All Catholic Writings Passed Through a Montanist Redux

[Secret Alias]

I proposed in another thread (I forget which) that the parenthetical additions to the Pauline corpus were deliberately set to appear as if someone (= Paul) corrected his original letters or at least edited them as a second edition. In other words, the Orthodox were not at all embarrassed about possessing a secondary rewrite of the original material because - according to Acts and related reports - Paul himself had a change of heart.

I think this had the effect of insulating them from the objection of those who had been leaders in the Church from the beginning who possessed other (shorter) versions of the scriptures. For instance Acts and Galatians are quite open about acknowledging that Paul and the Jerusalem community had a falling out at one time in the distant past. The transformational movement as it were however is positing that Paul and Peter patched things up.

This means in effect that Paul could indeed have said all the nasty things in 2 Corinthians 11 and 12 but then - notice the later parenthetical rewrites. Paul had a change of heart. He came around to accepting the authority of the Twelve. He came to realize that he often 'spoke like a fool' or a madman. If these parenthetical rewrites were true then, it implied that the Marcionite text which did not have these parenthetical editions and the interpretation which followed from this outdated text - at least theoretically - was itself 'out of date.'

I am not saying that this was always the Orthodox attack line against the Marcionites. But it fits with the oft-repeated dictum from the Pastorals that the heretics have one change to repent from their disobedience against the rule of the Church. Paul himself would have been the ultimate example of that. More importantly - and the reason I make mention of this here - is that the notion of Paul himself having an evolving understanding of 'true knowledge' and truth fits with what is written a pattern within the Orthodox scriptures as a whole - viz. the spiritual movement that fostered and embraced the 'constantly improving' spiritual scriptures of Paul was probably related to the Montanist community.

In other words, if I believe that the Holy Spirit is in the world since the time of Jesus and that Paul had an experience and continued to have experiences with the Holy Spirit it emphasizes that knowledge isn't a static thing. Paul wasn't perfect from his original experience and remained inflexible like the Marcionites. No the New Prophesy understood the Holy Spirit to be the Paraclete - the 'intercessor' - which continued to modify ALL SCRIPTURES not just the Pauline letters.

This helps explain why Judaism, Marcionism and Islam have a single seminal holy text but the New Prophesy four seminal holy texts. Irenaeus in fact throws out that Matthew had some sort of a Hebrew precursor. So what! We don't need it because it was outdated (he never says in fact that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was exactly like Matthew). Instead what he says if we look carefully is that Peter and the apostles had some sort 'knowledge' which was set forth in an oral gospel which was laid down in Hebrew in a precursor to Matthew AND this same lost apostolic gospel (whether oral or written doesn't matter) from Peter was set into Mark and even Luke formulated a new gospel on his own.

The opening statement of Luke makes clear that the Holy Spirit condoned expanding gospels. The gospel wasn't quite finished even after Luke. Every single treatise of the Church Fathers was rewritten and reworked. Sometimes as we see in the opening words of Against Marcion that is made explicit without any embarrassment from the editors. This is because the Montanist 'New Prophesy' movement accepted at the outset that scriptures were constantly being 'reworked according to the Holy Spirit.' It was part of the plan. Even notice Irenaeus's embrace of both (a) the Ezra story (showing that Moses's writings could be rescued through spiritual inspiration) and (b) the LXX story to show that texts could be 'saved' by the Spirit even in languages other than the original.

[Charles Wilson]

No the New Prophesy understood the Holy Spirit to be the Paraclete - the 'intercessor' - which continued to modify ALL SCRIPTURES not just the Pauline letters.

Acts 19: 2 - 6 (RSV):

[2] And he said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said, "No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
[3] And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" They said, "Into John's baptism."
[4] And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus."
[5] On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
[6] And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.

[Secret Alias]

Notice that Irenaeus never identifies the Montanists as a heresy EVER. They were his core believers. The New Prophesy was the fuel which powered his engine.

[Secret Alias]

Notice that Tertullian could name Proclus AND Irenaeus as the pillars of his world. He could also take Irenaeus's writings 'in the spirit' and modify them at will because he and Irenaeus (and Proclus) partook of the same Spirit. The Spirit guided all of them to the same end.

My own path, however, lies along the original tenets of their chief teachers, not with the self-appointed leaders of their promiscuous followers. Nor shall we hear it said of us from any quarter, that we have of our own mind fashioned our own materials, since these have been already produced, both in respect of the opinions and their refutations, in carefully written volumes, by so many eminently holy and excellent men, not only those who have lived before us, but those also who were contemporary with the heresiarchs themselves: for instance Justin, philosopher and martyr; Miltiades, the sophist of the churches Irenaeus, that very exact inquirer into all doctrines; our own Proculus, the model of chaste old age and Christian eloquence. All these it would be my desire closely to follow in every work of faith, even as in this particular one. Now if there are no heresies at all but what those who refute them are supposed to have fabricated, then the apostle who predicted them must have been guilty of falsehood. If, however, there are heresies, they can be no other than those which are the subject of discussion. No writer can be supposed to have so much time on his hands as to fabricate materials which are already in his possession.

On Proclus the Montanist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclus_(Montanist)
On Militiades cf. the anonymous Anti-Montanist in Eusebius:

Against the so-called Phrygian heresy, the power which always contends for the truth raised up a strong and invincible weapon, Apolinarius of Hierapolis, whom we have mentioned before, and with him many other men of ability, by whom abundant material for our history has been left.

A certain one of these, in the beginning of his work against them, first intimates that he had contended with them in oral controversies. He commences his work in this manner:

"Having for a very long and sufficient time, O beloved Avircius Marcellus, been urged by you to write a treatise against the heresy of those who are called after Miltiades, I have hesitated till the present time, not through lack of ability to refute the falsehood or bear testimony for the truth, but from fear and apprehension that I might seem to some to be making additions to the doctrines or precepts of the Gospel of the New Testament, which it is impossible for one who has chosen to live according to the Gospel, either to increase or to diminish ...

[MrMacSon]

I proposed in another thread (I forget which) that the parenthetical additions to the Pauline corpus were deliberately set to appear as if someone (= Paul) corrected his original letters or at least edited them as a second edition. In other words, the Orthodox were not at all embarrassed about possessing a secondary rewrite of the original material because - according to Acts and related reports - Paul himself had a change of heart.

There's a lot to tease out there - Acts, etc may be a consequence of a change of heart of the then budding sect, but their secondary re-write may not b/c Paul had a change of heart (I presume you mean persecutor to 'Apostle' for the faith). The secondary re-write may be to merge two sets of texts together -i.e. the Pauline corpus and the Synoptic and other corpuses

[Secret Alias]

But surely there was a Pauline canon to begin with even if we assume that it was tampered with.

[MrMacSon]

But surely there was a Pauline canon to begin with even if we assume that it was tampered with.

canon? Perhaps(?) But, yes the Pauline documents are of course likely to be early, yet I think it's likely they they were part of a wider body of similar docetic/gnostic works (and they only survived b/c they were 'selected') (& I wonder if they originated after the 1st Jewish Roman War, and may be after the turn of the century)

[MrMacSon]

For instance Acts and Galatians are quite open about acknowledging that Paul and the Jerusalem community had a falling out at one time in the distant past. The transformational movement as it were however is positing that Paul and Peter patched things up.

Do you think it was a Jerusalem community? Given the upheaval in Jerusalem do you think a Christian community could have thrived there?

'Paul & Peter patching things up' sounds like what AD Loman proposed.

[MrMacSon]

The Pauline corpus almost certainly originated in Asia Minor

[MrMacSon]

This means in effect that Paul could indeed have said all the nasty things in 2 Corinthians 11 and 12 but then - notice the later parenthetical rewrites. Paul had a change of heart. He came around to accepting the authority of the Twelve. He came to realize that he often 'spoke like a fool' or a madman. If these parenthetical rewrites were true then, it implied that the Marcionite text (which did not have these parenthetical editions) and the interpretation which followed from this outdated text - at least theoretically - was itself 'out of date.'

or the Pauline texts only originated shortly before the Marcionite community - the Pauline texts were not as well established as we have been led to believe.

I am not saying that this was always the Orthodox attack line against the Marcionites. But it fits with the oft-repeated dictum from the Pastorals that the heretics have one change to repent from their disobedience against the rule of the Church. Paul himself would have been the ultimate example of that.

Did you mean 'chance' cf. 'change'?

More importantly - and the reason I make mention of this here - is that the notion of Paul himself having an evolving understanding of 'true knowledge' and truth fits with what is written a pattern within the Orthodox scriptures as a whole - viz. the spiritual movement that fostered and embraced the 'constantly improving' spiritual scriptures of Paul was probably related to the Montanist community.

Good point. (why did Tertullian become a Montanist?)

The opening statement of Luke makes clear that the Holy Spirit condoned expanding gospels. The gospel wasn't quite finished even after Luke. Every single treatise of the Church Fathers was rewritten and reworked. Sometimes, as we see in the opening words of Against Marcion, that is made explicit without any embarrassment from the editors. This is because the Montanist 'New Prophesy' movement accepted at the outset that scriptures were constantly being 'reworked according to the Holy Spirit.' It was part of the plan. Even notice Irenaeus's embrace of both (a) the Ezra story (showing that Moses's writings could be rescued through spiritual inspiration) and (b) the LXX story to show that texts could be 'saved' by the Spirit even in languages other than the original.

Well said (I was going to add "though it may not have been part of a plan - it may have just been part of the evolution" but then I recalled Mark 4)