A strong argument pro authenticity of the Pauline epistles

[Stuart]

Antitheses = Matthew 5:18 -48 https://books.google.com/books?id=9ntwN ... 22&f=false

LOL, that has been my argument, including parallels we find in the anti-Marcionite literature, in particular Dialogue Adamantius, except that I say Matthew has flipped the Marcionite sayings to be anti-Marcionite. What is more I trace the sayings (really paraphrases) to the portions of the Lukan gospel attested in the Marcionite text. It shapes my opinion of what "Q" actually is, and informs me of a gospel order.

Of course we differ dramatically on our opinions of what the antithesis actually looked like as a document; I see it as a small pamphlet given to traveling preachers of the sect to use as a handy tool for proselytizing; from what I gather you see it as more of a large commentary on the Jewish scriptures, more along the lines of those we find from various church fathers such as Origen, Pelagius and others. Perhaps both existed. They are not really mutually exclusive.

Anyway thanks for the reference. I will study it.

[Giuseppe]

Could Marcion do like the great exegetes of the time, like Philo, like Origen later ? He claimed to derive his doctrine of him from Paul. It is by explaining the Pauline epistles that he proved his thesis, and not by falsifying the text, or by interpolating it.

[Stuart]

Giuseppe,

If my view is correct, that Christianity formed in monastic communities similar to those of the Theraputae as described by Philo, then it's very likely great commentaries of the books of the OT (probably some version of the LXX) would have been found in their library. Sects undoubtedly formed around the teachings of strong community leaders. Their philosophical speculations, which amongst other masters would have merely been academic discussions, hardened into dogmas by their students, especially as they condensed it into teaching points for proselytizing apostles (aka, the famous wandering itinerant preachers).

Now when it comes to Marcion in my view he is a reified version of the legendary patron saint Mark for a sect of Paulinists. Mark/Marcion took his authority from Paul, and Paul from revelation. Thus their succession. There is no Marcion so to speak, rather only a legend, a fiction built up by both friend and foe of the sect.

None of that precludes there being a string Marcionite leaders who wrote up a commentary. However the evidence suggests the pamphlet form was a living document, similar to other documents such as the gospel of Thomas, in that it acquired additional antithesis pairs and other teaching points over time. The document Matthew saw was likely more abbreviated than the ones known in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

As for a full commentary, it too likely changed over time, with additional points made as needed to counter opponents of the day. However the nature of such a composition would have made it rare, the property only of a teaching hub, likely a monastery or central church of the Marcionites and not widely distributed. It is far less likely for the great commentary to have fallen into the hands of rival sects, as unlike the pamphlet version of the antithesis that would have been in wide circulation and in the hands of nearly everyone of their itinerant preachers, these were few and far between. Also the Decian and Diocletian persecutions likely destroyed most of the commentaries, and lacking the state support of the main church, would have been much less likely to be recovered and copied.

So while it's possible, and even likely that there was a great commentary that served as the basis for the antithesis we know through the anti-Marcionite writings, almost certainly the document which most concerned that main proto-orthodoxy was the pamphlet of antithesis points handed out to itinerant Marcionite preachers. That was the document and those were the points they confronted frequently. So logically those would have been the points they attacked.

[davidmartin]

Could Marcion do like the great exegetes of the time, like Philo, like Origen later ? He claimed to derive his doctrine of him from Paul. It is by explaining the Pauline epistles that he proved his thesis, and not by falsifying the text, or by interpolating it.

If so, could Colossians and Ephesians have been Marcionite or his progenitor's productions and also added onto the Pauline epistles? They seem not to be by Paul and in places support Marcion's case suspiciously well? If that were so though, it would mean Marcion was the source for the Catholic Pauline epistles and if they existed before they weren't widely known (and if there were people knowledgeable of them that had copies, they were ignored). In that case it would explain why the pastorals are such obvious pseudo-anonymous writings and Colossians and Ephesians less so, because these are earlier and closer to the situation that spawned the Pauline epistles?

[Stuart]

davidmartin,

I think the best way to understand the Marcionite collection is not as Marcionite writings per se, but as an earlier version of the Pauline collection, frozen in place by the Marcionite church breaking away from the main church. Revisions and additions to the text continued for at least a couple of generations after the split within the main church's collection, but very little in the Marcionite collection.

Put another way, the Marcionites were one of many sects that were part of the church. At some point the feuding and differences became too great and they broke away. At the moment of the split the text was likely identical, excepting for local variances (I'll accept that perhaps some recent additions were rejected by the Marcionites who held onto a little bit earlier version). The content of the epistles was not from any one sect, but rather bits and pieces from various sects and authors. Even in the Marcionite collection there is great diversity in the theology encapsulated in Paul.

What is clearly missing is the Lukan/Pastoral layer. It should be noted the overlapping parts of Colossians and Ephesian/Laodiceans is almost entirely unattested in the Marcionite. The two letters seem to have been redacted with common material.

The collection is older than the Marcionite rift. There is evidence within the collection that sub-collections existed before the ten letter form of the Marcionites. A lot of theories about a 7-letter form, a 3-letter form, and Asian letter collection and so on. It is generally recognized when fragments were put together the collector/editor made some adjustments to make it work. Also the editor/collector of each form almost certainly added the greeting and sometimes the closing. "Paul, an Apostle of Christ Jesus, to the churches in XYZ, ..." were formulas introduced by the collector/editor of the sub-collection. It would be a mistake to consider the greetings or title as authentic.

Note, Robert Price suggests that the first form of Galatians began at verse 3:1. A Marcionite pupil wrote the first half chapter 1 and most of chapter 2, while the Lukan redactor of the Catholic collection (the one we have) wrote the back half of chapter 1 and various elements in chapter 1 and 2, and a few others elsewhere. (My view is a little different, but partly aligns.)

The Pauline letters compositional histories are complex.

[davidmartin]

I think the best way to understand the Marcionite collection is not as Marcionite writings per se, but as an earlier version of the Pauline collection, frozen in place by the Marcionite church breaking away from the main church. Revisions and additions to the text continued for at least a couple of generations after the split within the main church's collection, but very little in the Marcionite collection.

Thanks for that reply Stuart. I'm completely on board with that assessment and way you break it down is helpful
I have accepted as likely the Marcionites had an earlier version of the collection and if there was ever a historical Paul then what became of his churches might have ended up providing him the copies. He was supposed to be the son of a minister after all
I read above some suggest originally the epistles might have been dualistic as to the Jewish God. I'm not taking sides on that one but I'm doubtful, I think they're seeing aspects of pre-Paul beliefs here not Marcion per se that Paul himself has to grapple with and make sense of (or not)

What is clearly missing is the Lukan/Pastoral layer. It should be noted the overlapping parts of Colossians and Ephesian/Laodiceans is almost entirely unattested in the Marcionite. The two letters seem to have been redacted with common material.

I'd be interested to know more about this. It's pretty easy to see redactions in these two occured. I need to know more about this
But what I wondered was, if originally they were not part of the collection prior to Marcion that would be significant if it could be argued he added them for theological reasons. That would suggest the Paul epistles were not in wide usage at all if he could get away with it.

"wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us; and he has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross; having stripped the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it."
This makes it sound like the law was given by one of the principalities and powers surely, and that goes much further than Paul does in the other epistles and fits Marcion

So if those 2 were actually Marcionite additions then it would seem like the letter collection prior to Marcion was relatively unknown which makes a lot of sense. If Paul were historical he made his impact early and 50 years later was on the sidelines till Marcion came along. Or this is completely wrong and something else happened!