rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by robert j »

In another recent thread, rgprice wrote ---
rgprice wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:03 pm
... 1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation. This is an obvious anti-Marcionite statement that was later added.
I think your bold assertions are not clearly supported by the evidence.

In their polemic and apologetic writings against Marcion, do the Church Fathers and their ilk lend significant evidence that the passage in question is an interpolation?

In a discussion of the material related to the passage in 1 Corinthians as proposed for a Marcionite version, BeDuhn concludes,

It is clear that the evidence of the Apostolikon does not support the suggestion that 15.3-11 is an interpolation … (1/) (p. 285)

No clear help for interpolation there. Sure, just an appeal to authority on my part, and others may have different opinions on the scant available evidence specifically related to a Marcionite Apostolikon for this passage. But I see no need for raking that scant evidence back-and-forth over the coals in light of BeDuhn's strongly worded conclusion.

Viewing through a wider lens, several attributions to the 1 Corinthians passage in question are found in the writings of the early Church Fathers and heretic hunters. Between the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian, the following words of 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 are clearly attested ---

15:3 ---
For I delivered unto you first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures (entire, a) (portions, b, c, d)
15:4 ---
and that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures (entire, a) (portions, b, c, d)
15:8 ---
And last of all, as the ektroma (τῷ ἐκτρώματι) , he was seen by me also (entire, e) (portion, f)
15:10 ---
I laboured more than they all (g)

a. Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 3, chapt. 18.3;
b. Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, chapt. 55;
c. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapts. 2, 15, 29, and 30
d. Tertullian, Adv Marc, Book 3, chapt. 8
e. Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 1, chapt. 8.2;
f. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapt. 15
g. Irenaeus, Adv Her, Book 4, chapt. 24.1

None of these references to the passage in question in Irenaeus or Tertullian are used specifically for anti-Marcionite purposes except for Tertullian’s partial citation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 in his 3rd Book of Against Marcion. See the Notes at the end of the post for more discussion of each of these citations of 1 Corinthians 15:3-10.

I’ll discuss the citation of 1 Corinthians 15:8 by Irenaeus here because I think it provides direct evidence supporting that the verse, and the wider passage in question, are not interpolations. In Book 1 of Against Heresies, the focus is on the Valentinians and descriptions of the Valentinian system. Irenaeus claims that the Valentinians used Paul’s self-identification as the ektroma in 1 Corinthians15:8 in support of their own doctrinal system ---

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)

That the Valentinians used Paul’s letters extensively to support their system of thought has been well developed by Pagels (2/). Whether historically accurate or merely tradition, Clement of Alexandria relates the claim that ---

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.)

The Valentinians claim to trace their origins back to Paul, and hence, his letters. And Valentinus and Marcion are generally seen as roughly contemporaneous. If the passage was an interpolation in the important letter 1 Corinthians, added before the writings of Irenaeus or even by Irenaeus himself, what a cluster-fuck that would have been. Talk about unintended consequences. Irenaeus admits that the Valentinians used verse 15:8 for their own doctrinal purposes. Would the Valentinians have used an early-catholic addition to their treasured 1 Corinthians to interpret and develop their own doctrines? Not likely.

The writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian do not support the claim that 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 is an interpolation.

Do the extant manuscripts --- like they do for the first and 15th chapters of the letter Romans --- show clear signs of textual manipulation in the passage in question? No. Beyond what is probably a scribal emendation for a word in 1 Corinthians 15:5, there are only three or four minor variants that were likely due to scribal error in the manuscripts for 1 Corinthians 15:3-10.

So that leaves analyses and interpretations of the extant text. How can one make sense of the text? Here, the evidence is even further under the influence of interpretation and opinion. And this passage is one of the more difficult in Paul’s letters. Some fancy dancing is required for all solutions.

If the passage was an interpolation added in response to the Marcionites, then at the time of composition, versions of the NT Gospel stories would have been reasonably well established along with their various versions of post-resurrection appearances. Why would an author --- adding a long and important passage to an important Pauline letter --- screw the pooch so badly? As post-resurrection appearances, the events in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 do not jibe well with any of the Gospel tales or with Acts.

Even when viewed as an original Pauline or pre-Pauline rendition of post-resurrection appearances --- or as visions of a risen Christ --- it remains a difficult task to reconcile the odd set of events.

I’m not surprised that Irenaeus and Tertullian did not comment on the events outlined in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7. I suspect they had no idea how to explain the odd set of “appearances”. Origen, however, is honest about being perplexed. In his self-admitted apologetics about why Jesus Christ didn’t appear to all men after his resurrection like he did before, Origen cites 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, trying to spin the words to his current task, but seemingly admits that he really doesn’t know how to understand or to explain the odd set of events --- apparently Origen didn’t get the memo either ---

And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: [Origen cites 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 here] I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event. And in a treatise of this nature, composed in answer to a work directed against the Christians and their faith, observe whether we are able to adduce a few rational arguments out of a greater number, and thus make an impression upon the hearers of this apology. (Origen, Against Celsus, Book 2, chapt. 63)

But I come not to tear down the passage, but to uphold it.

The elephant in the room for the passage in question is the widespread and all-too-firmly-established belief that the formulaic story is about post-resurrection appearances of a risen Christ. I think the intention of the author was quite different, and that the passage makes perfect sense in a Pauline context. Part of the problem is the commonly used translation of the Greek ophthe (ὤφθη) as "appeared”, instead of as “was seen” in the sense to perceive, to come to understand, to see with the mind. An example of this use of the verb is found in Romans 15:21 and Isaiah 52:15 (LXX).

The formulaic 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 reveals Paul’s wider story of how the faith in Jesus Christ began with scriptural revelations, and how that faith originally spread. I think Paul told the story to each of his congregations during his evangelizing visit in order to provide tradition, the perception that his system was part of a wider spiritual movement taking place in the Jewish homelands, Here is what I think the passage is really about ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=674

And 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 fits together with portions of chapter 1 of Galatians like lost puzzle pieces. Together they demonstrate how Paul used the scriptures to create his personal back-story, and how Paul’s self-identification as the ektroma is entirely compatible with his claim of having been selected from the womb --- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2396

rgprice wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 12:03 pm
... 1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation. This is an obvious anti-Marcionite statement that was later added.
No, Not clear nor obvious at all.


robert j


1/ BeDuhn, Jason D., The First New Testament, 2013.
2/ Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Paul, 1975. [not that Paul himself was a Gnostic, but rather the book is about how the Valentinians applied their own interpretations and used Paul’s letters in the development and support of their system; Pagels discusses the Valentinian use of 1 Corinthians 15:8 on pages 80-81].


Notes:

Only one of the several references to 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 in Tertullian is used specifically for anti-Marcionite purposes. This reference is not in Book 4 of his Five Books Against Marcion with his discussion of the letter 1 Corinthians, but rather in Book 3 in a refutation of Docetism. Tertullian follows his partial citation of 15:3-4 with allusions to portions of 1 Corinthians 15:12-18 in support of his concept of resurrection from the dead for both Christ and for “us”. Just because Tertullian found one single opportunity in his 5 long Books against Marcion to use a pair of incomplete verses from 1 Corinthians 15:3-10 to argue against a Marcionite doctrine, doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the passage in question is an anti-Marcionite interpolation.

The multiple partial references by Tertullian in Against Praxeas to verses 15:3-4, and the use of a portion of verse 15:8, are aimed, not at Marcionites, but rather at a Monarchist heresy claiming a unity of the Godhead instead of a Trinity. And Tertullian’s use of portions of verse 15:3-4 in his Treatise on the Soul is contained in a discussion of the nature of Hades and Christ’s descent.

None of the references to the passage in question in Irenaeus’ Against Heresies are specifically anti-Marcionite. In Book 3, the primary topic of Docetism and whether Jesus and Christ were separate and distinct beings might be seen as anti-Marcionite. But it is Valentinian doctrines that are specifically mentioned in chapter 18.3 directly leading-up to this citation of 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

In Book 4, Irenaeus’ focus on God the Father as one God, as creator, and as father of Jesus Christ can certainly be seen as anti-Marcionite, and Marcion and Marcionites are addressed in several sections of Book 4. But Irenaeus’ focus in Book 4 is much wider than just Marcionites ---

But this [Father] is the Maker of heaven and earth, as is shown from His words; and not he, the false father, who has been invented by Marcion, or by Valentinus, or by Basilides, or by Carpocrates, or by Simon, or by the rest of the "Gnostics," falsely so called. For none of these was the Son of God; but Christ Jesus our Lord [was], against whom they set their teaching in opposition, and have the daring to preach an unknown God. (Ireneaus, Adv Her, Book 4, chapt. 6.4)

And the reference by Irenaeus to 1 Corinthians 15:10 in Book 4, chapt. 24.1 is not specifically anti-Marcionite, but is a rather mundane elaboration on the role of Paul and others teaching about Jesus Christ to Gentiles and Jews, respectively, and the role of the Jewish scriptures in those efforts.

--- fin ---
rgprice
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by rgprice »

Firstly:

Right below what you quoted from BeDuhn:
1 Cor 15.5–10 is unattested.
What BeDuhn was referring to when he said,
It is clear that the evidence of the Apostolikon does not support
the suggestion that 15.3–11 is an interpolation, put forward by Price,
“Apocryphal Apparitions.”
...is the case put forward by RMP that:
3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures

...was a part of the interpolation. In fact, RMP builds his case for the whole interpolation on his reading of 1 Cor 15 3. I agree with BeDuhn, that 1 Cor 15:3-4 appears to be original and not interpolated.

Go to page 240 and you'll notice that BeDuhn does not include 1 Cor 15:5-10 in his reconstruction. So, clearly, BeDuhn also agrees that 1 Cor 15:5-10 was not in Marcion's version of the letters. BeDuhn was rejecting RMP case for 3-11 being an interpolation. BeDuhn rejects that position, but then agrees that 5-10 is.

As for the comment about Irenaeus. I would consider that 15:8 was also original. Here is BeDuhn's reconstruction:
15 1 Now I remind you, (my) colleagues, the proclamation that I proclaimed to you. . . . 3. . . that Christos died . . . 4 and [that he] was entombed, and [that he] has been awoken on the third day . . . 11. . . so we declare and so you believed. 12 [Now . . . how is it that] some among you say there is no awakening of (the) dead?
I think the following is also a possibility:

15 1Now I remind you, (my) colleagues, the proclamation that I proclaimed to you first of all, that Christ died for our sins 4 and [that he] was entombed, and [that he] has been awoken on the third day. 8 And last of all, as the ektroma, he was seen by me. . . 11. . . so we declare and so you believed. 12[Now . . . how is it that] some among you say there is no awakening of (the) dead?

Here are the clearly anti-Marcionite additions:

3 For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7 then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

The Marcionites claimed that Paul was the one and only apostle because he was the only one who saw the risen Jesus Christ. This is why the passage about 500 brothers is added. Not only did other apostles see the risen Christ, but over 500 people did. Therefore, Paul's claim of revelation is nothing special.

It is certainly possible that "the ektroma" is some kind of Gnostic concept and something that the originals letters could have said without any of the other context of 5-9.
User avatar
flowers_grow
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:24 am

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by flowers_grow »

I do think there is an interpolation here, given the difference in language and that this is unattested in Marcion.

I think 15:8 may actually be the very reason the interpolation was made. Imagine a proto orthodox Christian community busily institutionalizing and trying to integrate Paul. But if you accept Paul, do you also accept other people who claim to have direct access to Jesus and therefore are independent apostles with their own doctrine? That's not really desirable.

So they said, yes, okay, Paul, but only just barely, clearly put in a long line of hallowed others, as the last one. No more after this one!
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by robert j »

I'd like to respond to the rest of your post in the next few days. But just the last part for now ---
rgprice wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:45 am
... I would consider that 15:8 was also original ...

It is certainly possible that "the ektroma" is some kind of Gnostic concept and something that the originals letters could have said without any of the other context of 5-9.
The concept of the ektroma --- in the very same sense of the term as one sinning or doing evil against God as used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9 --- can be traced back in time in a Jewish context ---

The Jewish Scriptures
… Mariam was leprous like snow … And Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, Sir, do not lay extra sin upon us, because we were ignorant in that we sinned. Do not let her be like unto death, like an ektroma coming out of a mother’s womb… " (Numbers 12:9-12, LXX)

A near contemporary of Paul expanded on the concept ---
Philo, Allegorical Interpretation I, XXIV (76);

“But, though always in labour, it never brings forth. For the soul of the worthless man is not calculated by nature to bring anything to perfection which is likely to live. But everything which it appears to bring forth is found to be abortive and immature. "Eating up the half of its flesh, and being like a death of the Soul." (from Numbers 12:12) On which account that holy word Aaron entreats the pious Moses, who was beloved by God, to heal the leprosy of Miriam, in order that her soul might not be occupied in the labour of bringing forth evil things. And in consequence he says: "Let her not become like unto death, as an ektroma proceeding out of the womb of her mother, and let her not devour the half of her own Flesh." (from Numbers 12:12-13)

Paul
And last of all, as the ektroma, he was seen by me also … because I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Corinthians 15:8-9)

viewtopic.php?p=55742#p55742
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by Stuart »

First off this is a very incorrect way to read Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem. Only Book 5 is reasonably reliable for reading the Marcionite text of Paul. When he quotes Paul in books 1 through 4 he is nearly always using the Catholic text. And even in Book 5, when he is going through a book in Paul, say Galatians, and he quotes another book then that quote from the other book is likely from his local Catholic text.

Your assumption has already veered off into the weeds by over assigning quotes by Tertullian as Marcionite text.

But it is interesting that while arguing for the Catholic text you acknowledge the Marcionite text as an earlier version. It's simply that you are not very practiced in how to evaluate what that text was.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by gryan »

Stuart wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 11:26 pm
But it is interesting that while arguing for the Catholic text you acknowledge the Marcionite text as an earlier version. It's simply that you are not very practiced in how to evaluate what that text was.
Re: Catholic text vs Marcionite text

What do these mean? Is the Catholic text the NT canonical text as it was understood by Tertullian? Is the Marcionite text the hypothetical text of Marcion's published canon?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ignatius in his letter to the Romans seems to know this passage.
But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them, and one born out of due time
Andrew Criddle
User avatar
flowers_grow
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:24 am

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by flowers_grow »

It's interesting that Ignatius is trying to extend who is last beyond Paul to himself.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by neilgodfrey »

In Paul we read the ektroma represents his wicked past; in Ignatius it represents his johnny-come-lately status. How can we tell if both are drawing on a common saying? Or if someone with a knowledge of Ignatius added the passage to 2 Corinthians?

Interestingly, Ignatius's letter to Romans suggests that a major difference between the author and Paul is that while Ignatius is a prisoner, Paul never knew that ignominy -- is that the correct way to read him? Hence Ignatius is again inferior to Paul.
I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: rgprice "1 Cor 15:5-10 is clearly an interpolation" --- I call BS

Post by neilgodfrey »

gryan wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 3:40 am Re: Catholic text vs Marcionite text

What do these mean? Is the Catholic text the NT canonical text as it was understood by Tertullian? Is the Marcionite text the hypothetical text of Marcion's published canon?
A relevant discussion that may well relegate the above question to near irrelevance is from Hoffmann's study https://archive.org/details/marciononre ... 2/mode/2up:
What Marcion thought of the Creator has been the subject of considerable controversy. The confusion arises over apparently contradictory reports in the writings of the fathers, and even within the works of individual fathers.

This inconsistency, in turn, raises as many questions about the extent of the patristic knowledge of Marcion's teaching as about the teaching itself. Irenaeus, the first to offer extensive information about Marcion's doctrine, does not claim to base his description on the texts considered sacred by the Marcionites themselves. Indeed Irenaeus shows no sign of knowing the name of Marcion's theological treatise, and though he purposes 'specially to refute him . . . out of his own writings . . . [and ] the discourses of the Lord and Apostles which are of authority with him', he does not claim to have had access to these writings while composing his general work against the heretics.

Similarly, it cannot be assumed that Tertullian, for all his extravagance in refuting Marcion's errors, possessed more than second-hand knowledge of his doctrines. His 'statements' are frequently suppositional: 'Secundum vero Marcionem nescio . . .' (AM 5.16.4); or inferential: 'Hie erit argumentatio haeretici . . .' (AM 5.14.7); 'Haec si Marcion de industria erasit' (5.14.9); (cf. 5.12.6: 'Si et pseudapostolos dicit, etq.'); conditional: 'Si quid tale Marcionis deus edidit vel edixit' (5.11.2); or merely interrogative: 'Aut si nihil de creatoris traditum est ei a patre, ecquomodo hominem creatoris sibi vindicat?' (4.25.8). Only at peril does one transform Tertullian's interlocution into a marcionite 'system'; and the number of antitheses and editorial emendations to the gospel that can be assigned with any confidence to Marcion is much smaller than Harnack imagined. Nor is Tertullian especially secretive about his method. In the midst of the crucial discussion of Marcion's ditheism in relation to 2 Cor 1-4, he cuts short his explanation of Paul's use of the phrase 'Ho Theos tou aicnos', 'in order to prevent it from being of advantage to my opponent — satisfied to have won my case: I am even in a position entirely to bypass this argument'.

But the extent of Tertullian's direct knowledge of Marcion's writings is not only called into question by rhetorical evidence — the discursive, inquisitorial, and often conjectural nature of the polemic; the tendency to sidestep questions, and to reduce the opponent's argument to rubble on spurious textual grounds. It is also doubtful on the basis of Tertullian's own comment at the beginning of Book I. There he claims to have produced a 'first edition' of the text too hurriedly, and that a revised edition was 'stolen' from him by an apostate (AM 1.1.1). The literary sources for the third edition, therefore, are the first and second. Tertullian does not mention having had access to Marcion's writings at any stage in the revision, and the quantity of authentically marcionite doctrine that can be distilled from his books is not significantly greater than that contained in Irenaeus' scattered references. In most respects, the adversus Marcionem suggests an enlargement and elaboration of Irenaeus' material. Tertullian derives from Irenaeus, for example, the idea that the goodness of the alien God is defective if it is neither revealed in judgment nor effective in saving all ('rursus bonus, si hoc tantum sit bonus non et probator in quos immittat bonitatem, extra justitiam erit et bonitatem, et infirma bonitas eius videbitur non omnes sal vans, si non cum iudicio fiat'). This literary dependence on Irenaeus extends to other matters of substance as well: thus Haer. 3.25.2: 'Rursus, ut increpatiuum auferrent a Pâtre et iudiciale, indignum id Deo putantes et sine iracundia et bonum arbitrantes se adinvenisse deum'; cf. AM 1.25.1: 'Quod attinet ad bonitatis quaestionem, his lineis deduximus earn minime deo adaequari, ut neque ingenitam neque rationalem neque perfectam, sed et improbam et iniustam et ipso iam bonitatis nomine indignam'.

Tertullian however made more extensive use of a second source, now lost to us, which reproduced in some detail the substance of Marcion's evangelion and apostolikon. As he uses Justin's Dialogue in Book III, there is reason to suppose that Justin's longer work on Marcion was one of his sources in Books I and II. That Tertullian had access to the Antitheses, or to any other of the 'writings' mentioned by Irenaeus, is only a dim possibility.

In approaching Marcion's theology, therefore, one must acknowledge (a) that the most detailed sources available for reconstructing his thought are based not on a first-hand knowledge of his writings, but on a variety of reports, all of them polemical and all, including the earliest, retrospective; (b) that the sources do not supply the wherewithal for retrieving the entirety of Marcion's theology, but rather supply hints as to its general structure and the themes that inform it; (c) that the later polemic against Marcion deserves little of the historical credit that has commonly been given it, reflecting in the main a later stratum of marcionite belief or an elaboration of earlier anti-marcionite polemic.
Post Reply