More Geworfenheit. The Marcionites understood Paul to have written the gospel AND the authentic letters. You see. It's either Paul writes everything - the entire New Testament corpus - viz. he's 'THE apostle' like Moses, the author of the new covenant/testament. Or the current 'working together' - i.e. Paul, the apostles, the apostolics all held together by the Holy Spirit like an ancient wireless network. The Samaritans not only influenced the Islamic creed "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger." لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله https://books.google.com/books?id=Ta08A ... 22&f=false but also the Marcionite understanding of Paul as THE apostle of God (i.e. that there is only one apostle or spokesman https://books.google.com/books?id=pzo6K ... 22&f=false). It's just Geworfenheit that a 'band of apostles' makes more sense. The Samaritans are older, more revered, more influential. The sense of Paul being the ONLY apostle is as old as our oldest Catholic writers. I don't know how to break the cultural biases that are so natural to you that you can't see the obviousness of what is older. Keep trying I guess.[o]dd question. I think you are asking me to judge the canonical Pauline corpus plus Acts as a whole,
The Samaritans are the oldest Israelite tradition. The Sadducees likely preserved many similar concepts as well as the Karaites. That's what so striking about the Marcionites. They are specifically anti-Jerusalemite (i.e. the temple is a house of demons - I see this evidenced by key replacements of 'Beth-saida' where 'Capernaum' is present in our gospel(s). Solomon says:
The rabbis interpreted this 'shidah' as a reference to a demon. A sect root in Samaritan understandings of Moses as 'THE apostle' might be radicalized enough to turn tradition Samaritan hatred of the Jerusalem temple in to an accusation of demonically inspired sacrifices. All the individual pieces are attested in early Christianity. Just a matter of proving that they were gathered up into one tradition at the very beginning.I got me sharim and sharoth, and the delights of the sons of men, shidah (שידה) and shidoth (וְשִׁדּוֹת) [Eccel 2.8]
Another question - the understanding that Jesus said he came or 'is able' (Catholic reading) to destroy the temple is early in early Christianity, right? John 2:19 Mark 14:58, Gospel of Judas Thomas, Celsus, certainly the gospel of Marcion etc. How early? Which would you expect to find in the earliest gospel? The Catholic 'misunderstanding' version (i.e. that he didn't really want to destroy the temple only 'certain people' said he did) or the presumed Marcionite notion that he REALLY did want to destroy the temple? For me it is the latter. Jesus said it or it was understood in the earliest gospel that he said it.
But let's consider the alternative. Mark's (edited) version that only 'some' said he said it but it wasn't true. It starts to sound more like Acts report of Paul as the Egyptian in Acts. In other words, Mark or our Catholic texts still 'know' or are aware of a gospel where Jesus said 'I am going to destroy the [Jerusalem temple]" like Thomas 71.
Jesus said, "I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it [...]."
To me this notion of 'hearsay' lurking in background of the gospel implies knowledge of an earlier version of the gospel where Jesus is understood to expressed his desire to destroy the building. Be that as it may if you were to consider WHY they (the Gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Marcion) thought Jesus wanted the temple destroyed is it at least conceivable that this whole Solomon bottling demons and Jews sacrificing to demons might be part of the mix?
I think for instance Origen knows a gospel which understood Jesus wanted to destroy the temple despite the canonical gospels argument to the contrary (although he waters the narrative down with his use of 'providence'):
And that same providence which of old gave the law, and has now given the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ's teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits of Christ's teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been brought to nought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in strength.