That debate is old and tired --- and prominent modern-day proponents of Radical Criticism have gained little, if any, ground. The debate is not anywhere close to an even match.maryhelena wrote: The debate is over which came first - the Marcionite or the Pauline. When that debate is settled then one can begin to debate who wrote what.....
For more than a century --- from Bruno Bauer, from the Dutch Radicals, to the modern-day proponents like Hermann Deterring and Robert M. Price --- Radical Criticism has failed to gain significant traction.
Why? IMO, the preponderance of the evidence is against them.
Dr Detering writes,
But Detering admits ---“Because of the factors already mentioned I am of the opinion that accepting a "Marcionite School" as the cradle of the "Pauline Epistles" is preferable to accepting a Pauline one.”
Dr. Robert M. Price sees the Pauline epistles as fragments from Simon Magus, Marcion, Valentinian Gnostics, and Catholics. **“An enormous scholarly job awaits us …”
Price asks in a “forthright attempt to hark back to that golden era” of Higher Criticism ---
Price lays the blame, at least in part, on the current dominance of a conservative establishment ---“Why has the Higher Criticism gradually slipped from its place of dominance to the point where it is either a toothless tiger or worse yet, covert apologetics wearing the Esau-mask of criticism?”
I can’t argue with Price on that in relation to the larger picture. But in regards to Pauline authorship, considering decades of critical scholarship, the preponderance of the evidence just does not support Marcionite priority."The sheer volume of conservative biblical students and scholars reflects the demographic triumph of the conservative denominations and their seminaries."
** Robert M. Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle – The Search for the Historical Paul, 2012, p. 534