Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd

In my earliest essays on Paul, I was aiming to show that the status of a free electron, around 50 CE, before any of the gospels had appeared was nonsensical. His anchoring within that period comes from the Peter-Paul competition in Acts, both having encountered Gamaliel. The entire historical niche is based on Gamaliel's interventions in Acts. So yes, I claimed that Paul could not have written about the 'Jesus messiah' before the early gospel texts. He therefore wrote after 70 CE.

But then I went further, and started comparing the theologies in Pauls letters, in particular all the Hellenistic-gnostic proclamations and antinomianism that didn't fit in with a Jewish follower of Jesus. It took time to finally realize that Paul belonged to the second century, was Marcion's loudspeaker, and that the original Marcionite texts have been 'tamed' by ecclesial writers. Romans is a case a part. I suppose you have read my text on 'Romans attributed to Paul'

As for John, the Patristics did not include gnostic statements. They were adding massively Judean culture to attenuate the original gnostic declarations. Their attitude towards John changed around the end of the second century, as can be seen with Tertullian's praise of the apostolic composition. The Church was by then much more inclined to support a divine Jesus, son of the Creator God, already a schizophrenic mixture.

(my bold)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

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.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 6:49 am 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.

Discussions on academia.edu don't get lost, they get closed.
If you were in it you can join them at any time after they have been closed.
And if you're really bored, you can just like and unlike whatever you like. You can even delete your own comments

Hence why I collect them all, carefully restore the layout that gets lost when you do that, and publish them as secondary files. It took me 14 hours for the emergence of Christianity paper

The meticulousness and quality and depth of my work is unprecedented - I can only hope that others will follow suit.
But I don't, because I know how it works
schillingklaus
Posts: 645
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by schillingklaus »

Moving Paul to the second century is a totally easy, necessary, and straightforward move, as best explained by Stuart G. Waugh in his blog posts. Only intellectual intertia still keeps people from doing that step wholeheartedly.

But talking about previously existing Jewish bonds proves that Wells is still far from getting anywhere, as those bonds had only existed in patristic fantasy as a means of propaganda. Christianity attempted to infiltrate Jewish culture as a cancer attempts to overtake the host's cells. There had never been anything like Jewish christian pillars.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by mlinssen »

schillingklaus wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 1:07 pm Moving Paul to the second century is a totally easy, necessary, and straightforward move, as best explained by Stuart G. Waugh in his blog posts. Only intellectual intertia still keeps people from doing that step wholeheartedly.

But talking about previously existing Jewish bonds proves that Wells is still far from getting anywhere, as those bonds had only existed in patristic fantasy as a means of propaganda. Christianity attempted to infiltrate Jewish culture as a cancer attempts to overtake the host's cells. There had never been anything like Jewish christian pillars.
Agreed, although Chris doesn't assert that it originated with Essenes and such - he merely finds a marked set of traces back to the Essenes, teacher of righteousness and such.
He's actually part of the Thomasine Priority Club I hear 🙂
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 9:23 am https://www.academia.edu/s/062d10b3fd

In my earliest essays on Paul, I was aiming to show that the status of a free electron, around 50 CE, before any of the gospels had appeared was nonsensical. His anchoring within that period comes from the Peter-Paul competition in Acts, both having encountered Gamaliel. The entire historical niche is based on Gamaliel's interventions in Acts. So yes, I claimed that Paul could not have written about the 'Jesus messiah' before the early gospel texts. He therefore wrote after 70 CE.

But then I went further, and started comparing the theologies in Pauls letters, in particular all the Hellenistic-gnostic proclamations and antinomianism that didn't fit in with a Jewish follower of Jesus. It took time to finally realize that Paul belonged to the second century, was Marcion's loudspeaker, and that the original Marcionite texts have been 'tamed' by ecclesial writers. Romans is a case a part. I suppose you have read my text on 'Romans attributed to Paul

Giuseppe, is it Chris Albert Wells' contention that Paul's letters were written by Marcion in the Second Century CE, but the setting of the letters was the 50s CE? That is, Marcion was pretending that Paul lived just after the time Christ died?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:10 pmThat is, Marcion was pretending that Paul lived just after the time Christ died?
yes, according to Chris, Marcion knew already the first gospels when he invented Paul and edited at least one of the (already existing) gospels. The view assumes that one can be both able to write a "Pauline" letter (with its sound silence about an earthly Jesus) and to be in the same time fully aware of a Gospel Jesus.

This is not exactly the same Bob Price's view, according to which Marcion invented Paul, but before that Jesus was placed under Pilate by the first gospel.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2263
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Chris Albert Wells has modified his view on Paul

Post by GakuseiDon »

Thanks, Giuseppe.
Post Reply