I am collecting here interesting answers by Chris in a discussion that otherwise will be lost:
Changing Paul from first to second century is not an easy move, but an important one.
Harnack, who believed in a first century Paul, wrote that Marcion admired him greatly, and that Galatians was his starting point. Both are very connected.
Tertullian who is not really diplomatic toward Marcion writes in Against Hereses book 5:1
I require to know of Marcion even the origin of his apostles. I have the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution, since a man affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the gospel, in the catalogue of the apostles. I feel a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ for not knowing before that this man was necessary for him, and because he thought that that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection. I would be glad if you could inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god.
We even get the impression that Tertullien is questioning an author contemporary to Marcion!
There is really no doubt that Marcion and Paul were very closely linked.
In Marcion's days, everybody hated the gnostics, but the worm was in the fruit, and as any political party, its audience grew, and Paul was finally rehabilitated. This rehabilitation spread through all the patristics. Tertullien (book 5. 1:5) claims an OT prophecy that shows that Paul, although not recognized as an apostle in the gospels, was announced by Jacob addressing Benjamin. This prophecy allowed Tertullien to 'prove' that Paul belonged to the creator god and not to Marcion's false god. Irenaeus, who was wild against Marcion and his apostle, has in book 5 lines added on our dear brother Paul. The same with Polycarp Ignatius, and Clement of Rome. All the patristics were used to retrospectively validate Paul as a follower of the creator god and his messiah, taking Paul out of Marcion's hands.
Maybe you could start by reading 'Romans attributed to Paul. The birth certificate of the second century Greco-Roman Church.' Even some of my usual antagonists had to admit that I have opened an important window.
And then we can continue the discussion.
Brent,
Paul's letters contain Jewish and Hellenistic theology. It is a hen and eggs debate as to which came first. Whatever thread we pull on will lead to a different conclusion. To solve the dilemma, we need a revised paradigm.
Looking into Romans shows that if Marcionite thought is present in chapters 5-8, most of the composition can be traced to Justin's school, especially chapters 4 and 9-11. It comes out clearly as a late second century composition and not the supposed 56 CE text usually defended. Paul's sacro sanct text tumbles down.
We can thereafter look into Paul's other epistles with more confidence. Did Marcion add to the writings of an early Jewish Jesus missionary? That was the first option I thought reasonable. The bolder solution was that Marcion wrote the epistles that were later corrected by the centrist church, just as they had done in Acts, distancing Paul from Marcion.
You say: if Paul was a contemporary then why would Marcion think Paul's few letters would or could be scripture?? Impossible!
Paul was not a contemporary. Paul was a FICTIONAL character, a Roman citizen with a Roman patronym, created to counter the fictional stories the Jewish lobby attributed to Peter. The Antitheses, his Apostle's letters and his early version of Luke were important to the group. They upheld Marcion's ideals against OT Scripture that was the only authoritative reference in his days. The canonical gospels were only known after 170 CE and the were used to cancel Marcion's previous canon.
It is interesting to know, according to De Carne Christii 2 that Tertullian must have known several of Marcion’s letters since he uses the expression “in quadam epistula” (in a certain letter of yours) It has been too rapidly dismissed as referring to the Antitheses. So, Marcion wrote epistles. Taking what we know of the Antitheses and Marcion’s theology and comparing them with Paul’s epistles should enable to revive Marcion’s original epistles.
Did Tertullian ever quote from Paul?
Here the answer is simple and spread out in Contra Marcion book V.
Marcion's sting was not writing the first gospel thereafter copied by others as Vinzent postulates, but creating an apostle to defend his views against the early church, obliging them to react. Church ideals evolving, the solution was to retain Marcion's theology under the name of Paul, and integrate Paul within Scripture and the Creator God.
@ Brent
Does it really make more sense to say that Marcion added his own ideals to a Pauline Jewish matrix?
How did the centrist church distance Paul from Marcion in the Acts of the Apostles? By adding endless layers of pro-Judean markers, showing that Marcion had been following a rigorist Jew who took his instructions from the Creator God, and not from Marcion's other god. The same method was used with the letters. The centrist church added pro-Judean markers to Marcion's epistles. Tertullian develops exactly the same arguments with his OT prophecies that predicted Paul (Against Heresies book 5 1:5) to prove that Paul was following the creator god.
The centrist church in Marcion's days, even according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, comprised essentially the Judaizers of the previous century. They were defending the creator god, Scripture and its prescriptions. They were defending a new shade of Judaism issued from the messianic speculations of the Essenes, certainly not a new religion. This is the church Jewish lobby I was referring to. The later centrist church had turned the page and was much closer to positions defended by the Hellenistic ideals with a new religion having shed its Jewish bonds. Not only by rejecting ritual prescriptions the Greco-Romans were alien to, but also accepting the divinity of the messiah, a typical gnostic trait.