Iskander

The road to Damascus is no importance at all. It is not under discussion.

Paul was teaching in 1 Cor 15:3. Oral history it is what the text describes.

spin

This is certainly not correct. The text specifically talks of γραφαι, ie those things that are written.

Iskander

Yes, I have no problem with that.

He must have spoken to people, speeches, discussions, ...
He travelled widely and visited many different churches repeating what was already written [ a very early written gospel] and added his explanations ...

spin

I understand that, but you have to invent a scenario which allows that despite the fact that there is almost no gospel material in Paul's letters anywhere, which is an unexplainable dichotomy.

A simpler explanation is that he was referring to the Jewish literature as scripture and found indications which he believed, like many after him, were glimpses of the messiah.

Simpler, while covering all stops, is more probable.

Iskander

Yes, no problem with that.
He was a very active preacher and he must have said many things in his long career.

stephan huller

spin,

I agree with everything you are saying but ...

As previously mentioned, the Marcionites certainly DID believe that the apostle (a) wrote a gospel (and possibly two cf. 1 Cor 2.1 - 9, 3.10) and (b) that the epistles were a commentary on that text(s) that he wrote.

Nevertheless, the Catholic version of the Apostolikon (the so-called Pauline letters) likely established late second century CE understands that 'Paul' did NOT have a gospel. When the apostle says 'my gospel' and 'according to my gospel' the Catholics explained this as somehow referencing an oral teaching etc. At the same time there was a written gospel written by a disciple. I suspect that originally 'John' was that disciple (cf. Muratorian canon and various things that Irenaeus says about Polycarp). Then Irenaeus introduced 'Luke' as the gospel of Paul but only by changing the original Acts of the Apostles (which seems to have had John Mark as the disciple who holds both sides of the Church together).

Some things to consider - Tatian and those who used the Diatessaron couldn't have had the same conception as the Catholics about which gospel 'according to Paul' - i.e. Luke. They had a Diatessaronic gospel followed by the Apostolikon (minus some or all of the Pastorals). When you think about this, there must have been some identification of 'the Gospel of Condord' or whatever the hell this text was called, and the apostle. Maybe it wasn't specifically Marcionite. I suspect that a disciple of the apostle might have been understood to have written the text. Probably John but definitely not Luke would have been the author of 'the gospel.'

Next thing. There are a number of places where Church Fathers, heretics or scholars see references to the written gospel in the Apostolikon. Romans seems to have a few from memory. The key however is that most of the gospel references have been removed from the canonical gospels. Here's an example from Stromata 3.

This is NOT a garbled reference to Matthew 5:27, 28. Commentators are so fucking lazy. They just take a convenient answer to get back to their presuppositions. This was an addition to Mark 10:17 - 31 held in common with the Marcionites and similar to the structure of the earliest citations of the Diatessaron (Aphrahat). Clement cites this gospel reference at least 6 times in his works (probably more). It was crucial to the Carpocratian interpretation of the passage.

There are many other examples. The point still however is that 'scriptures' here certainly does not mean 'canonical gospels.' Nevertheless, I don't think we can fairly dismiss the Marcionite interpretation of the NT. The Catholics were both referees and players in the match. They undoubtedly arranged the material in the canon to 'disprove' their opponents and this undoubtedly meant removing almost all reference to the original gospel. The apostle's reference to LGM 1 (i.e. the first addition to 'Secret Mark') is another example of the editing process. But that's another story ...

aa5874

You use the VERY SAME CHURCH WRITINGS for your MARCION.

If you KNOW that the Church writings are like E-MAILS from NIGERIA why are you ATTEMPTING to use them to get information about Marcion?

When I show you that the Church claimed "Paul" was AWARE of gLuke it is so that you WILL KNOW that the CHURCH WRITINGS ARE INDEED LIKE E-MAILS from NIGERIA and that you CANNOT use them for historical data on Marcion.

The Church has EXPOSED the FRAUD call "PAUL" as soon as they claimed he was AWARE of gLuke and that "PAUL" died under NERO.

It has been deduced that gLuke was written AFTER "PAUL" was supposed to be dead. And the first mention of gLuke is about ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the supposed death of "PAUL" which appears to be confirmed by the writings of Justin Martyr.

Look at "Church History" 3.4.8 and 2.25.5

"Church History" 2.25.5."Church History" 3.4.8. I use the Church writings to EXPOSE FRAUDS like "Paul".

You use them for the history of Marcion.

If you see something about Marcion in the Church writings would YOU BELIEVE it?

I would not.

I know the Church writings are like fraudulent E-MAILS from NIGERIA.

spin

...but the lag time between the emergence of the notion of Paul set apart for the gospel along with his proclamation of it and the reification of the notion of the gospel as a written document must be considered.

stephan huller

Yes but I don't believe that they are pristine. There was a NT canon held by the Marcionites. It became altered by the Catholics (and expanded). That collection eventually became our collection. I don't like the situation but that's the reality.

You sound like the kind of guy that believes it when the escort tells him that your different than the other customers. She really likes you.

stephan huller

Yes but that is offset by the fact that there is no Catholic interpretation of the Apostolikon before Marcion. There is a truth but it might be unknowable or at least the kind of certainty we'd like to have might be impossible to attain.