My Wildly Atheistic Conspiracy Theory Concerning Base Paul in 1 Corinthians

[lclapshaw]

Well, a cursory look shows that verse 1:26 is not in the Marcionite, nor were verses 3:12-15, nor verses 4:1-4. So, you are dead in the water there. Unless you can explain how these are original, then missing in the Marcionite version (which is intermediate) and reappearing magically in the Catholic version.

I wonder, Justin Martyr referred twice to a Marcion without saying anything about him having Pauline letters or a Gospel. Further, we don't have anything associated with Marcionism do we? Just possible reconstructions based on what is thought to be Marcionite based on pollimic rants against that sect.

Marcion, is best thought of as the patron saint of Christian sect that traced their bishops from Paul via Mark (Marcion) for their authority. The Roman church traced their bishops by similar lore via Peter. A third Asia Minor sect traced their Bishops through John likely via Apollos, although its uncertain what of their sectarian literature survived.

Personally, I throw Justin, which is an appellation rather than a proper name in the 2nd century, in the same category as Paul and others, as a legendary figure around whom literature was written in his name. His accounts of Marcion are of one literary character fictionally describing another of the same, not an eyewitness.

We have a lot of information on Marcionism. The building consensus is that Marcionism was part of the mainstream of Christianity to the mid-2nd century, but by the late 2nd century had split off. Lore has it that they split in the mid 140s, but IMO the texts suggest a split date later by perhaps a generation. When they split off they held mostly the same collection of Paul as the main church, but it froze at that earlier state (hence many of the same textual variants and errors are found in the Marcionite milieu). The material was not at all completely Marcionite, with many elements of various sects, including some proto-orthodox already embedded. What they mostly are missing is what is sometimes called the Lukan (Catholic) editorial layer. Some of this is distinguished by unique vocabulary not found in the attested Marcionite version (e.g., in 1:24 uses Lukan τε καὶ for "both", rather than the καὶ … καὶ form found in the attested Marcionite text).

What has become clear, is not that the Marcionite Paul (texts) was "Marcionite" rather that it was not fully incompatible with Marcionism. Its inconsistencies easily enough explained away by Marcionite hermeneutics and harmonizing, in much the same way Catholic hermeneutics and harmonizing are able to smooth over inconsistencies with their teaching in the received text. But the received text we have is loaded with direct poison pills and refutations of Marcionite teachings rendering it unusable to them.

Note, I operate under the assumption that the church was relatively poor when the NT was written, so one did not rewrite the text in mass or come up with a new version of the gospel unless you could not explain your sect's positions with the existing text or your sect's positions were in direct conflict with the material. Basic human nature, why work any harder than you have to?

It certainly seems to me that Paul is a fictional construct designed to support the Gospel stories, aside from an early layer of 1 Corinthians, and I am happy to extend that to Justin as well, but where do we draw the line? Why not Marcion as well? What actual proof do we have that he isn't a construct as well? He makes a wonderful strawman does he not?

[Leucius Charinus]

Is there any physical proof for Marcionism? Aside from the FF that is. Does anyone know?

Temples, texts, secular accounts....?

Anything?

The town was historically a village known as Lebaba, and contains the archaeological remains of a Marcionite church. These include an inscription dated to 318 CE, which is the oldest known surviving inscribed reference, anywhere, to Jesus:

• The meeting-house of the Marcionites, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good -Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Ali

PRIOR Discussion may be useful:

https://bcharchive.org/4/thearchives/sh ... l?t=326188

ETA: Will check for JC "IS XS" stuff

[Leucius Charinus]

Good luck with the IC XC inscription, I would love to see something like that. 8-)

Unfortunately I have drawn a blank with Julius Caesar's coins and inscriptions. As you may know Francesco Carotta has set forth a theory in which Jesus was Caesar. At one stage he talks about an inscription linking Caesar with "Chrestos" but he is actually translating an extant Latin inscription to Greek. This is not convincing evidence IMO.

The inscription on the base

Different than those in Ionia, the inscription here is Latin. But we can easily imagine how it would have sounded to the ears of Greek-speaking Romans, and there were many of them. At this time they made up more than half of the empire’s population, especially in the capital.[39] Not only officers, entrepreneurs, technicians, merchants, publicans, scholars, pedagogues, physicians, lawyers, priests, actors etc., but there were also the Greek-speaking veterans themselves, those from the East and those from the West who participated in the Eastern campaigns.

It should be observed that linguistically, parens, ‘parent’ or ‘father’ and creator, in the sense of ‘founder’ especially a ‘founder of cities’, is called ktistês by the Greeks, while optimus is usually rendered aristos—both translations are well documented, additionally on Roman imperial coins in the East. Conversely, the words meritus, ‘meritorious’, as well as bonus, ‘good’—whereby optimus, ‘the best’, is an intensification—can in this sense be appropriately translated by the Greek word chrêstos, a word whose classical pronunciation was already becoming replaced by the late Hellenistic christos, which is still used today.[40] Hence, on the base of the first cult-statue of the new god Caesar, the Greek speaking people read that the divine founder of the empire was optime meritus which meant for them chrêstos, respectively christos. This would not surprise them, because they were used to addressing their deceased on epitaphs with chrêste,[41] ‘good’. For Caesar the word fit perfectly, because he was ‘good’: proven by his much acclaimed clemency. Indeed, the defeated Pompeius had called upon his followers to reconcile themselves to the stronger Caesar because he would be well-disposed and ‘good’: chrêstos.[42]

Parens, optimus, meritus—ktistês, aristos, chrêstos. Three words, each of them (the last one is very telling) resembling in appearance and pronunciation that of another word, christos, ‘anointed’, which later emerged as the title of Jesus.[43]

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/pv.html

Another reference claims that Plutarch calls Caesar “chrestos”.

In his biography of Caesar, Plutarch calls Caesar “chrestos”. The two other men Plutarch describes with this word are Alexander and Caecilius Metellus – all three were deified after their deaths. Chrestos was also a common mystery religion appellation, used to refer to oracles, gods, priests, philosophers and heroes. (See J. B. Mitchell, Chrestos: A Religious Epithet (Williams and Norgate, 1880)

https://cof.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/5687

In summary I have so far drawn a blank in finding any coin or inscription to Julius Caesar that mentions "IS XS" in the sense of "Julius the Good". Nevertheless 98% of all theories about Christian origins - atheistic or apologetic - fail to address the runes of Jesus H. Chrestos which are plastered throughout the earliest Christian manuscripts. So that's a compliment.

[maryhelena]

It certainly seems to me that Paul is a fictional construct designed to support the Gospel stories, aside from an early layer of 1 Corinthians, and I am happy to extend that to Justin as well, but where do we draw the line? Why not Marcion as well? What actual proof do we have that he isn't a construct as well? He makes a wonderful strawman does he not?

Way to go Lane......

There was a very long thread, 99 pages, at FRDB. Dating Paul - but thread also discussed Marcion. Problem is that once Paul is dated late then he runs into Marcion.....

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=323219

Although the thread is dated 10 years ago, I probably would make similar arguments (albeit ones ideas do get clearer as time goes by...but the gist is there...)

Post that maybe of interest in that long thread:

Post #452 on page 46
Post #550 on page 55
Post #641 on page 65.

Basically, I view Marcion as ahistorical. Writings were given this name - as gospel writings were given names. I view these writings as being early, pre Luke - and pre Paul.

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

Quote:
And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. [/quote]


Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion (especially so from an ahistorical position on Marcion)

[lclapshaw]

Is there any physical proof for Marcionism? Aside from the FF that is. Does anyone know?

Temples, texts, secular accounts....?

Anything?

The town was historically a village known as Lebaba, and contains the archaeological remains of a Marcionite church. These include an inscription dated to 318 CE, which is the oldest known surviving inscribed reference, anywhere, to Jesus:

• The meeting-house of the Marcionites, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good -Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Ali

PRIOR Discussion may be useful:

https://bcharchive.org/4/thearchives/sh ... l?t=326188

ETA: Will check for JC "IS XS" stuff

Were you having a little April Fool's fun with us with this?

[lclapshaw]

Good luck with the IC XC inscription, I would love to see something like that.

Unfortunately I have drawn a blank with Julius Caesar's coins and inscriptions. As you may know Francesco Carotta has set forth a theory in which Jesus was Caesar. At one stage he talks about an inscription linking Caesar with "Chrestos" but he is actually translating an extant Latin inscription to Greek. This is not convincing evidence IMO.

The inscription on the base

Different than those in Ionia, the inscription here is Latin. But we can easily imagine how it would have sounded to the ears of Greek-speaking Romans, and there were many of them. At this time they made up more than half of the empire’s population, especially in the capital.[39] Not only officers, entrepreneurs, technicians, merchants, publicans, scholars, pedagogues, physicians, lawyers, priests, actors etc., but there were also the Greek-speaking veterans themselves, those from the East and those from the West who participated in the Eastern campaigns.

It should be observed that linguistically, parens, ‘parent’ or ‘father’ and creator, in the sense of ‘founder’ especially a ‘founder of cities’, is called ktistês by the Greeks, while optimus is usually rendered aristos—both translations are well documented, additionally on Roman imperial coins in the East. Conversely, the words meritus, ‘meritorious’, as well as bonus, ‘good’—whereby optimus, ‘the best’, is an intensification—can in this sense be appropriately translated by the Greek word chrêstos, a word whose classical pronunciation was already becoming replaced by the late Hellenistic christos, which is still used today.[40] Hence, on the base of the first cult-statue of the new god Caesar, the Greek speaking people read that the divine founder of the empire was optime meritus which meant for them chrêstos, respectively christos. This would not surprise them, because they were used to addressing their deceased on epitaphs with chrêste,[41] ‘good’. For Caesar the word fit perfectly, because he was ‘good’: proven by his much acclaimed clemency. Indeed, the defeated Pompeius had called upon his followers to reconcile themselves to the stronger Caesar because he would be well-disposed and ‘good’: chrêstos.[42]

Parens, optimus, meritus—ktistês, aristos, chrêstos. Three words, each of them (the last one is very telling) resembling in appearance and pronunciation that of another word, christos, ‘anointed’, which later emerged as the title of Jesus.[43]

https://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jwc_e/pv.html

Another reference claims that Plutarch calls Caesar “chrestos”.

In his biography of Caesar, Plutarch calls Caesar “chrestos”. The two other men Plutarch describes with this word are Alexander and Caecilius Metellus – all three were deified after their deaths. Chrestos was also a common mystery religion appellation, used to refer to oracles, gods, priests, philosophers and heroes. (See J. B. Mitchell, Chrestos: A Religious Epithet (Williams and Norgate, 1880)

https://cof.quantumfuturegroup.org/events/5687

In summary I have so far drawn a blank in finding any coin or inscription to Julius Caesar that mentions "IS XS" in the sense of "Julius the Good". Nevertheless 98% of all theories about Christian origins - atheistic or apologetic - fail to address the runes of Jesus H. Chrestos which are plastered throughout the earliest Christian manuscripts. So that's a compliment.

No. Francesco Carotta is new to me, thanks

[lclapshaw]

It certainly seems to me that Paul is a fictional construct designed to support the Gospel stories, aside from an early layer of 1 Corinthians, and I am happy to extend that to Justin as well, but where do we draw the line? Why not Marcion as well? What actual proof do we have that he isn't a construct as well? He makes a wonderful strawman does he not?

Way to go Lane......

There was a very long thread, 99 pages, at FRDB. Dating Paul - but thread also discussed Marcion. Problem is that once Paul is dated late then he runs into Marcion.....

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=323219

Although the thread is dated 10 years ago, I probably would make similar arguments (albeit ones ideas do get clearer as time goes by...but the gist is there...)

Post that maybe of interest in that long thread:

Post #452 on page 46
Post #550 on page 55
Post #641 on page 65.

Basically, I view Marcion as ahistorical. Writings were given this name - as gospel writings were given names. I view these writings as being early, pre Luke - and pre Paul.

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

Quote:
And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion (especially so from an ahistorical position on Marcion)[/box]
[/quote]

Thank you Mary, I will read that thread

[Stuart]

I seriously doubt the apology is earlier than the 4th century. These apologies make zero sense to have been written before Christianity was seriously vying for official recognition, and before they had a champion emperor so that they could make prior emperors look bad. (Personal opinion)

I would read that statement about Marcion the same as one reads about Simon Magus' and Peter's comings and goings in the Clementia.

[Leucius Charinus]

Is there any physical proof for Marcionism? Aside from the FF that is. Does anyone know?

Temples, texts, secular accounts....?

Anything?

The town was historically a village known as Lebaba, and contains the archaeological remains of a Marcionite church. These include an inscription dated to 318 CE, which is the oldest known surviving inscribed reference, anywhere, to Jesus:

• The meeting-house of the Marcionites, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good -Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Ali

PRIOR Discussion may be useful:

https://bcharchive.org/4/thearchives/sh ... l?t=326188

ETA: Will check for JC "IS XS" stuff

Were you having a little April Fool's fun with us with this?

No. On the surface it looks legit. Check the links to WIKI and to the prior discussion. The earliest "Christian" inscription (318 CE) is actually "Chrestian" and features "IS" CHRESTOS.

[lclapshaw]

Is there any physical proof for Marcionism? Aside from the FF that is. Does anyone know?

Temples, texts, secular accounts....?

Anything?

The town was historically a village known as Lebaba, and contains the archaeological remains of a Marcionite church. These include an inscription dated to 318 CE, which is the oldest known surviving inscribed reference, anywhere, to Jesus:

• The meeting-house of the Marcionites, in the village of Lebaba, of the Lord and Saviour Jesus the Good -Erected by the forethought of Paul a presbyter, in the year 630 Seleucid era[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Ali

PRIOR Discussion may be useful:

https://bcharchive.org/4/thearchives/sh ... l?t=326188

ETA: Will check for JC "IS XS" stuff

Were you having a little April Fool's fun with us with this?

No. On the surface it looks legit. Check the links to WIKI and to the prior discussion. The earliest "Christian" inscription (318 CE) is actually "Chrestian" and features "IS" CHRESTOS.

Ok. Finally tracking down Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions, No. 2558, vol. iii. p. 583 via Harnack I have more faith in the genuineness of the inscription. I note that it says IH XRHSTOU though not IS.