What is the Evidence for 'Jewish Christianity' Beyond Literary References?

[Secret Alias]

Getting back to the main point- the author doesn't seem to know how the Marcionites interpreted the material. It's all "ifs" and hypotheticals

[Secret Alias]

The point of course is that people feel quite comfortable with the Church Fathers description of the heresies. In former ages, that might have been attributable to 'respect' for their authority and perhaps the assumption that they partook in 'the Holy Spirit.' In modern times, I think the logic is more desperate - if we don't accept many of the basic proposals of writers like Irenaeus we simply have no other or little other evidence to make sense of the early Church.

I have long doubted the description of the Marcionites in Tertullian. I've noted that Tertullian never says that Galatians is the first gospel of the Marcionites. Epiphanius does but Epiphanius says Matthew was the gospel of the Cerinthians for what I see as the same reason - a deliberately bad reading of original source material.

If we accept the idea - at least in theory - that Church Fathers deliberately misread source material and weren't as informed as most people assume they were, we come to an interesting possibility with regards to the Marcionite interpretation of Galatians - there is really no evidence the Marcionites had chapter 2 of Galatians (or at least the long section where Paul battles 'Jewish Christians'). Indeed Origen's Commentary on Galatians which develops an anti-Marcionite exegetic theme does not mention the Marcionite reading of this section either (it goes from chapter 1 to chapter 3).

Why is this significant? Against Marcion Book 5 begins with a question about the person of the apostle Paul. The Marcionites were apparently evasive about giving autobiographical information about the man. This leads to a discussion of Galatians chapter 2. As we just mentioned in a previous post, Against Marcion goes on to say that:

1. Galatians chapter 2 and Acts 'agree' and that
2. this is why the Marcionites reject 'them'

While it is true that Acts is always mentioned in the plural in Tertullian I am not sure I follow Tertullian's logic. If the Marcionites shielded Paul's identity but maintained Galatians chapter 2 it would be apparent that - at least according to the author's canon - Paul declared that he submitted to the authorities in Jerusalem for the sake of the gospel that day.

He doesn't say 'my copy of Galatians' says that Paul submitted. He doesn't say that the Marcionite copy says he submitted. He doesn't say that there is any contradiction between what his Galatians and Marcion's Galatians say about the incident. The author is clearly arguing from his own canon assuming that not only what this text of Galatians happened in history but moreover that he has no idea what the Marcionite text of Galatians says to contradict it. In short - he doesn't have the Marcionite text of Galatians or the Marcionite canon for that matter.

Why does this matter? Because clearly most texts of Galatians say that Paul didn't submit to the authorities in Jerusalem. This 'variant' (from the author's perspective) must have been widespread. Yet no mention is made of a dissenting reading. The author is arguing from his own canon not from the Marcionite canon which is why Galatians is placed first without mention of the Marcionite ordering. While the author says that the Marcionites 'might' have gotten the idea of a struggle against Judaizers from the description of Galatians chapter 2, he uses 'ifs' and 'maybes' throughout the section. He has no idea what the Marcionites believe or why they believe it passage by passage. He only deals in generalities or occasion a cliche that he's heard the Marcionites bandy around in debates.

In short, the author has (a) heard the Marcionites say Paul argued that Judaism and Christianity were incompatible owing to a difference in gods and (b) argues from his canon that they Marcionites are in error only occasionally mentioning Marcionite variants. While this doesn't seem like a particularly instructive methodology it would be an effective rhetorical device - akin to things said at a Trump rally.

The reason I bring it up is that the situation which Galatians 2 raises - namely of two sects of Christianity 'fighting it out' between themselves is infinitely preferable for the Church than what I believe was the original context for Paul's statement against 'Judaism' - namely an assault against Jews. Why would the Church leadership worry about this? Because clearly two sects arguing about doctrinal matters within one school is a different situation than 'Jews' rebelling against their authorities in order to establish a 'novelty' religion. The argument the Church Fathers were careful to formulate was that Jesus was the god of the Jews. As such the Jews were in essence a heresy of His religion! This strange argument avoids the appearance of civil uprisings and rebellion which the Romans were careful to control.

When Paul says at the beginning of Galatians 'my gospel is the only one don't even believe an angel from heaven if he tells you otherwise' implies that Paul was something of a madman. He proceeds in the latter portions of chapter 2 (which I believe were authentic) to reject the Jewish religion and in chapter 3 imply that his religion - the religion which came to his imagination - was superior to it. This is why I spent a few posts analyzing the argument that the author of Against Marcion makes regarding Acts as the instrument which fulfilled Paul's declaration in chapter 3 of Galatians regarding the 'promise of the Holy Spirit.' The sense seems to be when you take struggle against 'Jewish Christians' in chapter 2 that Paul's written gospel is the 'promise of the Holy Spirit' at least according to the Marcionites. This is the real context of the letter to the Galatians. That's why Paul begins his discussion about his followers needing to deny the seduction of angels when it comes to the gospel.

[davidmartin]

One can argue that Paul is laying down a law, a new law of his gospel but laid over existing foundations. the Judaisers would then seem to be a foil of sorts to make it seem that the Christians already had a law based attitude.

[Secret Alias]

But did the Marcionites have most of chapter 2 of Galatians?

[Secret Alias]

Just to understand what is at stake here and the controversies which existed in antiquity. Jerome says the following

That impious man Porphyry from Batanea did not comprehend any of this (i.e. the 'correct' interpretation of Galatians). In the first book of his treatise against us [Christians], he alleged that Peter had been rebuked by Paul because he did not walk uprightly as he spread the Gospel. His intention was to charge Peter with error and Paul with impudence and to implicate the entire community [of Christians] in the lie of fabricated teaching on the grounds that the leaders of the churches disagreed amongst themselves. [Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, Introduction]

[davidmartin]

interesting he says 'churches' plural. I think there were multiple 'churches' with varying opinions, and really that's the best explanation for the differences in the gospels

[Secret Alias]

Jerome acknowledges Galatians 1:8"

'accursed' is a word used originally by the Jews. It is found in the Book of Joshua and in Numbers, when the Lord ordered everyone to despise everything in Jericho or connected with the Midianites and regard them as accursed.93 Some suppose that Christ and the Apostle Paul were incapable of condemning or cursing anyone since they were the Son and the servant of the good but previously unknown God.

Kirby mentions Gal 2:7-8 as not being present in Marcion's canon:

These verses are unattested as being in Marcion. There is some level of expectation that Tertullian would have quoted it against Marcion to show the harmony of Paul with Peter as apostles. Some or all of these verses are considered an interpolation on other grounds by C. P. Coffin (“Peter or Cephas in Pauline Usage“), Ernst Barnikol (“The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul“), William O Walker Jr. (“Galatians 2:8 and the Question of Paul’s Apostleship“ https://www.jstor.org/stable/43725070?s ... b_contents), J. C. O’Neil (The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, p. 37), and Hermann Detering (The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 33).

I think it's the whole section that's invented. Barnikol provides the following evidence https://depts.drew.edu/jhc/barnikol.html McAdon provides an updated reference of scholarship which supports the non-Pauline origin of the passage https://books.google.com/books?id=23xJD ... on&f=false

[Secret Alias]

The consensus seems to be that this much is falsified:

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

But I say why stop there. The reference to the pillars is also spurious:

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in[d] Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified. 17 “But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ, we Jews find ourselves also among the sinners, doesn’t that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.

And then it's hard not to suspect the whole working together with the other camp is spurious. And the reference to 'Cephas' and so on. I don't know where the authentic material lies.