Taking seriously Marcionite origins of the Pauline letters

[rgprice]

Very interesting. The fragment seems to suggest the possibility that Marcion had possession of a collection that he then passed on to someone else. That does of course open the door for the claim that Marcion modified the collection and that his opponents had possession of the same collection. It is at least a plausible explanation for how Marcion's opponents had possession of essentially the same collection as Marcion.

I still think it more likely that Marcion's version of the letters is original or more original and that the orthodox collection contains anti-Marcionite interpolations, but this is certainly an interesting wrinkle.

[Giuseppe]

I don't think he made up the name "Paul." It's too arbitrary to be symbolic (sorry Giuseppe). There probably was a Paul known to Marcion, but of course we can know nothing about him.

Why?
It is too much generic (any citizen of the Empire could be called 'Little one') but also too much specific and symbolic (cfr the "Parable of the seed", "the least in the kingdom is greater than John", "Let the little children come to me" etc).

My opinion at the moment (but it has to be tested on Van Manen's writings, once mlinssen will translate them), is that Marcion collected previous material from only anti-demiurgist and/or gentilizing communities and put them under the name of "Paul" to remark their gentile origin (since 'the little ones' are only the gentiles and the "Little One" could only be their icon).

The onus probandi is on the shoulders of others, to prove that the 'historical Paul' existed under a different name. Find this different name, and you will prove his historicity.

[Giuseppe]

Obviously, if a "Little one" has to be there by a mere choice of Marcion, it was in reaction and polemic against the so-called "great ones" assumed to be already there: Judaizers.

[GakuseiDon]

It's worth keeping in mind Tertullian's description about how Marcion came to his views: Against Marcion, Book 1, Chapter 1-2:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... an121.html

For the cynic Diogenes used to go about, lantern in hand, at mid-day to find a man; whereas Marcion has quenched the light of his faith, and so lost the God whom he had found. His disciples will not deny that his first faith he held along with ourselves; a letter of his own proves this; so that for the future a heretic may from his case be designated as one who, forsaking that which was prior, afterwards chose out for himself that which was not in times past. For in as far as what was delivered in times past and from the beginning will be held as truth, in so far will that be accounted heresy which is brought in later. But another brief treatise will maintain this position against heretics, who ought to be refuted even without a consideration of their doctrines, on the ground that they are heretical by reason of the novelty of their opinions. Now, so far as any controversy is to be admitted, I will for the time (lest our compendious principle of novelty, being called in on all occasions to our aid, should be imputed to want of confidence) begin with setting forth our adversary's rule of belief, that it may escape no one what our main contention is to be.

Chapter 2

The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like the twin Symplegades of his own shipwreck: One whom it was impossible to deny, i.e. our Creator; and one whom he will never be able to prove, i.e. his own god. The unhappy man gained the first idea of his conceit from the simple passage of our Lord's saying, which has reference to human beings and not divine ones, wherein He disposes of those examples of a good tree and a corrupt one; how that "the good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither the corrupt tree good fruit." Which means, that an honest mind and good faith cannot produce evil deeds, any more than an evil disposition can produce good deeds. Now (like many other persons now-a-days, especially those who have an heretical proclivity), while morbidly brooding over the question of the origin of evil, his perception became blunted by the very irregularity of his researches; and when he found the Creator declaring, "I am He that createth evil," inasmuch as he had already concluded from other arguments, which are satisfactory to every perverted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil, and then presumed that there ought to be another god, after the analogy of the good tree producing its good fruit. Accordingly, finding in Christ a different disposition, as it were--one of a simple and pure benevolence--differing from the Creator, he readily argued that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange divinity; and then with a little leaven he leavened the whole lump of the faith, flavouring it with the acidity of his own heresy.

"His disciples will not deny that his first faith he held along with ourselves; a letter of his own proves this'. This suggests that Marcion did indeed start out with views that were consistent with proto-orthodoxy, and only later developed his docetic views. "I am He that createth evil" gets quoted a lot by atheists nowadays, so it is plausible that Marcion had problems with that statement and so came to his own readings of Christian texts.

There is also the question of Cerdo/Cerdon, whom Tertullian and others mention a few times as either the co-heretic of Marcion or even Marcion's source. So Marcion may have been part of a school of thought.

[robert j]

Why are the Valentinians all too often left out of these discussions? They apparently used Paul extensively. Pagels wrote a book about it.

Irenaeus discussed the use of Paul by the Valentinians ---

Then, again, as to those things outside of their Pleroma, the following are some specimens of what they attempt to accommodate out of the Scriptures to their opinions. … that girl of twelve years old, the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, to whom the Lord approached and raised her from the dead, was a type of Achamoth … And that the Saviour appeared to her when she lay outside of the Pleroma as a kind of abortion (ἐκτρώματος), they affirm Paul to have declared in his Epistle to the Corinthians [in these words], "And last of all, as the ektroma (τῷ ἐκτρώματι) , he was seen by me also." Again, the coming of the Saviour with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says … (Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 1, chapt. 8.2)

Tertullian claimed the Valentinians were the most common heretics and apostates ---

The Valentinians, as everyone knows, are the most commonly encountered sect of heretics, most common because they are mostly apostates from the true religion, quite willing to invent myths (fabulas) ... Against the Valentinians, chapter 1

Clement of Alexandria provided a direct connection between Paul and Valentinus ---

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book 7, chapt. 17.)

[GakuseiDon]

Why are the Valentinians all too often left cut of these discussions? They apparently used Paul extensively.

Valentinus apparently was active in the first half of the Second Century CE, a charismatic leader initially within proto-orthodoxy but broke away when he developed his own views about the Old Testament god being the Demiurge; wrote his own Gospel (The Gospel of Truth); believed that Christ was active on earth and spoke to the apostles, performing miracles and teachings; that Paul's letters were consistent with that Christ.

Very different to Marcion!

[rgprice]

The question here is the origin of the Pauline letters and what that implies about the congregations those letters were sent to. Valentinus is of course important for understanding 2nd century gnosticism and reactions against it, but it was Marcion who first made known the Pauline letter collection, so that's where the focus is.

But based on what has been said here, it doesn't necessarily indicate that the assemblies to which the letters were sent were Marcionite. It sounds like its possible that they were not Marcionite (not necessarily that they were orthodox either). Of course this is all based on later hearsay and who knows what truth is int, but at least there is a plausible explanation for how Marcion could have come to int possession of the collection that doesn't require teh assembles themselves were Marcionite.

[GakuseiDon]

You'll need to factor in the date 1 Clement was written. Dr Carrier has the 60s, the mainstream position has the 90s. The author of 1 Clement:

1. talks about Paul's letter to the Corinthian
2. calls Paul one of the "most recent spiritual heroes"
3. uses passages from the Old Testament with regards to Christ liberally, obviously considering it as authoritative and that Christ was sent by the OT God.

It suggests that the earliest Roman and Corinthian assemblies are not Marcionite, nor that Paul was considered Marcionite.

[schillingklaus]

Any first century dating of 1 Clement is apologistic drivel, as already seen by van den Bergh van Eysinga.

[MrMacSon]

The Pauline letters are all written to places that would be fairly easy access by land or sea (via the Bosphorus Strait) from Sinope, Pontus, in the middle of the southern coast of the Black Sea, where Marcion is said to be from (purple line-mark in the map below)

• the geographic name, Pontus, is derived from the Greek name of the Black Sea: Εύξεινος Πόντος | Eúxinos Póntos, "Hospitable Sea"

Galatians: Galatia, a province in central Asia Minor, SSW of Sinope (largish orange X on the map below)
Philemon: said to be to Christians, including Philemon, who ran a house church in Colossae, Phyrigia, central Asia Minor, SSW of or in Galatia: Philemon is listed as a bishop of Colosae in The Apostolic Constitutions (the Catholic Encylopedia is doubtful)
Philippians: Philippi, coastal north-eastern Greece
1 Thessalonians: Thesslonika, coastal north-eastern Greece (near Philippi)
Corinthians (1 and 2): Corinth, southern Greece, due west of Athens
Romans: Rome (?), furtherest away in Italy

Even the other three non-Pastoral, so-called Deutero-Pauline letters are hardly geographically different:

2 Thessalonians: same as 1 Thessalonians, of course
Colossians: Colossae, same as Philemon
Ephesians: Ephesus, coastal western Asia Minor: across the Agean Sea from Athens (almost the same latitude)

RecipientsPaulineLetters.png (1.61 MiB) Viewed 394 times

eta
Galatia likely included Colossae (and would have bordered or perhaps even overlapped the province of Pontus)
(screenshot of a map from the Wikipedia page for Galatia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia_(Roman_province)

Galatia_125_AD.png (336.46 KiB) Viewed 381 times