Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 09-29-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...the bit about the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 ("3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Yeah sure, 2 Thess is disputed by some as "authentic." The PSCO discussion cited above also deals with the state of debate on the relationship of the pastoral epistles to the other undisputed letters. To be honset, there hasn't been much movment since. Anyhow, this seems like a reference to the emperor Gaius' attempt to erect a statue of Zeus (modelled on his own features, of course) in the Jerusalem temple around 39-40 CE.

The long and the short of the matter is this, Paul, whoever he was, may have been active about a decade earlier than Acts would seem to suggest.

I agree with you that 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 is probably an allusion to the Caligula crisis. However, I am not sure why you would think that such an allusion means that Paul was active earlier than expected. That the expectation of what the man of sin would be like should be modelled after the Caligula incident makes sense anytime between that incident and the destruction of the temple. In Annals 12.54 Tacitus writes that, although the Caligulean orders were not actually carried out, there yet remained a fear that any one of the other emperors might command the same things (manebat metus ne quis principum eadem imperitaret). 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 is, I think, a reflection of that expectation filtered through a Christian conception of the end. It could have been written anytime between the early forties and circa 70.

Ben.

Minimalist · 09-29-2007, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Tertullian makes the point that even Marcion's edited version contains enough material to demonstrate that Marcion's religious position is wrong.

In Tertullian's somewhat biased opinion, of course.

DCHindley · 09-29-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

...the bit about the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 ("3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Yeah sure, 2 Thess is disputed by some as "authentic." The PSCO discussion cited above also deals with the state of debate on the relationship of the pastoral epistles to the other undisputed letters. To be honset, there hasn't been much movment since. Anyhow, this seems like a reference to the emperor Gaius' attempt to erect a statue of Zeus (modelled on his own features, of course) in the Jerusalem temple around 39-40 CE.

The long and the short of the matter is this, Paul, whoever he was, may have been active about a decade earlier than Acts would seem to suggest.

I agree with you that 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 is probably an allusion to the Caligula crisis. However, I am not sure why you would think that such an allusion means that Paul was active earlier than expected. That the expectation of what the man of sin would be like should be modelled after the Caligula incident makes sense anytime between that incident and the destruction of the temple. In Annals 12.54 Tacitus writes that, although the Caligulean orders were not actually carried out, there yet remained a fear that any one of the other emperors might command the same things (manebat metus ne quis principum eadem imperitaret). 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4 is, I think, a reflection of that expectation filtered through a Christian conception of the end. It could have been written anytime between the early forties and circa 70.

Ben.

I don't know, Ben ... that seems like wishful thinking: "Well it *could* have been, so it *must* have been ...".

Would you say, then, that the author of Mark 13:14, when he makes Jesus tell his disciples that they should flee Jerusalem when they see the "desolating abomination" (of Daniel per Matt 24:15), he is simply making Jesus say some sort of obvious prediction based on observation of the state of affairs but coached it in the language of "Daniel's" 70 week prophecy (9:27)? After all, this "could have been written anytime between the" late 160's BCE and circa 70 CE.

Yet Luke does something with that general prediction as given by the author of Mark above, which he clearly understood as a prediction of the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. He immediatized the prediction so that Jerusalem is "surrounded by armies" and includes the subjugation of the Judeans by the gentiles.

Gaius' attempt to erect his statue in 39-40 CE seems to me to be more of an immediate example of some generalized expectation/prediction of Paul's that things will get worse before his faithful gentile buddies can expect any realization of the promises made to Abraham by means of a change in world dominion, and so he spoke in 2 Thes 2:2-4.

I would think Paul (or whoever) is speaking of something immediately to hand, rather than something far off.

DCH

PhilosopherJay · 09-29-2007, 07:43 PM

Hi DCHindley,

I do not believe that 1Cor 11.6 is a reference to anything outside itself. It is a part of a logical argument. Unfortunately, an editor mixed together two arguments at this point in the text to create one gobbly-gook/nonsensical argument. However, we may simply reconstruct the original arguments with some confidence by separating the one argument into its original two separate component arguments. We may call one argument the "Hair/Covering Argument" and the other argument "the Man/Woman-Authority Argument"

Here is the full text of the two arguments as they appear now. The first argument is in blue and the second in red.

3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Here are the two arguments separated into their original component parts
First the Man/Woman-Authority Argument
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.
11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Here is the Hair-Covering Argument

4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

First, note that when restored in this fashion, the first argument makes perfect sense. It is strictly an argument for the equality of Women and Men within the Church. Because it is a clear demand for equality of women and men, we may assume that someone who did not care for this idea of women and man having equality in the Church rearranged the text to obscure the meaning.

We still do not have a second argument that makes sense. This requires simply rearranging a few lines. It is obvious that the argument begins with line 13 which states the argument clearly:

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

This is closer, but the message is still gobbley-gook. A few words still need to be changed in order for it to make sense. I have put the original words in yellow.

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces not her head, for she is one and the same as the womanman whose head is shaved.
6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a [woman to have her] man to have his hair cut off or [her] his head shaved, let her cover her head.
7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.
10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. her head uncovered. Because it is a symbol of authority on her head like the wings on an angel.

The original writer argued for women to be allowed to pray with their heads uncovered by a veil and for for the equality of woman. The editor was offended apparently by both these ideas. He mixed and changed the arguments to get the gobbly-gook nonsense we now have.

There is no outside reference to time or historical events in these arguments. However, we may suspect that Marcion, who had a reputation for hating women, was the one who made the changes. If this is true, it is ironic that women have been oppressed in the Catholic Church for some 1800 years, not because of the ideas of the original Pauline epistle writer, but because of the ideas of the heretic Marcion whose version of this epistle was largely accepted by the Church establishment because it reflected there own sexist feelings. Even here we have to be careful, it could have been Tertullian or someone else who made the changes.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Considering that the only copies we have of these letters actually originated with Marcion, and considering that we have external evidence of Marcion's willingness to insert his own text and theology into his texts (such as recorded by Tertullian), would it not be more appropriate to date the letters to the beginning of the first century, since it isn't possible to isolate what Paul might have written from what Marcion injected?

Is there a vald textual technique of isolating what Paul wrote from what Marcion wrote?

Whoo-wee, I think that you have made some giant assumptions about Marcion and his involvement with the Pauline corpus, gospel of Luke and Acts!

While looking at web sites the other day, here is a web page with a summary of the discussion on this matter at the March, 1967 meeting of the PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS (PSCO):

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/archi...4-min.htm#Set4

While everyone is arguing the evidence from papyri here, and making assumptions about Marcion's role in collecting, editing and publishing Pauline books, what about the internal evidence within the books?

I mean things like:

1) Paul's rant about women's hair in 1 Cor 11:6 ("For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil." I do not ever see anybody discuss this, but around 52 CE, which is very close to the traditional dating of this book, Queen Helena of Adiabene was in Jerusalem to discharge a Nazirite vow she took upon herself, which involves *shearing off her hair* to offer to a priest in the temple. If anyone here is unaware of this figure (shame on you!) then be advised she was at the center of a debate about whether her son(s), both princes, should convert to Judaism by accepting circumcision, or whether it was better to remain faithful gentiles. The full conversion option was chosen by her sons and it created quite an uproar in the kingdom of Adiabene and among Jews of the diaspora. Paul, as I have long advocated, himself was of the opposing position, and as such would be expected to be critical of her vow. I am unsure how this fits into my redacted Pauline corpus hypothesis, as the rant is more characteristic of the redactor than the "original" Paul.

2) the bit about the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 ("3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Yeah sure, 2 Thess is disputed by some as "authentic." The PSCO discussion cited above also deals with the state of debate on the relationship of the pastoral epistles to the other undisputed letters. To be honset, there hasn't been much movment since. Anyhow, this seems like a reference to the emperor Gaius' attempt to erect a statue of Zeus (modelled on his own features, of course) in the Jerusalem temple around 39-40 CE.

The long and the short of the matter is this, Paul, whoever he was, may have been active about a decade earlier than Acts would seem to suggest.

DCH

Ben C Smith · 10-01-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I don't know, Ben ... that seems like wishful thinking: "Well it *could* have been, so it *must* have been ...".

There has been a crossed wire here somewhere, as I am not certain what part of my argument this statement is supposed to address.

My whole point, far from any notion that anything must have been, is that concluding that Paul was active 10 years earlier than expected is not warranted. I am opening up the possible range a bit, not closing it down as a phrase like must have been might imply.

Quote:

Would you say, then, that the author of Mark 13:14, when he makes Jesus tell his disciples that they should flee Jerusalem when they see the "desolating abomination" (of Daniel per Matt 24:15), he is simply making Jesus say some sort of obvious prediction based on observation of the state of affairs but coached it in the language of "Daniel's" 70 week prophecy (9:27)?

I tend to follow Theissen here. The desolation reference, just like the man of sin reference, is modelled on the Caligula crisis; that crisis set up the expectations of the day (as Tacitus explicitly tells us).

The difference between Mark and 2 Thessalonians is that Mark has a prediction of what actually did happen, to wit, the destruction of the temple, whereas in 2 Thessalonians the temple is seen as still standing.

Therefore, it stands to reason that Mark may have been written after 70; alternatively, the reference to a fallen temple may be a prediction based on the signs of the time, as it were, but in that case I would expect Mark not to predate 70 by very far.

2 Thessalonians, on the other hand, seems to presume that the man of sin will actually stand in the temple; that is, the crisis envisioned involves a temple that is still standing. Thus I do not think that 2 Thessalonians postdates 70.

Quote:

After all, this "could have been written anytime between the" late 160's BCE and circa 70 CE.

Daniel or Mark?

Quote:

Yet Luke does something with that general prediction as given by the author of Mark above, which he clearly understood as a prediction of the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE. He immediatized the prediction so that Jerusalem is "surrounded by armies" and includes the subjugation of the Judeans by the gentiles.

I agree.

Quote:

Gaius' attempt to erect his statue in 39-40 CE seems to me to be more of an immediate example of some generalized expectation/prediction of Paul's that things will get worse before his faithful gentile buddies can expect any realization of the promises made to Abraham by means of a change in world dominion, and so he spoke in 2 Thes 2:2-4.

I would think Paul (or whoever) is speaking of something immediately to hand, rather than something far off.

I think Paul thinks the end-time events are going to happen very soon, and in that sense he is speaking of something immediately to hand. I also think that it did not happen very soon, at least not as expectations based purely on the Maccabean crisis and the Caligula crisis (both involving the setting up of idolatry in the temple) would have predicted. Rather, the temple was destroyed. I do not think Paul or pseudo-Paul (I lean toward authenticity) anticipated that, even if Mark may have.

Ben.

Casper · 10-01-2007, 01:47 PM

I'm wondering if there has been any recent development in tying the Josephus text used by aLuke into the supposed "redacted" text of Marcion, and if this might swing the pendulum to a scenario where Marcion wrote his gospel first, or possibly just used the same proto-gospel. I think this might shed some light on the epistles too.

mountainman · 10-01-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

There is no outside reference to time or historical events in these arguments. However, we may suspect that Marcion, who had a reputation for hating women, was the one who made the changes. If this is true, it is ironic that women have been oppressed in the Catholic Church for some 1800 years, not because of the ideas of the original Pauline epistle writer, but because of the ideas of the heretic Marcion whose version of this epistle was largely accepted by the Church establishment because it reflected there own sexist feelings. Even here we have to be careful, it could have been Tertullian or someone else who made the changes.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

We have no evidence aside from the assertions contained in
the literary and historical (?) wrapping of the new testament
writings, specifically including Paul, that this supression did
not in fact commence when the New Testament was first
officially published, on a lavish and imperial scale.

That there was any "church establishment" before the
makeover of the Graeco-Roman empire when the basilicas
went up all over it, remains a conjecture without any
archaeological support, setting aside for the moment the
purported (1920's) "house-church" of Dura-Europa.

If in fact studies are to be done on these "sexist feelings",
and I have seen a number of these, for example, there is
an article concerning the presence of women's voices in
the papyri record at Oxyrynchus, and other sites, then
it is important to get the chronology correct.

Typically Roman is this issue, in that, aside from a few
rare examples, the "barbarian tribes" surrounding the
empire, such as the Celts of Briton, Gaul and Germany,
left records that women warrior-chieftans were well
regarded, if the archaeological studies of their burial
sites are to be allowed to speak.

The pre-Roman Greek culture admitted women philosophers
and the names of "pythagoraeans" and lists of the same
show a good percentage of women represented.

Ancient history of course admits the textual criticism
and analysis of all documents and texts tendered under
the strand of the literature tradition, but it also must
search all other evidentiary-bearing fields for data so
as to show a consistency over many fields of modern
archaeological field research.

Should I have to note that "sexist feelings" are simply
another form of intolerance and persecution. We must
ask ourselves when in the chronology of the Roman
empire of antiquity, did persecution at the level of
the Pontifex Maximus first commence?

Clearly, only in the fourth century, with effect from
the "Council" of Antioch, 325 CE.

Sometimes the true solution to puzzles of history is
not the one we would personally choose. We all like
to think that our history is constructed from "the good"
but this may not necessarily be the case.

We should be prepared to follow the evidence
wherever that may ultimately lead us.

Best wishes,

Pete

dog-on · 10-02-2007, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay
There is no outside reference to time or historical events in these arguments. However, we may suspect that Marcion, who had a reputation for hating women, was the one who made the changes. If this is true, it is ironic that women have been oppressed in the Catholic Church for some 1800 years, not because of the ideas of the original Pauline epistle writer, but because of the ideas of the heretic Marcion whose version of this epistle was largely accepted by the Church establishment because it reflected there own sexist feelings. Even here we have to be careful, it could have been Tertullian or someone else who made the changes.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I was under the impression that, contrary to your opinion, the Marcionite church did, in fact, have a clergy made up of both men and women. Additionally, I would argue that it was, indeed, the Catholics that were more comfortable with the subjugation of women and were, most likely, the party responsible for the text as currently written.

Casper · 10-02-2007, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay
There is no outside reference to time or historical events in these arguments. However, we may suspect that Marcion, who had a reputation for hating women, was the one who made the changes. If this is true, it is ironic that women have been oppressed in the Catholic Church for some 1800 years, not because of the ideas of the original Pauline epistle writer, but because of the ideas of the heretic Marcion whose version of this epistle was largely accepted by the Church establishment because it reflected there own sexist feelings. Even here we have to be careful, it could have been Tertullian or someone else who made the changes.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

I was under the impression that, contrary to your opinion, the Marcionite church did, in fact, have a clergy made up of both men and women. Additionally, I would argue that it was, indeed, the Catholics that were more comfortable with the subjugation of women and were, most likely, the party responsible for the text as currently written.

Me too, I thought Marcion was an ascetic but not necessarily a mysogenist.
:huh:

PhilosopherJay · 10-02-2007, 10:03 AM

Hi Casper, Dog-on,

I was thinking of the things Clement of Alexandria says about Marcion in book three of his Miscellanies. He says that Marcion thought that not only marriage but the work of women -- birth -- was evil. That strikes me as extremely harsh.

On the other hand there is, as I recall, some text from Tertullian that says that his group allowed women to baptize. I would be surprised by this. I wonder if it could have been something the texts says simply to charge Marcion with hypocrisy, as opposed it being a fact.

I'm wondering how documented this fact (Marcionist Women Priests) is?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I was under the impression that, contrary to your opinion, the Marcionite church did, in fact, have a clergy made up of both men and women. Additionally, I would argue that it was, indeed, the Catholics that were more comfortable with the subjugation of women and were, most likely, the party responsible for the text as currently written.

Me too, I thought Marcion was an ascetic but not necessarily a mysogenist.
:huh:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-01-2007, 01:47 PM	#16
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	I'm wondering if there has been any recent development in tying the Josephus text used by aLuke into the supposed "redacted" text of Marcion, and if this might swing the pendulum to a scenario where Marcion wrote his gospel first, or possibly just used the same proto-gospel. I think this might shed some light on the epistles too.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.