Authentic Paulines --- An Oxymoron?

[robert j]

One of the most difficult questions facing the concept of authentic canonical letters of Paul is how the letters could have survived the century intact --- the century or more between Paul’s writing and the oldest extant Pauline manuscript. A remarkably complete manuscript of Paul’s canonical letters, p46, has a consensus dating around 200 CE, with a range of 150 to 250 CE.

In this post, I will present arguments in support of five authentic and relatively intact extant letters from Paul --- certainly not pristine, but not hopelessly compromised either. I will focus on how the letters could have survived the road to the canon through the hands of the proto-orthodox authorities. Can I provide proof? Of course not, no one can. It boils down to interpretation. But I believe the arguments for authenticity --- including in addition the internal evidence --- provide a stronger fit to the available evidence than any proposed alternate theory.

Prior to the 2nd C. acceptance of Paul’s letters as scripture by the proto-orthodox (2 Peter 3:15-16), there is evidence of Pauline-oriented congregations in Christ.

Circular reasoning, but none-the-less, the 5 letters addressed to Paul’s communities tell of congregations in Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth.

The vast majority of scholarship supports that gMark was written after Paul’s authentic letters --- and many scholars argue that gMark is dependent upon Paul.

Marcion used Paul’s letters, perhaps first encountering them in Pontus. And it would be difficult to expect that Paul’s letters would garner any scriptural authority for Marcion’s evangelizing efforts among communities that did not already have Pauline traditions. Paul's letters were important and integral for promoting antimonial doctrines for believers in a Jesus Christ.

The author of the proto-orthodox 1 Peter addressed his letter to the “elect strangers of the dispersion in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Asia, and Bithynia”. Totally missing in the entire letter 1 Peter is an earthly Galilean sage, but instead one finds an updated version of the Pauline Christ myth. Both 1 and 2 Peter have characteristics of proto-orthodox recruitment letters to Pauline oriented congregations.

One might conclude from these associations that by the early 2nd C., several Pauline oriented congregations existed in the northeastern Mediterranean regions. And it was these congregations that were put into play --- along with the letters of Paul --- after Marcion assembled and promoted his canon that included Paul’s letters. What ensued was competition for authority between the Marcionites (with leadership centers in the Pauline oriented northeastern Mediterranean regions?) and the proto-orthodox (with leadership centers in Alexandria, Antioch and the western empire?). If nothing else, the testimony of the Church Fathers tells of intense competition for authority between the proto-orthodox and the Marcionites. I suggest that as-yet unaffiliated Pauline-oriented congregations were important targets in the ensuing battle for authority.

In order to exert authority and leadership with these unaffiliated Pauline-oriented congregations, the proto-orthodox needed to exert Pauline authority --- that is, they needed Paul’s letters within their realm of influence and control.

Using the testimony of the Church Fathers, different proposals have been put forward on the Paulines. However, many investigators are careful to point out the difficulty in using the patristics because the testimonies of heresiologists like Tertullian and Irenaeus are rife with apologetics and polemics, and they appear to be more concerned with defending their own 2nd C. proto-orthodox traditions and doctrines rather than presenting historical facts. It is certainly not clear that they even knew the real history of the development of early Christian thought beyond what their 2nd C. church traditions held.

Some take the patristic heresiologists at their word --- that Marcion cut-out portions of Paul’s original letters in order to bring the letters more in-line with his heretical doctrines.

Others do a “Costanza” --- they take the opposite. Where Irenaeus and Tertullian accused Marcion of cutting-out passages from Paul’s letters, these investigators claim the proto-orthodox actually added those passages to letters in which the passages did not originally exist --- redacting and interpolating Paul’s letters to bring the letters more in-line with emerging catholic traditions.

Other permutations of these scenarios, as well as quite different chains of events, have been proposed.

It is entirely possible that accusations about Marcion butchering the letters of Paul were just a rhetorical device used by Irenaeus and Tertullian and their ilk (Irenaeus, Adv Hear 1.27.2 and Tertullian, Adv Marc, Book 5). After all, Marcion certainly wouldn't hesitate to chop-up the scriptures --- like Marcion's people chopped-up the dead bodies of their parents along with sheep to devour at their feasts as Tertullian claimed, poisoning the well in the opening paragraphs of the Five Books Against Marcion (Adv Marc 1.1).

I am persuaded --- primarily based on the testimony of Clement of Alexandria --- that Marcion took the letters of Paul essentially as Paul wrote them, and found in Paul's antinomian arguments what he considered to be a kindred soul. Marcion only put his own spin on Paul’s letters and applied his own interpretations to support and promote his own further doctrines. It was just Marcion's selective interpretations that the patristic heretic hunters attacked and refuted using their accusations of butchery.

Clement of Alexandria wrote between the purported times of Irenaeus and Tertullian. Clement refuted the doctrines of Marcion with primarily philosophical arguments in several sections of his lengthy Stromata. Clement accused the heretics of selective use of the scriptures (Stromata, Book 7, chapter 16), but surprisingly, Clement did not accuse Marcion of chopping-up or altering Paul’s letters. And Paul was Clement’s doctrinal hero, citing his letters extensively and referring to Paul as “the apostle”, “blessed", “noble”, even “divine”. If Marcion had mutilated them, why didn’t the prolific writer Clement defend the letters of his hero Paul?

With a number of Pauline-oriented congregations that likely held Paul’s letters in the highest esteem --- congregations the proto-orthodox were trying to bring within their own sphere of influence --- the proto-orthodox were not likely to significantly alter those treasured letters and risk losing the very congregations they were trying to win-over.

So the proto-orthodox, the emerging catholics, implemented a multi-prong approach. They attempted to discredit Marcion with over-the-top accusations of savagery, and accusations of butchering the letters of Paul. They attempted to bring the person and doctrines of Paul within the realm of their own traditions with the Acts of the Apostles. They attempted to tame Paul’s letters and impose church authority with the Pastorals. They claimed Paul’s letters as their own scripture and warned against heretical readings --- in the supposed words of Peter no less (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The attempts and claims of the emerging catholics eventually won the day --- and the centuries.

robert j.

[ficino]

What ensued was competition for authority between the Marcionites (with leadership centers in the Pauline oriented northeastern Mediterranean regions?) and the proto-orthodox (with leadership centers in Alexandria, Antioch and the western empire?). If nothing else, the testimony of the Church Fathers tells of intense competition for authority between the proto-orthodox and the Marcionites. I suggest that as-yet unaffiliated Pauline-oriented congregations were important targets in the ensuing battle for authority.

In order to exert authority and leadership with these unaffiliated Pauline-oriented congregations, the proto-orthodox needed to exert Pauline authority --- that is, they needed Paul’s letters within their realm of influence and control.

Roma locuta est; causa finita est.

Just kidding. Stimulating presentation of evidence, and I appreciate your clarity about what you consider an assumption and what you consider evidence.

[Stephan Huller]

Where do you robertj see evidence of 'unaffiliated Pauline communities'? Seems to me to be nothing more than a product of your imagination. All we have is (a) Irenaeus's statements about what Paul believed and (b) an echo sometimes faint of what objections the heretics had or the alleged 'incorrectness' of their views. There is absolutely nothing which speaks of 'unaffiliated communities' because for Irenaeus you were either with him or against him. He did not allow for a middle position in his reporting hence we have no knowledge of anything but his black or white worldview. Sounds like you are inventing a category to squeeze in this new theory.

[robert j]

Where do you robertj see evidence of 'unaffiliated Pauline communities'? Seems to me to be nothing more than a product of your imagination. All we have is (a) Irenaeus's statements about what Paul believed and (b) an echo sometimes faint of what objections the heretics had or the alleged 'incorrectness' of their views. There is absolutely nothing which speaks of 'unaffiliated communities' because for Irenaeus you were either with him or against him. He did not allow for a middle position in his reporting hence we have no knowledge of anything but his black or white worldview. Sounds like you are inventing a category to squeeze in this new theory.

In addition to those Pauline-oriented groups not apparently or clearly associated with proto-orthodox doctrines nor Marcionite doctrines that I suggested in my opening post, one could add the groups to which the author(s) of the Deutero-Paulines (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians) intended their letters.

What makes you believe that the relatively late Irenaeus --- as well as Tertullian and those following in their footsteps --- actually knew the true history of the development of early Christian thought? That they knew and promoted anything more their late 2nd C. church traditions?

[Stephan Huller]

You're changing the topic. You have to start out acknowledging that there is no supporting evidence of your artificial construct 'unaffiliated Pauline communities.' This severely weakens your thesis right at the start. The Marcionites, Tatian and the Encratites distinguished the Pastorals from the main corpus. That's an attesting demarcation within the corpus. Another community or tradition had a Galatians first canon (Ephrem and the Palutians presumably). This may have overlapped or in some sense been related to the aforementioned (first) group. Another community seems to have had a Corinthians first canon (Muratorian canon). And then there is our Romans first canon. A lot of scholars (especially evangelical scholars oddly enough) have grown to accept the Marcionite designation of the anonymous epistle (so-called 'to the Ephesians') as 'to the Laodiceans.' The Marcionites also had a 'to the Alexandrians.' I am not convinced about arguments the Marcionites had an epistle to Philemon. I strongly doubt it in fact. There also seems to have been a Latin epistle to Titus. That's the scope of possibilities attested by or from the evidence. Everything beyond this is pure speculation and thus unconvincing. You will at least have to bolster your justification for these 'unaffiliated' communities of Paul. It would be at least odd that the earliest Church Fathers don't mention these communities and even stranger make reference to their opponents (the 'heresies') as 'the (pre-existent) alternative' to their understanding of Paul. They do this in very consistent terms. Why would that be if there was a plurality of Pauline communities in antiquity?

[MrMacSon]

In addition to those Pauline-oriented groups not apparently or clearly associated with proto-orthodox doctrines nor Marcionite doctrines, that I suggested in my opening post, one could add the groups to which the author(s) of the Deutero-Paulines (2 Thessalonians, Ephesians and Colossians) intended their letters.

What makes you believe that the relatively late Irenaeus --- as well as Tertullian and those following in their footsteps --- actually knew the true history of the development of early Christian thought? That they knew and promoted anything more their late 2nd C. church traditions?

I agree.

It's almost seems as if Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others, were promoting what was then current main-stream theology, and were later largely derided as heresiologists as the "accepted theology" changed.

[MrMacSon]

.
I think it would be good for these propositions to be widely 'teased out' (by 'wider scholarship') in future [edited in italics]

... The Marcionites, Tatian and the Encratites distinguished the Pastorals from the main corpus. That's an attesting demarcation within the corpus.

Another community or tradition had a Galatians first canon (Ephrem and the Palutians presumably). This may have overlapped or in some sense been related to the aforementioned (first) group.

Another community seems to have had a Corinthians first canon (Muratorian canon).

And then there is our Romans first canon. A lot of scholars (especially evangelical scholars, oddly enough) have grown to accept the Marcionite designation of the anonymous epistle (so-called 'to the Ephesians') as 'to the Laodiceans.'

The Marcionites also had a 'to the Alexandrians.'

I am not convinced about arguments the Marcionites had an epistle to Philemon.

There also seems to have been a Latin epistle to Titus.

That's the scope of possibilities attested by or from the evidence. Everything beyond this is pure speculation and thus unconvincing.

You will at least have to bolster your justification for these 'unaffiliated' communities of Paul. It would be at least odd that the earliest Church Fathers don't mention these communities and even stranger make reference to their opponents (the 'heresies') as 'the (pre-existent) alternative' to their understanding of Paul. They do this in very consistent terms. Why would that be if there was a plurality of Pauline communities in antiquity?

More a plurality of messianic communities? some with more 'commonality' than others? perhaps for a few generations?
.

[Stephan Huller]

No. This is the problem with the discussions at this forum. They are guided by an uncontrolled desire to allow for any number of stupid imagined positions. It should be a basic 'rule of thumb' that someone, somewhere knew something about the idea that just popped into someone's head here in the forum. I acknowledge that this may limit some 'bright ideas' but the alternative is to chase rainbows. When 'the bad guys' (Irenaeus, Tertullian) attack, manipulate, distort (which ever term you want to use) the contemporary landscape it has to be assumed that there is something 'there' that they are ___________ (fill in the blank with previous terminology). The Pete Browns of the world and at this forum want to pretend that these testimonies are complete divorced from any sort of historical reality and thus they can be ignored. Yet this reckless and stupid.

There have to be rules to a game. In any sport there are boundaries and things permitted and not permitted. You can't just push the Church Fathers to the side because they are problematic for developing creative theories. I don't think the Patristic evidence needs to be 'slavishly' adhered to. I don't think we need to 'accept' their agenda. But surely there are historical 'boundaries' that caused them to lie, manipulate, deceive (fill in term here ____________) in the way that they did. In other words, their testimony was 'conditioned' by some contemporary reality which - however loosely defined - is something 'real' and 'historical.'

As such, you can't just posited the existence of 'unaffiliated Pauline communities.' It might have existed in some sense. But it is a worthless terminology because how do we know whether or not they were 'affiliated'? Affiliated with what or whom? It's just an arbitrary and meaningless term that just seeks to develop a middle position between two poles (Marcionitism and orthodoxy) which are by and large (or 'as of yet') undetermined terminologies. What was Marcionitism? What was orthodoxy? In what way were each 'affiliated' with each other or other communities? It's just bafflingly vague and unknowable and thus stupid to invent terms developed in relation to qualities and quantities which haven't yet even been properly defined.

Let's first spend a lifetime properly knowing and defining 'Marcionism' and 'orthodoxy' (or whatever you want to call 'Irenaeus's tradition') and then move on to the completely theoretical stuff - not the other way around.

[MrMacSon]

Let's first spend a lifetime properly knowing and defining 'Marcionism' and 'orthodoxy' (or whatever you want to call 'Irenaeus's tradition') and then move on to the completely theoretical stuff - not the other way around.

I agree, but we still have to acknowledge the 'greyness' in which we currently investigate, and thus be open to various possibilities.

These are strawmen -

When 'the bad guys' (Irenaeus, Tertullian) attack, manipulate, distort (which ever term you want to use) the contemporary landscape it has to be assumed that there is something 'there' that they are ___________ (fill in the blank with previous terminology). The Pete Browns of the world and at this forum want to pretend that these testimonies are complete divorced from any sort of historical reality and thus they can be ignored. Yet this reckless and stupid.

I'm not suggesting this, either -

... You can't just push the Church Fathers to the side because they are problematic for developing creative theories.

But surely there are historical 'boundaries' that caused them to lie, manipulate, deceive (fill in term here ____________) in the way that they did. In other words, their testimony was 'conditioned' by some contemporary reality which - however loosely defined - is something 'real' and 'historical.'

It would pay to focus on the more-significant constructive that I proposed -

I think it would be good for these propositions to be widely 'teased out' (by 'wider scholarship') in future

... The Marcionites, Tatian and the Encratites distinguished the Pastorals from the main corpus. That's an attesting demarcation within the corpus.

Another community or tradition had a Galatians first canon (Ephrem and the Palutians presumably). This may have overlapped or in some sense been related to the aforementioned (first) group.

Another community seems to have had a Corinthians first canon (Muratorian canon).

And then there is our Romans first canon. A lot of scholars (especially evangelical scholars, oddly enough) have grown to accept the Marcionite designation of the anonymous epistle (so-called 'to the Ephesians') as 'to the Laodiceans.'

The Marcionites also had a 'to the Alexandrians.'

... arguments [for and against the proposition that] the Marcionites had an epistle to Philemon.

There also seems to have been a Latin epistle to Titus.

That's the scope of possibilities attested by or from the evidence. Everything beyond this is pure speculation and thus unconvincing.

[Stephan Huller]

But what's the impetus to figure out 'new' but wholly unproven theories about Paul and the canons of his writings when we haven't even mapped out 'knowable' or at least 'more certain' possibilities? Seems like spending a lot of time planning an imaginary house down to the furniture when you don't even have two nickels to rub together.