One argument for Paul's epistles before Marcion

[Bernard Muller]

I was expecting to have more comments on what I posted earlier on another thread:
Some scholars (and myself) think some of Paul's epistles were the result of the combination of several original smaller letters into one.
Tertullian and Epiphanius (and myself) thought/(thinks) the Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles is a modification of the canonical ones (previously already combined for some of them).
If it is true, that would mean the original letters would have existed before Marcion.

Is it a valid argument?

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

I was expecting to have more comments on what I posted earlier on another thread:
Some scholars (and myself) think some of Paul's epistles were the result of the combination of several original smaller letters into one.
Tertullian and Epiphanius (and myself) thought/(thinks) the Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles is a modification of the canonical ones (previously already combined for some of them).
If it is true, that would mean the original letters would have existed before Marcion.

Is it a valid argument?

It almost looks like two separate arguments (or observations).

Tertullian and Epiphanius (and myself) thought/(thinks) the Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles is a modification of the canonical ones (previously already combined for some of them).

If this part is true, then of course it is true that Marcion's version postdates the original letters; the presupposition is built right into the statement. Maybe this bit was an aside on your part.

Some scholars (and myself) think some of Paul's epistles were the result of the combination of several original smaller letters into one.

This is the one that has independent value as an argument. If (at least some of) Paul's extant letters can be determined, by internal indications, to be the results of combining two or more actual letters, and if Marcion's publication reflects this combination, then yes, of course it would mean that a corpus of letters came before Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

1. Some scholars (and myself) think some of Paul's epistles were the result of the combination of several original smaller letters into one.

2. Tertullian, Epiphanius (and myself) [think] Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles is 'a' modification¹ of the canonical ones (previously already combined for some of them).

3. If it is true, that would mean the original letters would have existed before Marcion.

Is it a valid argument?

What are the differences between (i) the Marcionite rendition of the the Pauline epistles and (ii) the canonical version of them?

¹ How sure are you there is 'a' modification? (ie. just one?)

[Ben C. Smith]

1. Some scholars (and myself) think some of Paul's epistles were the result of the combination of several original smaller letters into one.

2. Tertullian, Epiphanius (and myself) [think] Marcion's rendition of the Pauline epistles is 'a' modification¹ of the canonical ones (previously already combined for some of them).

3. If it is true, that would mean the original letters would have existed before Marcion.

Is it a valid argument?

What are the differences between (i) the Marcionite rendition of the the Pauline epistles and (ii) the canonical version of them?

You can see Jason BeDuhn's reconstruction of the Marcionite version here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1837. Obviously this is just his own thing, and you are free to disagree with his results, but I have included (most of) the relevant source materials (Tertullian and Epiphanius, mainly) for convenience in the notes after each chapter.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

This is the one that has independent value as an argument. If (at least some of) Paul's extant letters can be determined, by internal indications, to be the results of combining two or more actual letters, and if Marcion's publication reflects this combination, then yes, of course it would mean that a corpus of letters came before Marcion.

1) According to my studies, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Philippians are, for each, 3 letters combined into one.

I am not the only one to think some Pauline epistles were combined:

"... the letters we call 1 and 2 Corinthians formed part of a larger collection that originally consisted of several letters... We are left with the impression that the extant letters reflect an editing and combining of writings, compiled as the community processed and integrated the words of the apostle"

The Catholic study bible, second edition, page 450

My evidence is here for the Corinthians letters
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html#Corinth1
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html#corinth2

2) Tertullian and Epiphanius have Marcion reflecting on these combinations.

So "it would mean that a corpus of letters came before Marcion."

And there is no need to mention here that Marcion truncated the Pauline epistles. It does not matter for my argument if Marcion truncated the epistles or not.

And then, I have at least one more argument pointing in the same direction: Romans ending:
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

What are the differences between (i) the Marcionite rendition of the the Pauline epistles and (ii) the canonical version of them?

Plenty. Please refer to Ben's study on that matter: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1837#p40549

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

This is the one that has independent value as an argument. If (at least some of) Paul's extant letters can be determined, by internal indications, to be the results of combining two or more actual letters, and if Marcion's publication reflects this combination, then yes, of course it would mean that a corpus of letters came before Marcion.

1) According to my studies, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Philippians are, for each, 3 letters combined into one.

I remember. We discussed Philippians very briefly here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3285.

I am not the only one to think some Pauline epistles were combined....

Quite. It is a fairly common position. I read a paper not too long ago by Brent Nongbri defending the idea that ancient letter collections could sometimes combine originally disparate letters into one: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2225&p=49572#p49572.

2) Tertullian and Epiphanius have Marcion reflecting on these combinations.

So "it would mean that a corpus of letters came before Marcion."

Yes, I am almost certain that Marcion inherited a Pauline letter collection, one in which letters had probably already been combined. He did not create it himself.

And there is no need to mention here that Marcion truncated the Pauline epistles. It does not matter for my argument if Marcion truncated the epistles or not.

I agree. That is a separate issue.

And then, I have at least one more argument pointing in the same direction: Romans ending:
http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

For the record, I agree that a good case can be made that Romans originally continued beyond 14.23, and that the Marcionite version reflects a truncation of the original text. I doubt, however, that Marcion himself did the truncating, at least in this case. The same evidence which provides fodder for the case also demonstrates that a proto-orthodox version circulated which ended at 14.23 (plus, later, the spurious 16.25-27 as an ad hoc conclusion). Marcion probably just inherited the shortened version.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Marcion probably just inherited the shortened version.

That's what I think, as also Peter.

Cordially, Bernard

[Secret Alias]

And then there is the issue of the reliability of Origen's testimony. How did he know that what he had before him was 'Marcionite'? How would anyone know that? It wasn't like they were packaged in cellophane and had a sticker on them that said 'Marcionite.' And without Origen what is the evidence?

[Ben C. Smith]

And then there is the issue of the reliability of Origen's testimony. How did he know that what he had before him was 'Marcionite'? How would anyone know that? It wasn't like they were packaged in cellophane and had a sticker on them that said 'Marcionite.' And without Origen what is the evidence?

Wherever I write about "Marcion's version" in such contexts, you can just mentally substitute "whatever version the father in question had in hand, or in mind, which he thought was Marcion's." I agree that there are lots of open questions here, especially when one bears in mind that surely Marcion's text had its own manuscript history, as well, with variants and interpolations and whatnot. For the purposes of reconstructing the original Pauline corpus, however, it is not actually all that vital to make sure we know whether the patristic comments we have relate to Marcion's text itself or to some other text or to some variation of Marcion's text: the question still presses as to which is the more original ending to Romans (for example). A version existed which ended with chapter 14, another which ended with chapter 15, and another which contained chapter 16, not to mention the issues surrounding the floating doxology; no matter where Marcion sits in all of this, the originality of each ending can still be debated.

The same basic principle applies when I write about "Matthew" or "Mark" or "Luke" or any of the other evangelists. We do not have access to the individual authors, so I am actually referring to the texts which bear their name; furthermore, I am referring to those texts as wholes with full knowledge that any given portion may be an earlier tradition or a later interpolation. If I had a very clear picture of the various layers in these texts, I would refer to them as one refers to the various hands at work, say, in Sinaiticus. But I do not have such a clear picture, so I cannot be that specific, and it would be a real pain to constantly qualify every single instance of the evangelist's name with some disclaimer or other.