Re: The Folly of 'Jewish Christianity' Theories
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:05 am
The consensus reconstruction of Marcionite Galatians excludes verses 1:18-24, and most also verse 1:17. The entire first visit to Jerusalem is missing. All mention of Barnabas is missing. There are many other verses and phrases (parts of verses) missing, as there are throughout the corpus. Linguistic studies by a few scholars show a consistency in the vocabulary within the attested text and other different vocabulary missing (e.g., certain words, some with little or no theological meaning, are consistently missing in the Marcionite text).
Although not much mentioned, there are other large "lacunae" worth noting:
1 Corinthians 7:12-24 (later additions), possibly more of chapter 7
1 Corinthians 8:7-9:6
1 Corinthians chapter 16 (maybe starts at 15:58), except part of verse 16:23 (*)
2 Corinthians 5:18-11:1 (excepting a fragment from verse 7:1)
2 Corinthians 11:16-12:6, 12:10-21
2 Corinthians 13:3-9, 11-12 (*)
Philippians 4:1-22 (*)
Ephesians/Laodiceans 3:13-4:4 , also 4:9-24
Colossians 3:11-4:17 (*)
Note: (*) all the salutations are missing in the Marcionite versions. I am of the opinion these were regarded by the earliest Pauline writers as part of a system of rank and privilege they rejected (e.g., Galatians 2:6, Luke 10:4, 11:43, 20:46) and associated with their opponents (whom they likened to Jews ... called the Judaizers, et al, as Stephen HUller points out). It is of note also that lack of acceptance of bishops and elders is a major complaint of the Church Fathers (reflected in Hebrews 13:17 directly, and calling for obedience of the gentiles in Roman 1:5, 15:18, and several calling for obedience in general)
Colossians mention of Mark and Luke in DA 1:5 is by the Catholic champion Adamantius, quoting from the Catholic text. The sequence of responses by the debaters seems to have been altered. Megethius' response to this "proof" by Adamantius was almost certainly "I do not except your spurious Apostolikon", which was placed before Admantius' claim by the Dialogue's author to give the Catholic the final word. (DA's author only worked from prior works and the Catholic text he knew.)
********************
Stephen, kudos for this thread. You had a great intro and let others respond. I was surprised to see how much you have come to converge with my views on certain points. There are still some differences, as you still accept more of the legends associated with the Church Fathers supposed lives, and do not yet critically evaluate the seams and inconsistencies in their writings (e.g., AH 1.22-31 being an abrupt change in style and type of argument, becoming a "list" form ... the problem you see caused with AH 1.26 being from an early layer is easily resolved by acknowledging this passage in Irenaeus is much later interpolation)
Although not much mentioned, there are other large "lacunae" worth noting:
1 Corinthians 7:12-24 (later additions), possibly more of chapter 7
1 Corinthians 8:7-9:6
1 Corinthians chapter 16 (maybe starts at 15:58), except part of verse 16:23 (*)
2 Corinthians 5:18-11:1 (excepting a fragment from verse 7:1)
2 Corinthians 11:16-12:6, 12:10-21
2 Corinthians 13:3-9, 11-12 (*)
Philippians 4:1-22 (*)
Ephesians/Laodiceans 3:13-4:4 , also 4:9-24
Colossians 3:11-4:17 (*)
Note: (*) all the salutations are missing in the Marcionite versions. I am of the opinion these were regarded by the earliest Pauline writers as part of a system of rank and privilege they rejected (e.g., Galatians 2:6, Luke 10:4, 11:43, 20:46) and associated with their opponents (whom they likened to Jews ... called the Judaizers, et al, as Stephen HUller points out). It is of note also that lack of acceptance of bishops and elders is a major complaint of the Church Fathers (reflected in Hebrews 13:17 directly, and calling for obedience of the gentiles in Roman 1:5, 15:18, and several calling for obedience in general)
Colossians mention of Mark and Luke in DA 1:5 is by the Catholic champion Adamantius, quoting from the Catholic text. The sequence of responses by the debaters seems to have been altered. Megethius' response to this "proof" by Adamantius was almost certainly "I do not except your spurious Apostolikon", which was placed before Admantius' claim by the Dialogue's author to give the Catholic the final word. (DA's author only worked from prior works and the Catholic text he knew.)
********************
Stephen, kudos for this thread. You had a great intro and let others respond. I was surprised to see how much you have come to converge with my views on certain points. There are still some differences, as you still accept more of the legends associated with the Church Fathers supposed lives, and do not yet critically evaluate the seams and inconsistencies in their writings (e.g., AH 1.22-31 being an abrupt change in style and type of argument, becoming a "list" form ... the problem you see caused with AH 1.26 being from an early layer is easily resolved by acknowledging this passage in Irenaeus is much later interpolation)