Is the Rejection of Jewish Origin for Xristianity = Laziness

[Secret Alias]

Stuart

I appreciate your familiarity with the subject matter. To be honest, I play a parlor game with myself trying to figure out who you are with no luck. The important thing however in these cases is to view the material critically.

The first point (and I will try to take these points one by one because it is more interesting than other conversations for me at least) is that Paul clearly says and was understood to say that 'Christ was in him.' This isn't a throwaway comment. We tend to view 'Christ' as 'someone' who is 'other than Paul.' We are preconditioned in fact to see 'Christ' as a title of Jesus. I am not sure the ancients did. In fact Irenaeus makes clear this was not so.

The physical man who was identified as Paul claimed to be Christ and Christ wrote the gospel. Hardly an argument against Paul being the actual author of the gospel. It is like Ezra claiming that he rewrote the Torah exactly word by word because 'Moses was in him.' Sure the believer accepted this nonsense but ...

Also an impasse is inevitable whenever anyone accepts Tertullian as the best source. The original material was written in Syriac by someone who used a Diatessaron-like gospel and then corrupted (many times) to reach us in its present form. I am not sure that 'Tertullian' or whoever wrote the final version of Against Marcion actually knew what a Marcionite was, what a Marcionite gospel looked like or ever got close to its canon. Against Marcion was corrupted many times over. Silly to give the text too much authority.

Also the identification of 'no author' on the gospel isn't much different than our surviving texts of 'according to Mark.' Yes a statement of authorship is splashed across the beginning of the text but it is hardly likely to have been original. The oldest texts of Mark were similarly anonymous. The situation seems to be behind Clement's statement in the Letter to Theodore - "one should not concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath."

Also the identification of Paul as Paraclete necessarily goes hand in hand with being an evangelist. 'remembering the words' of Jesus. The Acts of Archelaus couple the idea of Paul being a Paraclete with 'Christ being in him.' It all seems to go back to Paul being the evangelist.

This doesn't exhaust all the arguments in favor of the identification. The strongest in fact is coming up with another scenario that explains all the cryptic statements made by the Church Fathers about the authorship of the Pauline gospel. If not Paul, who then is the author of the gospel of the Marcionite community?

[MrMacSon]

... The original material was written in Syriac by someone who used a Diatessaron-like gospel and then corrupted (many times) to reach us in its present form.

"original material" of ... ?

I am not sure that 'Tertullian', or whoever wrote the final version of Against Marcion, actually knew what a Marcionite was, what a Marcionite gospel looked like or ever got close to its canon. Against Marcion was corrupted many times over ...

[Secret Alias]

The text of Against Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

The text of Against Marcion.

Cheers. So you think it is against a work other than Marcion's 'canon' (Euganglion/Apostilikon); maybe a more loose text?

• [Tatian, Valentinius, or Martyr related?]

[Stuart]

The first point (and I will try to take these points one by one because it is more interesting than other conversations for me at least) is that Paul clearly says and was understood to say that 'Christ was in him.' This isn't a throwaway comment. We tend to view 'Christ' as 'someone' who is 'other than Paul.' We are preconditioned in fact to see 'Christ' as a title of Jesus. I am not sure the ancients did. In fact Irenaeus makes clear this was not so.

No comment, beyond agreeing its an interesting topic.

The physical man who was identified as Paul claimed to be Christ and Christ wrote the gospel. Hardly an argument against Paul being the actual author of the gospel. It is like Ezra claiming that he rewrote the Torah exactly word by word because 'Moses was in him.' Sure the believer accepted this nonsense but ...

I am partial to theory that Paul is Marcion's alter ego as a fictional literary character. The emphasis is on being a literary character.

Also an impasse is inevitable whenever anyone accepts Tertullian as the best source. The original material was written in Syriac by someone who used a Diatessaron-like gospel and then corrupted (many times) to reach us in its present form. I am not sure that 'Tertullian' or whoever wrote the final version of Against Marcion actually knew what a Marcionite was, what a Marcionite gospel looked like or ever got close to its canon. Against Marcion was corrupted many times over. Silly to give the text too much authority.

This is a rather wild notion. Syriac speaker in Carthage among the Berbers. Not just a different base language but a different gospel than Harnack, Knox, Clabeaux, Detering, Klinghardt, and Vinzent all find.

Please rethink this. I hate to throw you in the category of defenders of an original Aramaic Matthew or Latin Mark.

Also the identification of 'no author' on the gospel isn't much different than our surviving texts of 'according to Mark.' Yes a statement of authorship is splashed across the beginning of the text but it is hardly likely to have been original. The oldest texts of Mark were similarly anonymous. The situation seems to be behind Clement's statement in the Letter to Theodore - "one should not concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath."

Also the identification of Paul as Paraclete necessarily goes hand in hand with being an evangelist. 'remembering the words' of Jesus. The Acts of Archelaus couple the idea of Paul being a Paraclete with 'Christ being in him.' It all seems to go back to Paul being the evangelist.

This doesn't exhaust all the arguments in favor of the identification. The strongest in fact is coming up with another scenario that explains all the cryptic statements made by the Church Fathers about the authorship of the Pauline gospel. If not Paul, who then is the author of the gospel of the Marcionite community?

Again I'm not terribly concerned with the specific identification of pen named characters. Myths like this are mostly for the authority they convey to the writings. Paul's stature would obviously be built up by Marcionites and other heretics to help their claims to authority - any manner of miracle and any number of texts would be attributed to him as athe unassailable source. And of course he'd be torn down by the Catholics who challenge his authority and offered others, especially Peter as an alternative.

Just for fun consider one is Simon Peter and the other reputedly Simon Magus ... could two Simon characters actually be two faces of one?

[Secret Alias]

Again I'm not terribly concerned with the specific identification of pen named characters.

But this isn't as helpful as you might think it is. It doesn't change the fact that 'Paul' is the most likely short-hand answer to who the Marcionites thought wrote the 'true' gospel. I don't believe in 'Paul' either. It wasn't originally a birth name. We all agree. But the man who penned the letters wrote the gospel according to the Marcionites. That much is true. This much is true. I know, this, much, is, true.