L'Eglise peut avoir parfaitement raison de dire que leur hérésie se prévalait de l'Épître aux Hébreux; mais il n'est nullement prouvé de là que les Melchisédéciens n'auraient pas existé sans l'appui de cette Épître. Cette secte, en effet, avait pu exister, sans être une secte dissidente du christianisme, ou bien parce qu'elle n'avait encore aucun rapport avec lui et qu'elle ne s'en rapprocha que grâce à l'Épître aux Hébreux, ou bien, ce qui est plus probable, parce que, appartenant tout d'abord au parti du gnosticisme paulinien, elle ne devint hérétique que lorsqu'elle abandonna les doctrines du paulinisme au moment où il cessa de pousser en avant et se rapprocha du pétrinisme pour s'allier avec lui. L'Épître aux Hébreux marquerait ainsi la frontière où le melchisédécisme se sépare du paulinisme et devient hérétique.
My trans:
The Church may be perfectly right saying their {viz. Melchizedeks'} heresy predominated in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but it is by no means proven there that Melchizedekians would not have existed without support of this Epistle. In effect, this sect had been able to exist without being a dissident sect of Christianity, or else because it still had no connection and that it had only approached Christianity through Epistle to the Hebrews. Or else – which is more probable – because, belonging first of all to the party of Pauline Gnosticism, the sect only became heretical when it abandoned the doctrines of Paulism at the moment when it ceased to advance progressively and approached Petrinism, to ally with it. Epistle to the Hebrews would thus mark the border where Melchizedekism separates from Paulism and becomes heretical.
My trans:
The Church may be perfectly right saying their {viz. Melchizedeks'} heresy predominated in the Epistle to the Hebrews; but it is by no means proven there that Melchizedekians would not have existed without support of this Epistle. In effect, this sect had been able to exist without being a dissident sect of Christianity, or else because it still had no connection and that it had only approached Christianity through Epistle to the Hebrews. Or else – which is more probable – because, belonging first of all to the party of Pauline Gnosticism, the sect only became heretical when it abandoned the doctrines of Paulism at the moment when it ceased to advance progressively and approached Petrinism, to ally with it. Epistle to the Hebrews would thus mark the border where Melchizedekism separates from Paulism and becomes heretical.
Implicitly here, Paulism ceased to push forward and - instead - returns to, or draws near again to Petrinism ... or is Melchizedekism abandoning Paulism to become Petrist? (I'm abit lost in the clauses, uncertain what's meant.) Allied when, exactly? The word "Petrinism" doesn't even appear on this forum (until now), and Google is not my friend. While I might guess what is meant and when, is there a more exact source besides Baur auf deutsche? I'm an amateur so a simple explanation would suffice.
(I presume Hebrews was originally written c.60 AD: the implication being that Melchizedekians 'slip' and their rejection of Paulism occurs sometime before Hebrews was written, say c.57 AD?)
Petrinism :(Christianity)
The Tübingen theory of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and his school, of a doctrinal trend in primitive Christianity towards Judaism, ascribed to Peter and his party in opposition to Paulinism.
The Tübingen theory of F. C. Baur (1792-1860) and his school, of a doctrinal trend in primitive Christianity towards Judaism, ascribed to Peter and his party in opposition to Paulinism.