Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I don't know what evidence could help argue that Paul was a composite figure.

It might be possible to argue that 'Paul' was Marcion or even Simon based on the statement in Justin 1 Apology:

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods (Τρίτον δ' ὅτι καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνέλευσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς οὐρανὸν προεβάλλοντο οἱ δαίμονες ἀνθρώπους τινὰς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι θεούς); and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:— Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator ((Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶ διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν). And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

While word 'after' here is considerably weaker than the 'straightaway (after)' of Clement it is interesting that the spread of the heresies from alleged 'demonic assistance' is explicitly connected with the ascension. It can of course be argued that the Church Fathers divided world history into 'before' and 'after' the ascension, or that the 'good Christians' all derived their authority from apostles who knew Jesus before the ascension. But given what we have uncovered about a tradition associated with Paul that his commission was tied to the ascension, I think there is something else going on.

The heretics must have thought that a man - 'Paul' - went up to heaven and somehow witnessed Jesus's enthronement beside the Father. Consider for a moment the tradition that Paul sat on the right and Marcion on the left of Christ. This seems to echo the idea of Paul's eyewitness of the enthronement of Jesus but also his participation - possibly with some recognizing Marcion as Paul. Note also the strangeness of Justin saying that demons put forward certain men who were claimed to be gods 'after the ascension' (μετὰ τὴν ἀνέλευσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ) and being surprised that Marcion was still alive, still alive presumably from the ascension. On Marcion living in the apostolic age cf. Clement of Alexandria and Marutha.

The parallel myth in the Dialogue is that of the manifestation of the Antichrist after the ascension:

In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the 'time' as being a hundred years. [Dial 32]

The Antichrist myth however only seems to be the 'flip side' of the two advent belief which elsewhere in Justin's writings he seems particularly attached to:

Accordingly, it is shown that Solomon is not the Lord of hosts; but when our Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven, the rulers in heaven, under appointment of God, are commanded to open the gates of heaven, that He who is King of glory may enter in, and having ascended, may sit on the right hand of the Father until He make the enemies His footstool, as has been made manifest by another Psalm. For when the rulers of heaven saw Him of uncomely and dishonoured appearance, and inglorious, not recognising Him, they inquired, [Dial 36]

Yes the text stops short of saying that Jesus appeared 'dishonored' and lowly and then reappeared immediately after his ascension 'in glory' as a king. But the fingerprints are there.

Consider also the statement a little later from Trypho:

And Trypho said, "Sir, it were good for us if we obeyed our teachers, who laid down a law that we should have no intercourse with any of you, and that we should not have even any communication with you on these questions. For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped." [ibid 38]

Is Trypho speaking about a future appearance on the earth or - as I would have it - the reappearance of Jesus as 'Paul' (or whatever name he was originally known by) immediately following the ascension. The important thing to see is that Jesus was already a divine being at the time of Moses. He appears as a lowly man during the ministry described in the gospel but is still holy divine. What distinguished the 'second coming'? Clearly the idea that here Jesus was now a 'man incarnate.'

Another imperceptible 'trick' or 'sleight of hand' in Justin's argument. At a later part of the Dialogue he argues effectively that the 'second man' or the man who manifested the 'second coming' was Christ but that Trypho asks him to acknowledge that the first man (= Jesus of the gospel) was Christ:

And I said to him, "Listen, O friend, for I am not mad or beside myself; but it was prophesied that, after the ascent of Christ to heaven, He would deliver us from error and give us gifts. The words are these: 'He ascended up on high; He led captivity captive; He gave gifts to men.' Accordingly, we who have received gifts from Christ, who has ascended up on high, prove from the words of prophecy that you, 'the wise in yourselves, and the men of understanding in your own eyes,' are foolish, and honour God and His Christ by lip only. But we, who are instructed in the whole truth, honour Them both in acts, and in knowledge, and in heart, even unto death. But you hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, perhaps for this reason, lest you be persecuted by the rulers, who, under the influence of the wicked and deceitful spirit, the serpent, will not cease putting to death and persecuting those who confess the name of Christ until He come again, and destroy them all, and render to each his deserts."

And Trypho replied, "Now, then, render us the proof that this man who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by means of the Scriptures previously quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, every kingdom being made subject to Him: now show us that this man is He."

And I replied, "It has been already proved, sirs, to those who have ears, even from the facts which have been conceded by you; but that you may not think me at a loss, and unable to give proof of what you ask, as I promised, I shall do so at a fitting place. At present, I resume the consideration of the subject which I was discussing.

The most surprising thing about the argument here in fact is that Justin declines the opportunity to say that the 'first man' was Christ. This is distinctly Marcionite. Marcionites denied that Jesus was the Christ of the prophets. And if you look at some of the other arguments in Justin, Jesus after his resurrection instructs the disciples that the man to come is the awaited messiah of the prophets. There is a fascinating silence regarding the 'first man.'

So what I am suggesting is that there was a tradition later associated with Marcion that:

1. a historical man went up to heaven (with Jesus?) saw his enthronement and at the same time was made one with Jesus (the two made one Ephesians 2:15?) who came back down to earth and was recognized as the awaited Christ of the Jews.
2. the 'first man' (= Jesus) who appeared in Judea and was crucified in Jerusalem was really the god or angel who conversed with Moses and the Patriarchs
3. the enthronement in heaven strongly implies that this 'second man' received his royal authority from a heavenly source. He was a messiah without an (earthly) kingdom.
4. the destruction of Jerusalem likely led to his being recognized as a legitimate monarch/messiah
5. it also gave rise to the myth of the Antichrist which was the second advent theology of Justin and authorized turned inside out. The 'blasphemies' that he spoke in the temple are at once his claims to be the second coming of the 'first man.'

And important points from Eznik which often get overlooked.

1. Paul was the 'man' who ascended to Paradise.
2. Marcion claimed to have heard the same 'unspeakable' things referenced by 2 Corinthians. As such Marcion may have been another name that 'Paul' was known by in the heretical community. Simon may have been another.
3. Eznik sees a contradiction in what is written in 2 Corinthians and the fact that the Marcionites know what the 'unspeakable' things are. Accordingly Paul 'lied' or Marcion disobeyed Paul's orders to keep things 'unsaid.'
4. Clearly though there is no difficulty. Clement's distinction between what is acceptable to lay down in written form and what was (secretly) be reserved for word of mouth instruction is the solution here again (once more Clement clarifies the Marcionite position).

So the idea seems to be that 'the second man' who ascended to heaven with Jesus (or 'as Jesus') attained 'unspeakable' knowledge ('unspeakable' in any other setting other than one cloaked by ritual secrecy according to the mystery religion tradition) and then laid a portion of his knowledge out openly in writing (= the gospel and possibly his letters) but then preserved the 'secret' portion of his teaching according to oral 'word of mouth' instruction.

Secret Alias wrote:
It might be possible to argue that 'Paul' was Marcion or even Simon based on the statement in Justin 1 Apology:

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods (Τρίτον δ' ὅτι καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνέλευσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς οὐρανὸν προεβάλλοντο οἱ δαίμονες ἀνθρώπους τινὰς λέγοντας ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι θεούς); and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:— Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator ((Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶ διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν). And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh— we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

While word 'after' here is considerably weaker than the 'straightaway (after)' of Clement it is interesting that the spread of the heresies from alleged 'demonic assistance' is explicitly connected with the ascension. It can of course be argued that the Church Fathers divided world history into 'before' and 'after' the ascension, or that the 'good Christians' all derived their authority from apostles who knew Jesus before the ascension. But given what we have uncovered about a tradition associated with Paul that his commission was tied to the ascension, I think there is something else going on.

The heretics must have thought that a man - 'Paul' - went up to heaven and somehow witnessed Jesus's enthronement beside the Father. Consider for a moment the tradition that Paul sat on the right and Marcion on the left of Christ. This seems to echo the idea of Paul's eyewitness of the enthronement of Jesus but also his participation - possibly with some recognizing Marcion as Paul. Note also the strangeness of Justin saying that demons put forward certain men who were claimed to be gods 'after the ascension' (μετὰ τὴν ἀνέλευσιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ) and being surprised that Marcion was still alive, still alive presumably from the ascension. On Marcion living in the apostolic age cf. Clement of Alexandria and Marutha.

I'm intrigued by the passage just after your second bold-highlighted sentence -

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator (Μαρκίωνα δέ τινα Ποντικόν, ὃς καὶ νῦν ἔτι ἐστὶ διδάσκων τοὺς πειθομένους ἄλλον τινὰ νομίζειν μείζονα τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεόν). And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them ... but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions.

Another interesting implication of an immediate post-ascension visionary experience for Paul which turns him into 'the Apostle.'

For the five of us at the forum who have actually read what Irenaeus and Tertullian say about the heretics (and thus the earliest statements ABOUT the heretics) there is this 'difficulty' that is always raised in two parts:

1. the apostles (Peter etc) had imperfect knowledge even though they were present during his ministry
2. the 'unspeakable' knowledge received by Paul was superior to that of Peter and the apostles.

The 'difficulty' is usually attributed to the imagination of the heretics - i.e. that they falsely attributed gnosis to Paul that they themselves invented. This is why the portrait of Acts becomes such an important lynch pin in the anti-heretical writings (and recognized as such by Knox and later others).

How could Peter and the apostles have heard one thing (inferior knowledge) and Paul (superior knowledge)? What makes matters even more seemingly incredible is that Paul was understood to have written the original gospel. For in the gospel there is a clear sense (referenced constantly by the earliest Alexandrians) that Jesus said one thing to 'those outside' (= inferior) and some better to his intimates (= Peter and the apostles).

It would seem that Peter was to blame for his lack of understanding. But then why did Jesus chose Peter? The quick reflex answer is that the choosing of Peter was added by those attached to the Jerusalem Church. But wasn't James the leader of that community and didn't the Hebrew gospel reflect James election? So the choice of Peter was added later. Or ...

The difficult might be overcome by thinking in terms of Jesus being 'improved' by his crucifixion and subsequent ascension. Since all evidence points to a tripartite division of humanity (animal, psychic, spiritual) Jesus's message in the gospel might well have precluded the 'unspeakable' knowledge given to Paul because Jesus himself had been perfected yet through the Cross.

If we imagine that Paul = Christ (a thing often referenced in his letters viz. 'speaking in Christ' etc) the original Pauline ascension was Paul going up to the third heaven/Paradise. 'Enmity' was crucified on the Cross. Jesus was crucified say all the heretics while Christ stood by impassibly watching. The Basilideans understood some sort of transmigration of the soul of Christ or Jesus to have entered into the body of someone partaking in the Passion.

Jesus as the Demiurge must die on the Cross. But the heretics in some form thought he was 'resurrected' as Christ possibly in another body (cf. the Alexandrian and later Coptic notion of the Incarnation). When Paul says in 1 Corinthians that the first time he came to them he only let them know about the Cross it is quite easy to imagine that he is speaking of his being Jesus or the 'first man.' This is the knowledge that the gospel repeats was passed onto Peter and the apostles. This is the level of psychic knowledge.

What Paul and the Pauline heretics must have thought was that immediately following the ascension (whatever that meant) Paul was the Christ. He ascended with/as Jesus but Jesus raised to a higher level possibly through witnessing the superior god the Father something Jesus the Demiurge never actually saw until that point. To that end, they must have/may have imagined that a superior knowledge was now given to Paul.

I am not sure how this fits in with a tradition associated with Peter or a non/pre-Pauline gospel. Perhaps Justin and Marcion used a similar gospel text. They were similar because the Pauline tradition recognized that Peter and the apostles received only the 'first grade' of knowledge (viz. the Cross 1 Corinthians 2:1 - 5). Layered on top of this knowledge was what Paul claimed to have experienced immediately following the ascension. It wasn't embedded into the gospel text per se (comp. the Valentinian gnosis which only seems to 'fit' the prologue to John and little else). The assumption must have been (at least for the Pauline gospel) that the crucifixion led to Paul's ascension with/as Christ and hearing of 'unspeakable' gnosis. It is difficult to know what the gospel of Petrine community said but it must have been compatible even if the specific gnosis associated with each sect was slightly different.

The basic paradigm may well have been that Jesus pointed to his crucifixion as the launching pad, the vehicle as it were for something miraculous about to take place involving the transference of a divine soul into mortal human beings. Paul took advantage of this already existing paradigm. All of which suggests I think the implausibility of a second century dating for Christianity.

Curious the way the call to Paul immediately following the ascension on the one hand and the journey to the third heaven are more or less interchangeable with one another in two discussions of Tertullian:

Now here I may say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: "The first thing for you to do is to shew who this Paul was—both what he was before he was an Apostle, and how he became an Apostle".; since at other times they make very great use of him in disputed matters. For though he himself declares that from a persecutor he became an Apostle, that statement is not sufficient for one who yields credence only after proof. For not even the Lord Himself bore witness concerning Himself. But let them believe without the Scriptures that they may believe against the Scriptures. Yet they must shew from the instance adduced of Peter being blamed by Paul that another form of Gospel was introduced by Paul beside that which Peter and the rest had previously put forth ... But although Paul was caught up as far as the third heaven, and when brought into paradise heard certain things there, yet these revelations cannot be thought to be such as would render him more qualified to teach another doctrine, since their very nature was such that they could not be communicated to any human being. But if that unknown revelation did leak out and become known to some one, and if any heresy affirms that it is a follower of that revelation, then either Paul is guilty of having betrayed his secret, or some one else must be shewn to have been subsequently caught up into paradise to whom permission was given to speak out what Paul was not allowed to whisper. BUT, as we have said, the same madness is seen when they allow indeed that the Apostles were not ignorant of anything nor preached different doctrines, yet will have it that they did not reveal all things to all persons, but committed some things openly to all, and others secretly to a few ... [Praescipt 22]

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle ... I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ.a Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ.b If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who
professes that he is an apostle of Christ. Thus far my converse has been in the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now on I propose to shatter your confidence, for you have no means of proving its validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but reject the means of establishing them. [Adv Marc 5:1]

What is the difference between Paul's ascension to heaven and Jesus's? Were they raises to the same place or different places?

I think Paul was the captive taken up with Jesus from Psalm 68:18/Ephesians 4:20. Lieu only gets it part right when she references Eznik's statement about the Marcionite myth - Paul is given a specific role, carried off by Jesus to preach the message 'that we are purchased with a purchase price.' Rather Jesus carried Paul up to heaven.