Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by Giuseppe »

According to Boistier, for Marcion it was the supreme god himself, the Father, who had come on the earth in the recent past. His name was Chrestos hence the name Chrestiani.


Hence, Boistier asks, why did Marcion use in the "pauline" epistles the name "son of God" for Jesus?

Because the universal use was, by the time Marcion co-opted the epistles, that Jesus was called "son of God" in the sense of the Psalm 2: "you are my son".

The original Paul, for Boistier, was an anomymous messianist, i.e. a follower of the Messiah Jesus son of YHWH, and he wrote the original nucleus of the epistles in 100 CE.

His community was born immediately after the 70 CE, when the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, symbol of the suffering Israel, was individualized.

He argues for the following hegelian schema:
  • Thesis: Jesus is a mere man, the Just of Israel, who dies on the cross as symbol of an entire people. The historical Paul, lived after the 70, adored this Jesus.
  • Antithesis: marcionism. Jesus becomes a celestial being.
  • Synthesis: Justin. Jesus becomes both a man and a god.
Once one denies anti-demiurgism at the Origins, this scenario is the more probable result where he arrives. No wonder I have already seen it in Georges Las Vergnas, in Robert Stahl and more recently, in Chris Albert Wells.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by Giuseppe »

The same scenario, assuming Christians before the 70, produces virtually, under a historicist paradigm, the names of Joseph Turmel and Roger Parvus.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by arnoldo »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:29 am Hence, Boistier asks, why did Marcion use in the "pauline" epistles the name "son of God" for Jesus?
How does Boiestier know Marcion isn't a fabrication?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by Giuseppe »

How can you prove that, raising that question, you are not a mere troll, here ?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 2:29 am According to Boistier, for Marcion it was the supreme god himself, the Father, who had come on the earth in the recent past. His name was Chrestos hence the name Chrestiani.


Hence, Boistier asks, why did Marcion use in the "pauline" epistles the name "son of God" for Jesus?

Because the universal use was, by the time Marcion co-opted the epistles, that Jesus was called "son of God" in the sense of the Psalm 2: "you are my son".

The original Paul, for Boistier, was an anomymous messianist, i.e. a follower of the Messiah Jesus son of YHWH, and he wrote the original nucleus of the epistles in 100 CE.

His community was born immediately after the 70 CE, when the Suffering Servant of Isaiah, symbol of the suffering Israel, was individualized.

He argues for the following hegelian schema:
  • Thesis: Jesus is a mere man, the Just of Israel, who dies on the cross as symbol of an entire people. The historical Paul, lived after the 70, adored this Jesus.
  • Antithesis: marcionism. Jesus becomes a celestial being.
  • Synthesis: Justin. Jesus becomes both a man and a god.
Once one denies anti-demiurgism at the Origins, this scenario is the more probable result where he arrives. No wonder I have already seen it in Georges Las Vergnas, in Robert Stahl and more recently, in Chris Albert Wells.
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓⲏ ̅ ⲥ ̅ ϫⲉ ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ ̄ ϣⲁⲣⲟ ⲉⲓ` ϫⲉ ⲟⲩ ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁ ⲛⲁϩⲃ` ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁ ⲙⲛ ̄ ⲧ ̅ ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲏⲥ ϫⲉ- ⲁⲙⲏⲉⲓⲧⲛ ϣⲁ- ⲉⲓ ϫⲉ- ⲟⲩ- ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲁ- ⲛⲁϩⲃ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲁ- ⲙⲛⲧϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ
said IHS : come!(PL) toward I : a(n) Kind-one is my yoke and my(F) lordship

ⲟⲩ ⲣⲙ ̄ ⲣⲁϣ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧ ⲛⲁ ϩⲉ ⲁ ⲩ ⲁⲛⲁⲩⲡⲁⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲏ ⲧⲛ ̄
ⲟⲩ- ⲣⲙⲣⲁϣ ⲧⲉ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲧⲉⲧⲛ- ⲛⲁ- ϩⲉ ⲉ- ⲟⲩ- ⲁⲛⲁⲡⲁⲩⲥⲓⲥ ⲛⲁ⸗ -ⲧⲏⲩⲧⲛ
a(n) gentle-man is(F) and you(PL) will fall to a(n) Repose to you(PL)

Logion 90, one of the three where Thomas' protagonist suddenly changes name.
The highlighted Coptic word needs no explanation, I presume.
On a side note, this logion was a joke by Thomas: a yoke never is good, and a Repose is only for the Dead. I'm still trying to figure out why he explicitly misspells ANAUPASIS, but this logion dus in Part III of the Commentary - and on the remote horizon at best

But Chrestians indeed, I am sure that the Marcionites referred to themselves as such. The NT replaced that by christos, made up a lame story about being anointed - try outs at which are still visible all over the Church Fathers - and struggled with the application of that, to which Paul's pathetic chaos of Jesus Christ / Christ Jesus attests

Giuseppe, it was Marcion who created Jesus-as-a-religion, there is hardly any reasonable doubt about that - just look at all the writings against him, and the contradictory accusations, and the contradictory witnesses. Even Tertullian admits that his own allegations are incredible

The suffering servant is an excuse created by the church fathers to explain away the Thomasine (and Marcionite) theme of sickness, and the rest of Isaiah there got inserted into their Jesus
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:55 pm But Chrestians indeed, I am sure that the Marcionites referred to themselves as such. The NT replaced that by christos, made up a lame story about being anointed - try outs at which are still visible all over the Church Fathers - and struggled with the application of that, to which Paul's pathetic chaos of Jesus Christ / Christ Jesus attests
in few rows you have resumed a lot of the my preferred readings. Good point. What is necessary now is to resolve the enigma Paul.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Patrick Boistier on the first (marcionite) corruption of the pauline epistles

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:07 pm
mlinssen wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:55 pm But Chrestians indeed, I am sure that the Marcionites referred to themselves as such. The NT replaced that by christos, made up a lame story about being anointed - try outs at which are still visible all over the Church Fathers - and struggled with the application of that, to which Paul's pathetic chaos of Jesus Christ / Christ Jesus attests
in few rows you have resumed a lot of the my preferred readings. Good point. What is necessary now is to resolve the enigma Paul.
Hah! Indeed. Hence my 10th and last thread in the series 'In all of the NT', search.php?keywords=All+of+the+nt&terms ... mit=Search

Paul's a try out, a first attempt to hijack Marcion.
He's a real evangelist in that sense, he takes the Chrestian religion, hard-core Gentile in nature, and presents it to his imaginary Judaic audience, pretending to be an insider and pretending that there are so many churches in so far away locations - not a single church nearby, how very unfortunate indeed LOL

When I read Paul, I see someone who knows he's lying about everything. Acts is even worse, that is like a 5-cent chicken lit and really vulgar.
But Paul takes the themes of Thomas / Marcion as well as those of Mark, so there is an oddity there - unless Marcion invented the declaring of foods clean, which is highly unlikely. So there must be a Proto Mark, only for that reason, and then we have Paul taking that and rehashing it at his Judaic audience in order to see if it is viable to take over Chrestianism

How about that? I don't know much about Paul, he's just such a flunky, much worse even than the clumsy Synoptics who got their Greek out of a travel brochure. I've just been matching Coptic Thomas to Koine Greek for logion 47, the wineskin and the patch.
They most certainly do literally translate the 'cast' of Thomas with their ἐπιβάλλω - but they use it even for the rag!
Cast a rag upon a new garment - they either didn't care or didn't know, or both. And Paul is even worse, I just can read him, it short circuits everything in my entire heart and mind
Post Reply