jakejonesiv

Here is what Robert Price had to say, concerning the subject of the OP.

"If a presumed Pauline document seems unaquainted with Paul's other writings, is it because the author wished to distance Paul from the heretical associations his epistles had come to have? So-called Catholic documents from this period make little or no use of Paul's letters beause they were tainted, through association with the heretics who used them. Paul had become the "apostle of the heretics." Justin Martyr never mentioned Paul but must have known of him. What he knew was that Paul was sacred to Marcion, whose legacy Justin despised. This period of neglecting Paul ended with late second-century apologists Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) inGaul, and Tertullian of Carthage. They both sought to rehabilitate the fascinating Pauline epistles that Polycarp and others had tried to sanitize to win Marcionite and Gnostic (that is, Pauline) Christians over to Catholicism. I find this approach completely convincing as a way of accounting for the evidence of who did and did not quote Paul and why." _The Amazing Colossal Apostle_, Robert M. Price page 89.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

James The Least

Again, I just can't get my head around the proto-orthodox being so against the "heretics" and their writings that they wouldn't even quote or acknowledge Paul, to, within a rapid period of time, not only fully incorporating the Pauline epistles but writing new ones of their own AND making Paul to be the hero of Acts. Something big must have happened in the mid-second century that we have no knowledge of.

If the epistles were the exclusive property of the Marcionites, it makes no sense at all that the Catholics would champion them at the same time they started demonizing Marcion.

The epistles must have belonged to a third party of semi-Gnostics that both the Marcionites and Catholics began using early in the second century.

aa5874

When did "Tertullian" write the five books "Against Marcion"?? Not even apologetic sources, Not EVEN Eusebius knew that Tertullian wrote "Against Marcion".

Up to the End of the 4th century there is NO claim that Tertullian wrote Against Marcion by those who listed the works of Tertullian.

Once it is agreed that there was massive forgeries in antiquity and that apologetic sources have been found to be manipulated then one must at least do some "background checks" on Tertullian's writing.

For hundreds of years there is no provenance for "Tertullian's "Against Marcion" and his claims are contradicted by other apologetics who wrote Against Marcion before and after him.

In your own list it is claimed that over 25 Apologetics in the 2nd century and as late as 190 CE did NOT write about the Pauline letters.

James The Least

I've wondered for awhile where the strange genre of "heresiology" came from. Last weekend, I read Josephus's "Against Apion" and found my answer.

Not quite the same thing, but close enough to have inspired the genre.

Perhaps we should talk about pre-Josephan and post-Josephan Christianity?

jakejonesiv

Could you share your insight with us?

Jake

jakejonesiv

When I mention the name of Marcion, you supply a very timely response. I think it is important that I acknowlege your contribution.

aa5874

It does NOT logically follow at all that Justin must have known of Paul when he NEVER mentioned him.

It does NOT logically follow that Justin despised Paul when he NEVER mentioned him.

Logically, if Justin did NOT know of Paul his writings would look exactly as they do now--there would be no trace of Paul, the Pauline Revealed Teachings from the Resurrected Jesus and No acknowledgment that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

Justin Martyr's writings are extremely consistent.

Justin Martyr fundamentally used Hebrew Scripture or a similar source like the Septuagint and the Memoirs of the Apostles to develop his writings about Jesus.

For Robert Price to accept the claims supposedly by Irenaeus is completely shocking when Robert Price must know that it was the supposed Irenaeus who first supplied all the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Four Gospels of the Canon, and the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline letters to Churches, the Pastorals and Revelation.

The supposed Irenaeus did NOT even know when Claudius was Emperor or Pilate was Governor.

Effectively the supposed Irenaeus merely presented erroneous information about his OWN Canon, the time of governorship of Pilate and the death of his supposed Lord and Savior.

Writings under the name of Irenaeus are NOT credible at all and are contradicted by apologetic sources and Church writers.

jakejonesiv

Hi James,

The second century proto-catholic Church at Rome had taught that their authority was handed down from the apostles. Marcion undercut that claim by introducing the teaching that Paul had exclusively gained the truth by revelation.

"With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, ..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1

The Pauline epistles, especially Galatians chapter 1, strongly supported Marcion.
Galatians 1
1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto
you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of
me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by
the revelation of Jesus Christ.
15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb,
and called me by his grace,
16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

Marcion came forth with the first collection of Pauline epistles. Who else before Marcion and some Gnostics held Paul in such high esteem? Certainly not the proto-catholics. As late as Tertullian, Paul was still known as "The Apostle you [Marcion] claim as your own" (AM 1:15; cf PH 24). Basilides the heretic (about 138 CE) was the first to elevate any Christian text (in this case Pauline Epistles 1 Corinthians and Ephesians) to the level of Scripture (Hippolytus, Refutatio, 7,13-14). It is clear that the figure of Paul arose and held the ascendency in heretical circles, and was only grudgingly accepted by the catholics after massive changes.

The emerging catholic church absorbed the ultra-Paulinism of Marcion by redacting and rewriting the Marcionite epistles and forging the Pastorals and Acts. Thus Paul was brought down to the level of, and even subordinate to, the Twelve and Peter. A false harmony of Christian origins was created in order to sustain the myth of the catholic (universal) church.

The proto-Catholic church had responded by promoting Peter to go one on one with Paul, and had persued the doctrine of the parallelism of Peter and Paul; that their joint actions had established the Church at Rome. This doctrine is seen plainly in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3. This harmonization of Peter and Paul appears in the interpolation of Galatians 2:7b-8. The first trip to Jerusalem is bogus. It is meant to subtly undercut Paul's claims of independence and exclusivity of revelation.

Thus we see that "Acts of the Apostles" followed and is intended to emasculate Paul. Paul is given a false background of "Saul" joined in the flimsiest fashion. Paul is nowhere identified with Saul except in the canonical book of Acts. The author of Acts knew that Pauline authority derived from the epistles written in his name, but he effectively took them away from Paul by never openly acknowledging them. The catholic author of Acts was out to neuter the fire breathing Apostle who thundered that anyone who opposed his gospel was to be accursed. Galatians 5:2 states "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Acts turns Paul into a milksop and a toady. He directly undercut Galatians 5:2 with Acts 16:3. "Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." It is not believable that such an act could be attributed to Paul without sinister motivation.

Then we see the author of Acts snatching the Pauline teachings of the epistles and putting them into the mouth of Peter (Acts 15:7-11), while Paul and Barnabas are reduced to telling miracle stories (15:12)! It is Peter (not Paul) who receives divine revelation to eat with Gentiles. Acts 10:10 ff.

We see, that even after this, the catholics demote Paul even more, and moved Peter above him. Paul is taken down another notch in THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS, Chapter 24.
"Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine..."
Tertullian continues to argue that if Paul did preach from divine revelation, then any who followed him was a heretic, "if any heresy [Marcion!] affirms ... the same" then "Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret." Paul has been completely deprived from his authority, and made dependant on Peter and the other apostles for everything he preached.

Matthew 16:17 (a third century interpolation) completes the subjugation of Paul. Peter's confession is proclaimed, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you"; Divine revelation has been transferred from Paul to Peter! The subjugation of Paul was complete.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

If the proto-orthodox simply wrote Paul off, they must give up all hope of converting Marcionites and the others who looked favorably on the Apostle Paul. We see in the epistle of 1 Peter that they were interested in evangelizing the "provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" which were the very hot bed origin of Marcionism/ultra-Paulism.

And we can see how gently that had to undercut Paul in 2 Peter 3:16. If they ignored Paul, they would be accused by their heretic opponents of ignoring the gospel in all its fulness, and they would relinquish the goal of being the catholic (Universal) church.

The alternative, and that claimed by the church fathers, is that the canonical version was original, and Marcion cut it down.

Both alternatives above make sense only if there were real 2c. sects competing against each other for converts.

What do you think?

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi aa5874,

Thank you for reminding me of those who did not exist.

Jake
N/A