Taking seriously Marcionite origins of the Pauline letters

[lclapshaw]

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.

You really need to acknowledge that the dates assigned 1 Clement are pure speculation and therefore useless as any kind of yardstick. Carrier is just guessing, same as the others. Period.

[lclapshaw]

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


eta
Galatia likely included Colossae (and would have bordered or 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

I would just like to make two comments here.

1: The only Pauline letters we can really, for the most part, trust as being original to a Paulos are 1and 2 Corinthians and some of Romans.

2: As SA pointed out in a earlier thread, the Pontus being referred to in connection with Marcion could easily be the cult of Pontus and have nothing whatsoever to do with the area of north Asia Minor.

Just some food for thought.

Lane

[Giuseppe]

But again we get back to the fact that if Marcion was the first to make use of this collection, it is very likely the case that the assemblies to which these letters were addressed were in fact Marcionite or proto-Marcionite.

what do you do about the fact that, being "Paul" a name very apt for a icon of the gentilizers (totally beyond the question of the historicity of Paul, I am completely agnostic about it), in a such name it is implicit in nuce the idea that the Judaizers (=the "adult ones", in opposition to the little ones, i.e. gentiles) are polemically attacked, therefore meant be there as rival contemporaries (i.e. there is not a Paul without his enemies "from Jerusalem", hence both were addressed by these letters, and not only Marcionites or proto-Marcionites).

[rgprice]

The interesting thing about the statement that John knew Marcion and that John wrote in opposition to Marcion, is that the Gospel of John is quite plainly the most gnostic Gospel. It is harshly anti-Jewish. It calls Jews the children of the Father of Satan, and while the opening makes Jesus an agent of the Creation, he is nevertheless unborn. The canonical Gospel of John appears to be a revision of an earlier more gnostic Gospel, in which some gnostic elements weren't fully purged.

So it is curious that it is said that John disagreed with Marcion. We don't actually know what the nature of the disagreement was. Certainly the epistles of John indicate that Jesus was of the flesh, which they see as a point of dispute. But what if "John" was more anti-Semitic than Marcion and thus his disagreement with Marcion was that the Jews were culpable for their rejection of Christ, whereas Marcion took a softer view? The point is, we don't actually know the nature of the disagreement, and many people make assumptions that John's disagreements were along the traditional proto-orthodox vs gnostic disagreements, but that's not necessarily the case.

[Irish1975]

We don't actually know what the nature of the disagreement was. Certainly the epistles of John indicate that Jesus was of the flesh, which they see as a point of dispute. But what if "John" was more anti-Semitic than Marcion and thus his disagreement with Marcion was that the Jews were culpable for their rejection of Christ, whereas Marcion took a softer view? The point is, we don't actually know the nature of the disagreement, and many people make assumptions that John's disagreements were along the traditional proto-orthodox vs gnostic disagreements, but that's not necessarily the case.

Yes, and important to remember.

[rgprice]

Here are a few passages that I identify as being Marcionite in nature. These seem to suggest either that the orthodox letters are derived from Marcoin's or that the original letters are more aligned with Marcionism than believed.

2 Cor 3:
7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Wow this is harsh. The "ministry of death"! Here "the Lord" is the Spirit. Certainly no "son of David". Moses essentially condemns the Jews.

Romans 10:
1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2 For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3 For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

The Jews don't know God.

Romans 10:
11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!”

16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”
19 But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says,
“I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation,
By a nation without understanding will I anger you.”
20 And Isaiah is very bold and says,
“I was found by those who did not seek Me,
I became manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”

The above may not have been present in Marcion's text, but the evidence, as usual, is not easily deciphered. But interestingly, this makes the claim that the Jews have never known God, and uses the Jewish scriptures to prove it. This sounds like a Marcionite thing to do to me. This one may be questionable.

Philemon 2:
1 Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2 make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of a human being. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Note from BeDuhn:

2.5–8 Tertullian, Marc. 5.20.3–5; Eznik, De Deo 375 (vv. 5, 7; =Harnack vv.
6–8 only). In v. 7, Tertullian appears to attest the reading “of a human
being (anthrōpou)” instead of “of human beings (anthrōpōn),” in agreement
with Gk ms P46, the Palestinian Syriac and Coptic versions, and
Origen. Eznik is paraphrastic: “another thing which they say is . . .
(that) the Good One . . . sent Jesus his own son to go and take the likeness
of a slave and to come into being in the form of a human being.”
Barnikol, Philipper 2, has argued that vv. 6–7 constitute an interpolation
introduced by Marcion into the text. The challenge to such a hypothesis
lies in explaining how such a sectarian addition worked its way
into every witness to the catholic text. To accept it, one must suppose
that the catholic textual tradition of Paul depends on the Apostolikon,
albeit with subsequent modifications.

Are there others? Are there reasons to read these passages in non-Marcionite ways?

[Irish1975]

the Pontus being referred to in connection with Marcion could easily be the cult of Pontus and have nothing whatsoever to do with the area of north Asia Minor.

That seems really unlikely.

1) The capitalized "Pontus" in my Lewis & Short refers to the region or province near the Black Sea. There is no usage cited for a cult. The lower case "pontus" is used by poets to refer to the sea or the deep, but not a god or cult.

2) Other such (Marcionite or anti-Marcionite) prologues have a general interest in geography.

3) It is implausible that a christian scribe would refer, casually and without explanation, to a heathen god.

4) Was there any such cult of "Pontus"? I can only find a wiki about the mythological deity Pontos, from Hesiod.

5) If the scribe thought that Marcion or anyone had brought writings from a heathen cult, he would not have considered them or referred to them as "scriptures."

[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.

You really need to acknowledge that the dates assigned 1 Clement are pure speculation and therefore useless as any kind of yardstick. Carrier is just guessing, same as the others. Period.

It's not pure speculation though: (1) Paul and Peter are described as "most recent spiritual heroes" and are of "our own generation"; (2) Jerusalem and the temple are referred to as though they were still standing; (2) the 'Gospel' is referred to as though it was an oral rather than a written message.

These all point to a fairly early date, though I agree trying to pin the date to an exact decade is guesswork.

[lclapshaw]

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.

You really need to acknowledge that the dates assigned 1 Clement are pure speculation and therefore useless as any kind of yardstick. Carrier is just guessing, same as the others. Period.

It's not pure speculation though: (1) Paul and Peter are described as "most recent spiritual heroes" and are of "our own generation"; (2) Jerusalem and the temple are referred to as though they were still standing; (2) the 'Gospel' is referred to as though it was an oral rather than a written message.

These all point to a fairly early date, though I agree trying to pin the date to an exact decade is guesswork.

This still seems to be stretching it in my opinion. Anywhere from the late 1st century BCE to whenever it was first referenced is more like it if we want to be honest with ourselves.

Of course YMMV.

Lane

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

You really need to acknowledge that the dates assigned 1 Clement are pure speculation and therefore useless as any kind of yardstick. Carrier is just guessing, same as the others. Period.

These all point to a fairly early date, though I agree trying to pin the date to an exact decade is guesswork.

This still seems to be stretching it in my opinion. Anywhere from the late 1st century BCE to whenever it was first referenced is more like it if we want to be honest with ourselves.

1 Clement contains two quotations from GMark and one quotation from Isaiah in a form already slightly modified by Mark. Perhaps Carrier should have given at least some explanation for that.