ph2ter

Motivation for this topic came to me from the Stephan Huller's blog and his analysis of the Marcionite paradigm about their Apostle. He argues that Clement's Letter to Theodore and the mention of a secret gospel is authentic and that it corresponds with the 1 Corinthians section 2 where Paul also made the distinction between the secret and public version of his gospel (referencing gospel with the word wisdom).

I always thought that Mark lived a generation after Paul. I was convinced that Paul didn't have knowledge of the written Gospels, although I noticed some special affinity between important ideas mentioned in the Gospel of Mark and in Paul's epistles. But the complete lack of references to any of the Jesus' deeds or teachings in Paul's epistles made me confident that Paul knew nothing about them.
Contrary to me, Stephan never showed any affinity towards the idea that Jesus never existed in reality. According to Earl Doherty Paul in all of his writings speaks about Jesus as some heavenly being never meaning some real person who lived in his recent past.
I posit the question then: how would be possible to reconcile those two theories, the theories of Stephan and Earl, i.e. that Jesus was understood to be only the heavenly being and that Paul firstly writes a public gospel (probably very close to our Gospel according to Mark), afterward a secret gospel (unlocked version of his public gospel referenced in the Letter to Theodore which most closely resembles some ideas mentioned also in the Gospel of John) and finally all of his Epistles?

So we can speculate that Paul never referenced Jesus teachings and deeds because he designed his public gospel to be only the allegory of the hidden mysteries explained in his secret gospel which was intended only for the perfected: Jesus never really living on Earth but rather being only a literary tool for the explanation of the deeper meanings of human salvation. Those who were never exposed to the secret gospel understood Jesus life literally (1And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.), but those perfected knew that Jesus never really walked on Earth (6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory).

Maybe the idea of 'Jesus crucified' was in existence before Paul and was invented by Peter the Apostle (Peter invented "crucified Jesus" so Paul could figuratively say in some sense that Peter figuratively crucified him). The public version of gospel would then be essentially the same as Peter's preaching, and secret version the same as Paul's preaching.

bacht

I think Doherty's argument relies on the existence of some kind of kingdom tradition separate from Paul's world. Mark would then be a synthesis of originally distinct Christianities.

Marcion was supposed to have used a gospel and the letters of Paul, who he believed was the only true apostle and recipient of the true message of Christ (a god separate from Yhwh). This gospel could have come from either Marcion or Paul, though the letters show no knowledge of or interest in the earthly life of Jesus.

The idea of secret vs public teachings is gnostic. Catholicism was a reaction to this, though Luke preserves the idea in his mention of Jesus being on earth 40 days before his ascension, sharing undisclosed knowledge with the disciples (Acts 1).

stephan huller

I don't know about that Stephan Huller guy.

But seriously, I really do think there are unrecognized parallels at least when you read the Apostolikon the way a Marcionite would have read it (i.e. with the idea that the apostle announcing that he received and published a written gospel - THE central concept in Marcionitism).

I have to admit that I have even thought through all the possibilities and implications of this paradigm but it comes down to this. There are only two possibilities:

a) the Marcionites held that someone named 'Paul' wrote both the gospel and the Apostolikon (explicitly dismissed in Tertullian Against Marcion)
b) the Marcionites held that someone named 'Mark' wrote both the gospel and the Apostolikon (implied by Philosophumena Book 7)

It just means turning our heads around to a new possibility.

For those who haven't read it yet, here is my blog - http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/

If you look on the side bar you will see a number of articles that deal with all of this stuff.

Thanks for the interest,

show_no_mercy

If Markion is a diminutive of Mark (i.e. little Mark), and Paul means "little", then...

stephan huller

I don't know what to do with the name Paul. In any case even in the Catholic tradition Paul isn't the apostle's real or original name so who cares.

The Marcionites didn't accept Acts. There is no evidence to support the idea that they accepted the name Saul. It's anyone's guess

aa5874

The theory that the Pauline writings PREDATE the Gospel story in gMark is completely flawed.

If the Pauline writings were BEFORE the Gospel story in gMark, and were CIRCULATED all over the Roman Empire, from Church to Church, and "PAUL" himself ACTUALLY PREACHED and TEACHED what he wrote in the Epistles all over the Roman Empire, then the author of gMark should have known the END story, that is, the author should have known about the POST-resurrection story,The reason for the RESURRECTION of Jesus, and that "PAUL" and OVER 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus.

The author of gMark appears NOT to be even certain if Jesus did resurrect, did NOT write that without the resurrection mankind would remain in sin and used none of the figures given by the Pauline writer of those who were EYEWITNESSES of the resurrected Jesus.

The author of gMark did NOT KNOW the END STORY, post-RESURRECTION story, so he could NOT be a Pauline writer.

Even the author of gMatthew is assumed to use virtually ALL of gMark and the passages not found in gMark that are found in gMatthew are NOT at all in the Pauline writings. And it is similar in gLuke, passages that are common to gMatthew and gLuke alone are NOT found in the Pauline writings which SHOWS that the Pauline writings were NOT KNOWN by the authors of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

Even passages from Hebrew Scripture in the Pauline writings are NOT used by the authors of gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

The author of gMark could NOT be or is extremely unlikely to have been a Pauline writer.

stephan huller

If we read the Apostolikon the way a Marcionite would the apostle would be declaring that he wrote two gospels - the first something which was done according to faith and accomplished a long time ago which was mostly historical and then a secret wisdom done just before the letters were written, a second text which was built on top of the 'faith gospel' like a building extension on top of a foundation and with the apostle as its 'wise architect' (1 Cor 3:10 especially the Alexandrian recension in Str 5.4).

This interpretation would be natural for the Marcionites and is explicit in to Theodore and implicit throughout Clement's Stromateis but especially in Book 5

The thing that connects the two ideas together is the existence of an epistle to the Alexandrians in the Marcionite canon (cf. Muratorian canon). This brings "home" our proposed Marcionite reading of the Apostolikon as a whole to Clement's Alexandria

This explains in turn why Clement's reading of the "letters of Paul" always reinforce the paradigm of to Theodore (albeit usually with some elusive reference to "the apostle" or "the divine apostle" or "the more than human apostle" etc)

Clement's gospel citations are also very curious especially the fact that he only rarely identifies the texts by name and of course their typical variation from the received text ...

aa5874

This is the short-ending of gMark.

MARK 16.6-8 And this is a Pauline writer.

Ro 10:9 - 1Co 15:17 - The Pauline writer CLAIMED Jesus MUST resurrect the SALVATION of MANKIND but Jesus in the very Synoptic Gospels did NOT teach his disciples at all the significance of the resurrection.

In gMark the disciples do NOT understand why Jesus should be killled. In three chapters, Mark 8, Mark 9 and Nark 10 the author of gMark wrote that Jesus TAUGHT his disciple he would be raised from the dead but NOTHING else, no SALVATION was linked to the resurrection.

Mark 9.31-32 It is CLEAR that the author of gMark was NOT at all aware of the significance of the resurrection.

The author of gMark was NOT the Pauline writer and wrote BEFORE "PAUL"

stephan huller

It is difficult to say how the Marcionite gospel ended but it was NOT the short ending to the Catholic gospel of Mark NOR the received long ending (Irenaeus seems to make that explicit). He also says that those who prefer Mark.also believe Jesus and Christ were two separate people)

a

aa5874

Justin Martyr's "First Apology" shows that Marcion did not need gMark. According to Justin Martyr, Marcion's God was another GOD greater than the God of the Jews and the Son of God greator than the God of the Jews was another Son.

Marcion's Son of God was most likely NOT known as Jesus or have anything to do with Hebrew Scripture or the so-called predictions.

For example, Marcion's Son of God would NOT be based on ISAIAH 7.14 where a Virgin would CONCEIVE and bear a Son since Marcion's Son of God came down from heaven without birth and NOT from the God of the Jews.

"First Apology" LVIII So it is CLEAR that Marcion does NOT NEED gMark.

And Hippolytus will corroborate.

"Refutation of ALL HERESIES" 7.18 Marcion does NOT need gMark.