Memoirs of the Apostles in Justin's Trypho Dialogue

[Secret Alias]

There is a section of Adv Marc where the author repeatedly I think refers to a Corinthians first ordering. We're in agreement there.

[Secret Alias]

And my only challenge is why accept this situation with the Patriotic writings but not the Christian scriptures?

[Stuart]

More for Stuart

The fact that the latter portions of 1 Corinthians 15 were appropriated from this antithetical argument (i.e. that Treatise A was it's original source ) by backwards inference made chapters 9 and 10 of Adversus Marcion appear to perfectly explain the chapter. The Marcionite "Apostolikon" didn't have a chapter 15 of a "first letter to the Corinthians. "

The only other solution I can come up with is that the latter portions of chapter 15 were the Marcionite antitheses. That idea came from Danny Mahar. But it doesn't explain how Treatise A was created or why 1 Corinthians 15:21 does not appear at all dualistic viz "man" (= Jesus) dies, "man" (= Jesus) is resurrected. But maybe these aren't serious objections

The Marcionite belief system is pretty much consistent. The passages are both attested and fit the theology. The antithesis elements are consistent in all the Marcionite texts include the attested portions of Luke and the use of Scripture (OT). What is consistent of the Antithesis is the allegorical viewpoint, and the tendency to paraphrase. This is distinct from later Catholic texts which took greater care to precisely state OT passages (not always) and from the LXX. The Marcionite passage of Galatians 4:24-31 is an example of the paraphrase to fit what they wanted. The other interesting point of the passage is that the argument for slave and free status is derived from Roman law with the amendments from Hadrian, which overturned the Claudius ruling on birth status. This is in opposition to the Jewish Law, which Paul rants against.

BTW, this is a striking point about the Marcionite text. It is apparent that there is already a split in the Christian movement between heretical and porto-orthodox when the first ink hit the sheets. They are already debating Christology, and more specifically the properties of the father before any text was written. This has convinced me that the evangelical mission was the driving force behind the literature in the first place.

Side note the Claudius ruling allowed women, even free and citizen, to breed with a slave and sell the child based on the father's status. This was unworkable, and certainly led to challenges and abuses. Hadrian decided to go with the law of the tribes/nations (ETHNOS) and give children the status of the mother, which was known. They lacked DNA testing those days.

[MrMacSon]

• Eusubian history infects far too many accounts and timelines.

10/10 for this succinct summary. 0/10 for the oxymoron 'Eusebian history'

• I put zero weight in ecclesiastical history, and their accounts of various fathers. It's all fiction. We have (as scholars) done a horrendous job at sorting and placing the texts in their correct eras.
  
  And yes I agree the Patristic writings are a mess. Interpolated repeatedly over centuries, so that you are never 100% sure of whose work you are reading paragraph to paragraph.

• And my only challenge is why accept this situation with the Patriotic* [Patristic] writings but not the Christian scriptures?
  
  • * you're a Republican?

I'd say the Patristic writing are a mess because of the need to embellish them to embellish the notion that the Christian scriptures were more than they were in those times --ie. the 2nd century.

[Secret Alias]

Patriotic = autocorrect of Patristic

[MrMacSon]

Patriotic = autocorrect of Patristic

Yes, I figured it was an autocorrect (I should have accused Apple of being Republican).

[MrMacSon]

.
This is interesting -

What is consistent of the [Marcinite] Antithesis is the allegorical viewpoint, and the tendency to paraphrase ... The Marcionite passage of Galatians 4:24-31 is an example of the paraphrase to fit what they wanted. The other interesting point of the passage is that the argument for slave and free status is derived from Roman law with the amendments from Hadrian, which overturned the Claudius ruling on birth status. This is in opposition to the Jewish Law, which Paul rants against.

[Secret Alias]

Let's take each point (as I wait for my son's camp to let out )

The Marcionite belief system is pretty much consistent.

Really? How many gods were there in the Marcionite pantheon? You know what I mean. Our understanding is entirely shaped by the refutations or concerns of the Church Fathers. So the fact that Irenaeus or some other dickhead had an issue with transgressing monarchic "truth" doesn't mean that by inference the Marcionites stressed or laid particular emphasis on these same areas of concern. It's like Hellenistic-Roman attitudes toward sex or idolatry. I don't know that the things which scandalized these same Church Fathers were "important" to the pagans. They likely were deemed things indifferent.

In the same way the emphasis of the Patristic texts is likely not indicative of what the heretics thought was important. Example - the claim that the Marcionites thought matter was a god. Totally rooted in the rhetorical nature of the anti-Marcionite polemical literature.

[MrMacSon]

This is also interesting -

The original Marcionite/Heretical Pauline collection lacked Galatians. 1 Corinthians led it, to the extent it was a single bundled collection. Galatians I suggest was written after the 2nd Gospel appeared, which I believe was Matthew (Mark may have been just as early but it is not in view of Galatians, and Church Fathers took some time before they mentioned it ... it was off in a cul-de-sac, I guess). This is the perverted Gospel (I am writing a paper on that now) mentioned in Galatians. The tool of the proto-Orthodox ("Jewish") Christians who wished to replace the Spirit Christ with the Flesh? Christ and return to the Law. The entire point of Galatians was to establish the authority of Paul which was now challenged. So of course it headed the collection* as it was a defense of Paul, his authority, and the authority of the (Marcionite) Gospel. This was the last Marcionite Pauline Epistle, so it was first in their collection*.

Romans was probably the last of the reworked Catholic collection, and it's original opening, which looked nearly identical to Ephesians (see Clabeaux's analysis of Ephesians with respect to Romans), was expanded to give the proto-Orthodox position on Paul and Christ, where Jesus is declared the son of David in the flesh, foretold by the OT Scriptures. This is the Catholic declaration of authority and it was placed first in the collection for the same reason Galatians was in the Marcionite. It should be noted the exact order seems to have been unsettled for some time as we find collections in varying order (there are at least two sub orders of the Catholic Pauline texts which occur frequently besides the Canonical order we have today)

• * the eventual proto-Orthodox / Catholic collection ??

[MrMacSon]

the emphasis of the Patristic texts is likely not indicative of what the heretics thought was important. Example - the claim that the Marcionites thought matter was a god. Totally rooted in the rhetorical nature of the anti-Marcionite polemical literature.

heterics is a label to imply 'the heretics' were against 'true doctrine', when really they were either (i) the losers in the doctrine wars or (ii) the writes of previous doctrine that had been usurped.

It's part of a ploy to give the impression 'things' "always were"