So, did Marcion just make everything?

[schillingklaus]

The marcionist literature attempted to hammer the last nail into the coffin of the law and the prophets.

[ebion]

Not a hobby horse of mine, but there was a long detailed thread called "Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?" where the question was argued in depth and the opposite conclusion was reached. The originator of this thread refered to it as MarcionOrLater, and I linked to it in my question to you.

If you have any evidence it must clash with the reasoning in that thread. If so, with both feet on the ground, I'd very much like a post from you to show us where we went wrong. The conclusion we reached is central to a lot of things.

Maybe another time.

OK - I look forward to it. In the meantime I've developed another thread that builds on the conclusion I cited, The Problem of Paul and Marcionism, where I'm expanding on some of the citations raised in the original thread. I've done a thread summary to make it easy for you to address the arguments of the original thread.

Until then I take it as QED: "Paul's letters are all derived by/from MarcionOrLater".

[Peter Kirby]

And of course, I'd also do my utmost to include as much evidence as I can for both the fully traditional view, that all Pauline epistles (aside from the letters to Seneca) are legitimate, as well as the current scholarly consensus, which is that all Pauline epistles excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are legitimate.

There are a couple more pseudepigrapha to mention, other than the correspondence with Seneca.

3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

https://rsc.byu.edu/apocryphal-writings ... laodiceans

Notably, 3 Corinthians appeared in some Bible translations and was commented on by some church fathers.

[Vanished]

And of course, I'd also do my utmost to include as much evidence as I can for both the fully traditional view, that all Pauline epistles (aside from the letters to Seneca) are legitimate, as well as the current scholarly consensus, which is that all Pauline epistles excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are legitimate.

There are a couple more pseudepigrapha to mention, other than the correspondence with Seneca.

3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

https://rsc.byu.edu/apocryphal-writings ... laodiceans

Notably, 3 Corinthians appeared in some Bible translations and was commented on by some church fathers.

Epistle to the Laodiceans I will be covering - one of the prevailing views I see here is that it's identical in content to Ephesians, which is a view I plan to tackle soon.
3 Corinthians I don't know much about, but it's definitely something to look into. If I can find enough info about it to suggest there's any chance of authentic authorship - even if slight - I'll absolutely include it in that post.