Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Aleph One
Posts: 73
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by Aleph One » Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:38 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:44 pm
Old archived post by me on Clabeaux
Hey! Thanks for digging this up. :cheers:

rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by rgprice » Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:13 am

Stuart wrote:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:11 pm
To the OP:

I think the best way to look at the Marcionite Pauline collection is as an earlier version of the canonical collection, frozen at a random point in development.

The Marcionite collection is not the product of a single author nor are the letters complete compositions. Rather they are fragments pulled together by a few different editors, and then placed in collections, possibly of three --or even a couple sub collections--, then seven and finally ten letter form. Opening addresses and short closing doxologies were added when placed in the collection.

In short the Pauline collection is a bunch of snowball compositions, formed into letters and expanded over time. The Marcionite collection, as stated above, halted the process at an earlier point than the canonical. The canonical received it's own editorial layer to conform better with proto-orthodox teachings on top, plus some adjusted or new openings and closings. But even so continued to snowball (e.g., chapter 16 of Romans and chapter 16 of 1 Corinthians).

What this tells me is that the Marcionites had the identical collection as the main movement, but at some point they broke away, and by doing so halted the editorial process. (Church legend puts that rupture in around 145 CE, give or take a couple years ... this does not appear to be disputed by the Marcionites from what can be gleaned from the anti-Marcionite Patristic writings. FWIW.)

The other somewhat plausible explanation is that the proto-orthodox brought in the Marcionite book collection by absorbing a similar gnostic or splinter Marcionite group such as that of Apelles, whom legend has allied with the proto-orthodox, despite their incompatible theolgies. Politics first. If this is the scenario, then the Marcionite collection was brought in by this group along with the Marcionite gospel (which was revised into Luke), as was possibly an early form of John and 1 John. That is speculative. But something like that must have happened if the Marcionites were outside the church.

I do not think so, as the Marcionite churches were structured nearly identically to the Catholic churches, with Bishops and Deacons and so on; same names for positions, same structure. It strikes me as highly unlikely the form would be so identical if they were a separate organization from the start, as their would have been some differences in position names and organizational structure (no two companies are identical in their rank names). So it follows that the Pauline collection we have is from the exact same stream as the Marcionite, but with a longer period of material accumulation and an additional editorial layer to bring into Catholic form.

But neither collection is truly Marcionite, rather a composite of various sectarian and common teachings.
What I'm currently thinking is something like this:

This view is based on David Trobisch's case arguing that the first edition of what is now the orthodox New Testament was created in second half of the second century, most likely by a single individual or small group of people.

I think the "orthodox New Testament" is essentially a work created by a single individual in response to Marcion's New Testament. However that person was not necessarily "orthodox" in the later Catholic sense. That first edition of the New Testament was produced by pulling together some recently produced anti-Marcionite works, including the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John, along with the Gospel of Mark, which was viewed as a pre-Marcionite Gospel.

Luke/Acts was likely one of the most recently written works. John was an anti-Marcionite Gospel but from some other semi-Gnostic sect, its not really an orthodox work itself, and may also contend that Jesus was unborn. But John at least stated that Jesus was flesh, so it got in.

The compiler of the first edition of the NT likely wrote 2 Peter himself. I see 2 Peter as the capstone of the anthology as it draws upon almost every work in the NT, including Revelation.

The compiler of the NT may also have written the Pastorals. Regardless, the Pastorals were written after Acts, maybe by the same writer as Acts.

The letters of James and Jude, I'm not sure where he found those, but I still think they are authentically pre-First Jewish-Roman War, even if they are forgeries, which they may not be. It's also possible that James is authentic, but Jude is a later forgery built on James, although its still odd as a forgery. Honestly, James and Jude are very hard to really understand in terms who, what, when and why they would have been written. I have a hard time thinking they are late forgeries.

The letters of John are all late forgeries, written after the Gospel of John, emulating that work.

The question is, what about the rest of the Pauline letters. Did the compiler of the NT find a collection with these differences in it, or did he make it himself? Regardless, I think the compiler of the NT is the one who added the Pastorals to the orthodox collection. The orthodox collection comes directly from the first edition of the NT. It existed nowhere outside of the first edition of the NT prior to that.

I find it very suspicious that the letter with the biggest differences between Marcion and the orthodox NT was put in the front of the collection. Maybe that's coincidence, but it seems like its intentional. I understand Trobisch's claim about the first four and then re-ordering, but I still think that the compiler of the first edition of the NT re-ordered Marcion's collection as opposed to following an existing pre-Marcionite order. I realize that supporting this require coming up with an explanation for why such an editor would have left the same four works in the front of the collection. I also think there are good reasons to conclude that Romans 15 or at least its final closing, is a later orthodox revision.
18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and as far around as Illyricum I have fully proclaimed the good news of Christ. 20 Thus I make it my ambition to proclaim the good news, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on someone else’s foundation, 21 but as it is written, “Those who have never been told of him shall see, and those who have never heard of him shall understand.”

22 This is the reason that I have so often been hindered from coming to you. 23 But now, with no further place for me in these regions, I desire, as I have for many years, to come to you 24 when I go to Spain. For I do hope to see you on my journey and to be sent on by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little while.
This to me reads like a second century statement meant to frame Paul's legacy in relation to Roman Christianity. Its like its meant to establish Rome's independence from Paul and also to establish Paul's legacy outside of Rome. Did Paul really say that won obedience from all the Gentiles from Jerusalem to western Greece through, "the power of signs and wonders"? Sounds very strange. But the problem for Trobisch is that without Romans 15 many parts of his theory on the Pauline letter collection falls apart.

Moving on, the compiler of the first edition of the NT then edited and revised many of the works, extending the endings of Mark and John. The ending of John was written when it was put into the NT collection, as the ending is intended to be a final word on the four Gospel set.

I do think that Luke/Acts was written with the intention of those works being stand alone. I agree with John Knox that Luke/Acts follows the pattern of Marcion's Gospel/Apostle format. I also agree with Tyson that canonical Luke is likely a Marcionite Gospel, with an anti-Marcionite beginning and ending stuck on it by the writer of Acts, with only some minor revisions to the main body. This explains the massive split between the very pro-family beginning and the anti-family body. The anti-family body is Marcionite distancing of Jesus from the idea that he had a biological family. Someone just slapped an anti-Marcionite introduction onto the story, which is kind of hilarious.

So yeah, I see the "orthodox" Pauline letters as all descending from the first edition of the NT itself, with that collection having been built upon Marcion's. Whether it was the editor of the first edition of the NT who also edited the letters and is responsible for their differences with Marcion's I'm not sure, but I don't think there was a ever a circulating edition of the orthodox Pauline letters alone.

As for Barnabas and the Shephard, I'm not sure if those were part of the original or they were added on later by Roman Christians.

The reality is that we find the same problem with the orthodox NT that we find with Marcion's NT, which is that the orthodox NT doesn't fully fit the theology of orthodoxy, in just the same way that Marcion's NT didn't fully conform to his theology. Just as scholars have argued that Marcion didn't make his own canon and didn't heavily revise other works to conform to his beliefs, so too with the "orthodox" NT. I think the "orthodox" NT was made by one person or a small group of people in the second century, who did not necessarily conform to what became Roman orthodoxy. The Roman Catholics eventually adopted the whole thing, because it had already become established in tradition, even though parts of it aren't exactly what Catholics themselves would have chosen.

Clearly the NT wasn't compiled in the 4th century, as it would have looked a lot different I believe if they had.

The Roman proto-Catholics ended up accepting Paul because Paul was in the NT, they didn't accept Paul and then decide to put him into the NT. Paul's presence in the NT is what forced them to accept him. I think that if there was not a first edition of the NT in the second century, there is no way that the Roman orthodoxy would have even accommodated him. They would have just thrown Paul out altogether, but they couldn't because whoever made the NT had put him in. So what we see starting with Irenaeus, the first person to comment on the NT, are really efforts to rationalize theology AROUND what was in the anti-Marcionite NT. They were conforming their view around the works they found in the collection. Irenaeus justifies four Gospels, not because they had a bunch of individual Gospels in hand and decided that of those 10 or 15 or 20 Gospels, 4 was the right number, but because they had an anti-Marcionite anthology in hand that had 4 Gospels in it, so they justified why 4 was the right number to have.

Some individual chose 4 Gospels. We don't know why. Irenaeus was given an anthology with 4 Gospels that seemed to suit the purpose of opposing Marcion, so he rationalized why it was good.

And as Trobisch points out, the first edition of the NT was likely produced in a four volume set, with the four Gospels in one set, Acts and the non-Pauline epistles in another set, the letters of Paul in its own set, and Revelation by itself. Thus, the first edition of the NT wasn't a single "book", it was four separate books, which were nevertheless all cohesively edited by the same individual. And as BeDuhn points out, the construction of "books" was an innovation of the NT that almost certainly came from Marcion, who may have been the first person to construct a literary book. This is because the first use of books was for ship's ledgers, and Marcion was a ship master.

hakeem
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by hakeem » Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:30 am

rgprice wrote:......And as Trobisch points out, the first edition of the NT was likely produced in a four volume set, with the four Gospels in one set, Acts and the non-Pauline epistles in another set, the letters of Paul in its own set, and Revelation by itself. Thus, the first edition of the NT wasn't a single "book", it was four separate books, which were nevertheless all cohesively edited by the same individual. And as BeDuhn points out, the construction of "books" was an innovation of the NT that almost certainly came from Marcion, who may have been the first person to construct a literary book. This is because the first use of books was for ship's ledgers, and Marcion was a ship master.
Based on the writings of Justin Martyr, a contemporary of Marcion, there was no NT edition produced by Marcion at all. Marcion teachings were directly opposed to the Jesus stories [the Memoirs of the Apostles]. Up to at least c 178 CE, Christian writers had no knowledge of Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Philippians, Ephesians and Colossians.

There was no orthodoxy at all in Christian writings or teachings up to at least c 175 CE as confirmed in Irenaeus' Against Heresies". It was supposedly argued by Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified when he was about fifty years old which is a perfect example of non-orthodoxy.

In addition, the very claim that Jesus was crucified when he was an old man shows that the supposed Irenaeus could not have known of gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3757
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:24 am

"Mark" writing his gospel soon after the events of 70 in Judea, knew about the Pauline epistles. Consequently, Paul's letters were not derived from Marcion (130-140).
http://historical-jesus.info/66.html Did "Mark" know about Paul's epistles?

Also, as more and more accepted by scholars, some original letters by Paul got combined into one. The result of these combinations is 1 Corinthians (3 into 1), 2 Corinthians (3 into 1) and Philippians (3 or more into 1).
"... 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

For more details, consult http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html under: 3. The Corinthians letters

Marcion worked on the combinations, not on the original epistles, which means he was not the creator of these epistles (allegedly added on later by orthodox Christians).

Cordially, Bernard

hakeem
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by hakeem » Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:30 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:24 am
"Mark" writing his gospel soon after the events of 70 in Judea, knew about the Pauline epistles. Consequently, Paul's letters were not derived from Marcion (130-140).
http://historical-jesus.info/66.html Did "Mark" know about Paul's epistles?

Also, as more and more accepted by scholars, some original letters by Paul got combined into one. The result of these combinations is 1 Corinthians (3 into 1), 2 Corinthians (3 into 1) and Philippians (3 or more into 1).
The author of the short gMark did not know about the Pauline Jesus story at all. The Markan Jesus preached his Gospel while he was alive and did not require his death or resurrection for salvation. The Pauline Gospel requires the death and resurrection of his Jesus for salvation of mankind.

The apostle Peter in gMark was a fisherman who lived in Galilee but the apostle Peter in the Epistles lived in Jerusalem.

In gMark, there is no Church or christian cult in existence--there are no pillars of any Christian community --in the Epistles the writer needed permission or sanction from the supposed pillars of the Church to preach the Gospel.

The Markan Jesus did not even publicly declare he was the Christ until hours before he was dead---the Pauline writer declared his Jesus was the Christ because he resurrected.

The short gMark has nothing at all to do with a new religion or dispensation--the Markan Jesus asked people to carry out sacrifices as required by the Law.
Bernard Mueller wrote: Marcion worked on the combinations, not on the original epistles, which means he was not the creator of these epistles (allegedly added on later by orthodox Christians).
Marcion did no work on the Epistles. They did not exist yet. Marcion and the Marcionites used to laugh at those who believed the stories of Jesus found in the "Memoirs of the Apostles".

Justin's "First Apology"
the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say, but are carried away irrationally as lambs by a wolf, and become the prey of atheistical doctrines, and of devils. For they who are called devils attempt nothing else than to seduce men from God who made them, and from Christ His first-begotten


User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:10 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:24 am
"Mark" writing his gospel soon after the events of 70 in Judea
Unproven and seemingly not provable with current information

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3757
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:36 pm

to MrMacSon,
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:24 am
"Mark" writing his gospel soon after the events of 70 in Judea
Unproven and not provable with current information
WHY?

Current internal information are the mini apocalypse (http://historical-jesus.info/41.html).

External information for a 1st century writing:

Revelation (written during the end of Domitian's reign who was killed in 96) <-- gMatthew <-- gMark http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html then "find": with knowledge of GMatthew

gJohn (completed around 100-110) <-- Luke <-- gMark http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html then "find" on: 2. Preview

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by mlinssen » Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:47 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:36 pm
to MrMacSon,
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:24 am
"Mark" writing his gospel soon after the events of 70 in Judea
Unproven and not provable with current information
WHY?

Current internal information are the mini apocalypse (http://historical-jesus.info/41.html).

External information for a 1st century writing:

Revelation (written during the end of Domitian's reign who was killed in 96) <-- gMatthew <-- gMark http://historical-jesus.info/rjohn.html then "find": with knowledge of GMatthew

gJohn (completed around 100-110) <-- Luke <-- gMark http://historical-jesus.info/jnintro.html then "find" on: 2. Preview

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard,

you use the obvious material and draw the commonplace Christian conclusions.
From your site, emphasis mine:

Parable of the fig tree:
Mk 13:28-29 "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near; at the door!"
The parable suggests that, soon after the disasters of 70, no more than weeks or months later, Christians should expect the arrival of the Kingdom.

And you commit the same mistakes. You walk the road of reason, putting one piece of evidence behind another, rinse and repeat, and then suddenly you stop all that and just throw in an opinion that you utterly fail to sustain with arguments - and continue your story as if nothing happened

There is much worse that that, to be honest. I sometimes berate academics on writing a fine piece of thought and coming up with an entirely different conclusion where new facts are presented that weren't even named prior...

Come to the point please. Everyone agrees that most of not all the gospels were written after 70 CE, you just claim that to be immediately after.
So focus on that immediacy. Demonstrate that it is plausible that Mark got written months after 70 CE, which is what you claim

Because you don't. You claim it, but you don't demonstrate it

Also, if written later than 71, the author would have avoided saying "the day of the Lord" will come soon after Jerusalem destruction (which is what "Matthew" and "Luke" did!).

And you do exactly the same here. A centrepiece in your conclusion concerns a new fact, not mentioned previously, which has no reference at all to anything

Learn to properly build a case please. Start with a thesis, the very root. Then point to its branches so the big picture is complete. Then go by every one of them, build a case, provide arguments and references

And then summarise - and in the Conclusion you may only refer to statements previously made and elaborated on, you may NOT introduce new material and fumble it in there as if it were such

And if you're really a master of reason and organisation, in your conclusion you point to headings / page numbers for every single element in it

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3757
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:40 am

to mlinssen,
Come to the point please. Everyone agrees that most of [I assume you mean "if'] not all the gospels were written after 70 CE, you just claim that to be immediately after.
I did not say most if not all the gospels were written immediately after 70 CE. Only for gMark, not the other ones.

I came to the point, but you isolate one item and don't mention many others which indicates "Mark" wanted his audience to think the Kingdom will come very soon after the events of 70.
Read again http://historical-jesus.info/41.html
So focus on that immediacy. Demonstrate that it is plausible that Mark got written months after 70 CE, which is what you claim
This is what I did. But more than plausible: very likely.
And if you're really a master of reason and organisation,
Certainly, I won't claim I am a master of organisation.

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply