Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by rgprice »

Matthew 11:30 χρηστὸς (is easy)
Luke 5:39 χρηστός (good)
Luke 6:35 χρηστός (kind)

Romans 2:4 χρηστότητος (kindness) & χρηστὸν (kindness)
Romans 3:12 χρηστότητα (good)
Romans 11:22 χρηστότητα (the kindness) & χρηστότης (kindness) & χρηστότητι (kindness)
Romans 16:18 χρηστολογίας (smooth talk) - and that's a negative connotation
1 Corinthians 13:4 χρηστεύεται (is kind)
1 Corinthians 15:33 χρηστὰ (good)
2 Corinthians 6:3 χρηστότητι (kindness)
Galatians 5:22 χρηστότης (kindness)
Ephesians 2:7 χρηστότητι (kindness)
Ephesians 4:32 χρηστοί (kind)
Colossians 3:12 χρηστότητα (kindness)
2 Timothy 2:21 εὔχρηστον (useful)
2 Timothy 4:11 εὔχρηστος (useful)
Titus 3:4 χρηστότης (kindness)
Philemon 1:10 ἄχρηστον (useless) & εὔχρηστον (useful)
1 Peter 2:3 χρηστὸς (is good)

If we keep in mind the "unchangeability" and "fixedness" of the texts that we have, which are full of inconsistencies, grammatical errors and hilariously fake and false "prophecies" sometimes even assigned to the wrong prophet, there are only two possibilities in this matter:

1. The texts that show an abundance of this word were written when this word was considered a hot topic, and
2. The texts that show a relative absence of this word were written when this word was "just a word"
Very interesting. But...
It isn't until Paul after the gospels that the new words get repurposed: χρηστός suddenly gets sexy, and so does καινός. And so the letters are relatively full of these words, and the gospels aren't - and once again it is blatantly evident that Paul is late, and somehow it just doesn't get through to some idiots' thick skulls
This does not hold. Again, see my proposed development.
GospelSources_7.gif
GospelSources_7.gif (136.08 KiB) Viewed 439 times
What you are seeing in the use of this word in the Pauline letters are the modifications that occur with the creation of the collection that includes Canonical Luke. Clearly when that collection was created, the Pauline letters were heavily revised, introducing the Pastorals, rearranging the letters, and introducing many interpolations. All of Paul is not late, just the anti-Marcionite revisions.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The newness of it all: καινός

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:51 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:03 am
What I forgot to state: it is almost unavoidable that the parable of the wineskins is the pièce de résistance in *Ev and the very thing that led him not only to establish his "διαθήκη" but most importantly provided him with the unique word καινός for it, triggered by Thomas who has the unique ϣⲁⲉⲓ here.
.
διαθήκη/diathéké = testament, covenant, and/or will https://biblehub.com/greek/1242.htm
  • I wonder if 'will', as in determination, has a meaningful role here (even if by way of double entendre).

    And many English translations of the likes of Hebrews 8:8 have covenant for διαθήκη/diathéké
FWIW
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:51 am

1Co 11:25 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι τοῦτο ποιεῖτε ὁσάκις ἐὰν πίνητε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν

2Co 3:6 ὃς καὶ ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς διακόνους καινῆς διαθήκης οὐ γράμματος ἀλλὰ πνεύματος τὸ γὰρ γράμμα ἀποκτέννει τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζῳοποιεῖ

2Co 5:17 ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις τὰ ἀρχαῖα παρῆλθεν ἰδοὺ γέγονεν καινά

Gal 6:15 οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις [κτίσις = creation/created order/human authority]

Eph 2:15 (MGNT 2:14) τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ (2:15) τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην

Eph 4:24 καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας

Heb 8:8 ... ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται λέγει κύριος καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα, διαθήκην καινήν

Heb 9:15 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διαθήκης καινῆς μεσίτης ἐστίν ὅπως θανάτου γενομένου εἰς ἀπολύτρωσιν τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ πρώτῃ διαθήκῃ παραβά

Luk 22:20 καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ὡσαύτως μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λέγων τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ αἵματί μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυννόμενον





In line with the tenet of the OP above, note that Hebrews is very Jewish - ie. it appeals to Jewish tenets or even to Jews - cf. other early Christian texts not being 'Jewish' ie. not using Jewish 'scriptures' or tropes

eg. Hebrews 8:8

Heb 8:8 ... ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει κύριος, καὶ συντελέσω ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ἰούδα, διαθήκην καινήν
Behold [the] days are coming, says [the] Lord, and I will ratify with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, a covenant new



Also, re καινὸν ἄνθρωπον :

III. κ. ἄνθρωπος = novus homo [man], Plut[arch].

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... Dkaino%2Fs
Yes, my remark obviously is related to the other words I dropped earlier: all of them rather parsimonious (cough) in the gospels and abundantly present in the letters.
The funny thing is, Luke talks about a new covenant where Mark and Matthew do not - and no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there

Klinghardt does not restore Luke 22:20, BeDuhn does yet without the 'new' - and that is impossible of course, because the FF would have (had to have) been all over that

The Evangelion apparently read simply “contract” rather than “new contract,” a reading found also in one manuscript of the Peshitta Syriac; the same textual alternatives are found in the witnesses to the parallel passage in Mark 14.24 and Matt 26.28, where the reading without “new” is generally considered more original (see Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” 482–83); for “new contract,” cf. 1 Cor 11.25.

Maybe I'll try my luck at a real restoration of *Ev one of those days...
Last edited by mlinssen on Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by rgprice »

@MrMacSon

I don't know that Justin Martyr was "deliberately avoiding" Paul. For one thing, he says several things that are quite distinct in the Pauline letters, like the argument about Abraham, circumcision, and how the covenant with God extends to Gentiles because it was made prior to circumcision (even though the covenant required circumcision). This is widely recognized as a highly bizarre argument with little or no theological foundation. That both Justin and Paul would have made this argument separately is quite suspect. Either Justin got it from Paul directly, Justin got it from Paul indirectly without knowing it, or Justin invented the argument and it was interpolated into Paul.

But it seems to me that if Justin thought that Paul was a Marcionite figure, he would have called him out. He would have mentioned Paul as some sort of liar or something. So I just don't buy this claim that Justin simply avoided mentioned Paul because of Marcion. If Justin knew of Paul and had read Pauline material, then he was repeating Pauline arguments in many places. If he rejected Paul on account of being Marcionite, then why would he adopt his theology?

In addition, Polycarp was clearly against Marcion, yet Polycarp was a staunch advocate of Paul. He speaks boldly and favorably of Paul and Pauline teachings, and equally as boldly against Marcion. (Which again is why I agree that Polycarp or someone of his "school" is the one who created the proto-canonical New Testament collection.)

I think clearly Christians from Asia Minor were well acquainted with Paul and there were many who did not consider Marcion's reading of Paul as authoritative or correct. Clearly is was Christians from Asia Minor who came to Paul's defense because they were well acquainted with him.

OTOH, Roman Christians may have heard about Paul mostly or entirely from Marcion, and thus had an initially negative view.
Last edited by rgprice on Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:58 pm This does not hold. Again, see my proposed development.

Image
You have 6 Paul's in one single picture Geoff. Are you really expecting anyone to take this any serious?

Your theory is as disastrously unscientific as that of Pete: it can't be debunked precisely because it cannot be proven. The first criterion for a viable theory is that it must be falsifiable, it must be able to be proven wrong

Toss it, and come up with something sensible. Or grow old and ignored like Pete who isn't even aware himself that he never provides any answers to anything but only asks questions to everyone, the vast majority of which he not only could but also should have answered himself
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The newness of it all: καινός

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:14 pm The funny thing is, Luke talks about a new covenant where Mark and Matthew do not - and no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there
Interesting
When you say "no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there", do you mean/think that's because *Ev doesn't talks about a new covenant or because they avoid or don't know aobut *Ev ?

mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:14 pm
Klinghardt does not restore Luke 22:20, BeDuhn does yet without the 'new' - and that is impossible, of course, because the FF would have (had to have) been all over that

The Evangelion apparently read simply “contract” rather than “new contract,” a reading found also in one manuscript of the Peshitta Syriac; the same textual alternatives are found in the witnesses to the parallel passage in Mark 14.24 and Matt 26.28, where the reading without “new” is generally considered more original (see Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” 482–83); for “new contract,” cf. 1 Cor 11.25.

Is the text in that box from Klinghardts' The Oldest Gospel, 2020/21 ?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:16 pm @MrMacSon
I don't know that Justin Martyr was "deliberately avoiding" Paul.
  • I agree: "deliberately avoiding" is a pretty 'firm' statement.

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:16 pm For one thing, he says several things that are quite distinct in the Pauline letters, like the argument about Abraham, circumcision, and how the covenant with God extends to Gentiles because it was made prior to circumcision (even though the covenant required circumcision). This is widely recognized as a highly bizarre argument with little or no theological foundation. That both Justin and Paul would have made this argument separately is quite suspect. Either Justin got it from Paul directly, Justin got it from Paul indirectly without knowing it, or Justin invented the argument and it was interpolated into Paul.
  • or not just interpolated into Paul but primarily into Paul from Justin ie. when the relevant Pauline passages were written

    How likely that is; or whether it would have happened as the Marcionite Pauline versions were being developed or later, I would not know. Is there any indication from BeDuhn's versions of the Marcionite epistles? Markus Vinzent is working on Marcionite vs catholic-canonical Paul, too.

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:16 pm But it seems to me that if Justin thought that Paul was a Marcionite figure, he would have called him out. He would have mentioned Paul as some sort of liar or something. So I just don't buy this claim that Justin simply avoided mentioned Paul because of Marcion. If Justin knew of Paul and had read Pauline material, then he was repeating Pauline arguments in many places. If he rejected Paul on account of being Marcionite, then why would he adopt his theology?
  • Good points!

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:16 pm In addition, Polycarp was clearly against Marcion, yet Polycarp was a staunch advocate of Paul. He speaks boldly and favorably of Paul and Pauline teachings, and equally as boldly against Marcion. (Which again is why I agree that Polycarp or someone of his "school" is the one who created the proto-canonical New Testament collection.)
  • Robert M Price thinks Polycarp and Marcion wrote some of the Pauline epistles

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:16 pm
I think clearly Christians from Asia Minor were well acquainted with Paul and there were many who did not consider Marcion's reading of Paul as authoritative or correct. Clearly is was Christians from Asia Minor who came to Paul's defense because they were well acquainted with him.

OTOH, Roman Christians may have heard about Paul mostly or entirely from Marcion, and thus and thus had an initially negative view.


  • Yes, that preliminarily comes out in what BeDuhn outlined [in what I reproduced in the OP].

    I was hoping someone would elaborate on this. Thanks!
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Mar 03, 2023 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:58 pm
This does not hold. Again, see my proposed development.

GospelSources_7.gif
GospelSources_7.gif (136.08 KiB) Viewed 400 times
  • I wonder if the arrowheads should be at the other end of the 'arrows' to better reflect the chronology (& convention) ... I presume the chronology is top-to-bottom

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:58 pm What you are seeing in the use of this word in the Pauline letters are the modifications that occur with the creation of the collection that includes Canonical Luke. Clearly when that collection was created, the Pauline letters were heavily revised, introducing the Pastorals, rearranging the letters, and introducing many interpolations. All of Paul is not late, just the anti-Marcionite revisions.
  • What word are you referring to therein? χρηστός ?

    Doesn't what you're saying there tend to agree with what Martijn wrote here:*
    mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:51 am It isn't until Paul after the gospels that the new words get repurposed: χρηστός suddenly gets sexy, and so does καινός. And so the letters are relatively full of these words, and the gospels aren't - and once again it is blatantly evident that Paul is late, and somehow it just doesn't get through to some idiots' thick skulls
    * the extent or degree may be different (?)

mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:27 pm You have 6 Paul's in one single picture Geoff. Are you really expecting anyone to take this...serious[ly]?
  • It's likely Paul went through a series of edits and redactions. In various directions ie. it would not have been linear; and some later versions would have been lost ... in agreement with what as you say, canonical Paul is likely to be late, but there is likely to have been pre-canonical versions
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by rgprice »

@mlinssen I'm not sure why you think multiple revisions of the Pauline letters is somehow improbable. Indeed many scholars conclude that the Pauline letters appear to have multiple layers of revisions.

Revision 1: Assuming there were indeed individual Pauline letters, simply creating a collection is revision 1. This involves editing separate letters together, like we find in Corinthians, removing extraneous material, creating headings, etc. at the very least.

Revision 2: If indeed the writer of Mark wrote his narrative as an introduction to this Pauline letter collection, thereby creating a collection with Mark as the Foreword to the letter collection, then that itself is a revision. But further, I porose that the writer of Mark also edited the letters, at the very least also modifying the introduction of Galatians to tie the ending of Mark to the beginning of Galatians.

Revision 3: Using Mark as a guide, we conclude that the letter collection used by Mark lacked Colossians, Laodiceans, the Pastorals, and possibly Philemon. This collection was received, likely in Laodicea, where the letters of Colossians and Laodiceans (and possible Philemon) were added. That at least is revision 3 to the collection. This revision coincided with the modification of the Marcan Gospel to create "proto-Luke". This community added new Pauline letters and revised the introductory narrative to go along with their modifications to the collection. They also, of course, had opportunity here to make other modifications to the Pauline letters.

*Marcion: Marcion's collection appear to be derived from Revision 3 and likely gives us a more accurate view of what the Pauline letter collection looked like at this time than the current canonical set. Marcion's Pauline letters are very likely a snapshot of Revision 3 since comparisons to the orthodox collection yield almost entirely additions.

Revision 4: This is the creation of the orthodox collection. The creator of Canonical Luke likely derived their collection from the collection consisting of "proto-Luke" and the R3 of Pauline letters. They created a major revision, adding in the Pastorals, rearranging the letters, and heavily modifying the content of the existing letters, including things like modifying the introduction of Romans, etc. This writer also produced Acts and added non-Pauline letters to the collection.

Revision 5: The creator of the proto-orthodox collection, used by Irenaeus, used the output of Revision 4 and added to that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, the Revelation of John, wrote 2 Peter, John 21, created the titles we know today and edited the Gospel of Mark, along with the Pauline and non-Pauline letters.

Now, I'm not sure what about this you are calling implausible. And there are many points of evidence to support each of these propositions. Identifying exactly which layers in the Pauline letters correspond to each of these revisions may never be possible, but we can identify at least some elements of at least Revision 1, Revision 2, and Revision 4 with ease. Identifying Revision 3, beyond the addition of Colossians and Laodiceans may be challenging, but I suspect its not impossible. Revision 5 may not be distinguishable from Revision 4 and thus may not be counted as a separate revision.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by rgprice »

I wonder if the arrowheads should be at the other end of the 'arrows' to better reflect the chronology (& convention) ... I presume the chronology is top-to-bottom
I'm a software developer, so I think of this in the way we diagram inheritance.: ) The arrows are showing the sources used by the entity from which the arrow originates. It would make more sense if the diagram was rotated 90 degrees clockwise, with the proto-canonical collection on the left, going back in time to the prior material. Bascially, the offspring at at the bottom with the ancestors at the top i.e. Paul' is the ancestor of Mark+Paul2,etc., etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The newness of it all: καινός

Post by mlinssen »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:50 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:14 pm The funny thing is, Luke talks about a new covenant where Mark and Matthew do not - and no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there
Interesting
When you say "no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there", do you mean/think that's because *Ev doesn't talks about a new covenant or because they avoid or don't know aobut *Ev ?
Of the FF who discuss Marcion (the usual suspects Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, etc) none has any comment about it.
If Mark and Matthew just have plain covenant, why does Luke have a new one?

The thing is, ALL MSS have 'new', just not all of the big five - yet Alexandrinus has it on each occasion.
Matthew: P37, P45, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don't have 'new', yet Alexandrinus, Ephrem and Bezae do. And of the remaining 130 MSS, 5 don't have it.
Mark: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephrem and Bezae don't have 'new', yet Alexandrinus does. And of the remaining 158 MSS, 7 don't have it.
All of Luke (only a dozen transcripts available alas) has 'new'

So what gives, really?
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:14 pm
Klinghardt does not restore Luke 22:20, BeDuhn does yet without the 'new' - and that is impossible, of course, because the FF would have (had to have) been all over that

The Evangelion apparently read simply “contract” rather than “new contract,” a reading found also in one manuscript of the Peshitta Syriac; the same textual alternatives are found in the witnesses to the parallel passage in Mark 14.24 and Matt 26.28, where the reading without “new” is generally considered more original (see Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” 482–83); for “new contract,” cf. 1 Cor 11.25.

Is the text in that box from Klinghardts' The Oldest Gospel, 2020/21 ?
No I'm as lazy as I can be, this is BeDuhn. I haven't been able to tempt myself into OCR-ing Klinghardt yet LOL

Like I said, Klinghardt doesn't restore any of the verse. Yet when the FF discuss the parable of the wine and the patch, of which the canonicals have reversed the order, none of them attests to kainos in combination with the wine - only once do they attest to rudis, the Latin, in combination with the patch - whereas the canonicals use it throughout: Matthew 9:17 for the wineskins, Mark 2:21 for the patch and 2:22 for the wineskins (though Sinaiticus and some others exclude it), Luke 5:36 for the patch (thrice) and 5:38 for the wineskins.
So we have 3 gospel writers with kainos wineskins and 2 with a kainos patch - and none of those get mentioned on 7 ocassions save for the patch, once

And they are allegedly discussing "Marcion", of course: so Marcion must have had kainos here - and because the order got reversed, the word trickled down to the wineskins as well, yet only in the canonicals: Thomas and (likely) *Ev only have this word occur once here.
It's past 1 AM Mac, I'm calling it quits. Yes, taking serious / seriously was a sign of fatigue already
Post Reply