospel when Justin originally identified his apostolic 'super gospel'). If Irenaeus had to borrow from Justin's work defending a lost gospel and falsify that text as if it were against Luke it stands to reason that Justin did not know Luke or did not think that Marcion corrupted that gospel. Irenaeus is the most likely figure to have 're-oriented' Justin's original treatise (as the argument that Marcion falsified Luke and the Pauline epistles also appears in the First Book of his Adv Haer. If Irenaeus's gospel is only as old as Irenaeus the same is probably true about his collection of Pauline letters (the Galatians first ordering in Adv Marc is not specifically Marcionite).