Bernard Muller

Around 140-160 (before or during Justin's times), gnostic Ptolemy named Paul and paraphrased 1 Corinthians 5:7-8:
Paul the apostle shows that the Passover and the unleavened bread are images when he says, Christ our passover has been sacrificed, in order that you may be unleavened bread, not containing leaven (by leaven he here means evil), but may be a new lump.
(Epiphanius in his work Against Heresies, 33.3.1 - 33.7.10.)

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv

If external confirmation has any worth, the earliest extant Pauline epistle must be 1 Corinthians.

Jake

aa5874

It is claimed Epiphanius lived around the late 4th-5th century so his writings are of little value in dating the Pauline letters before c 62 CE.

Also, it is not likely at all that Marcion would have written 1 Cor.5.7-8 or any of the letters under Paul based on Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Ephraim.

Marcion's Son of God was NOT Jesus the Son of the God of the Jews and made of a woman.

Justin claimed Marcion prached Another God and Another Son. See Justin's "First Apology"

Hippolytus claimed Marcion did not use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles. See "Refutation of All Heresies" 7

Ephraim claimed Marcion did not accept that the Lord was sent from the Maker. See Ephraim's "Against Marcion" 3.

andrewcriddle

Tertullian is (as usual) being unkind, but you may have misunderstood his argument.

In context Tertullian is claiming that Marcionites lead righteous lives although the logic of their position, (salvation not by works but by faith in a loving non-punitive God), should if they were consistent lead to lives of self-indulgence. I.E. the Marcionites (according to Tertullian) have a moral/ethical code better than their theology can justify.

This sort of argument will have a long history in Christian debate.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Or little value on Empedocles who lived around the late 4th-5th century BCE.


Who is saying Marcion wrote 1 Cor.5.7-8? Not me and certainly not Bernard.


Right. According to Marcion, Jesus was the son of the Unknown Father, a God higher than the Jewish creator. So what? There are passages in the Pauline epistles that Marcion appealed to for this.


aa, if you do not understand what dualism is, no wonder this discussion is over your head.

Hippolytus affirms Marcion's dualism. He claims he got it from Empedocles and imported it into the evangelical narratives. And by claiming the system of Empedocles was also not found in Paul, he likewise affirms Marcion's use of Paul, who otherwise would not be mentioned.

But Hippolytus is making a very large assumption. Empedocles lived 495–435 BCE, some 500 to 600 years before Paul and Marcion. And if he influenced Marcion at all, it was buffered through a number of intermediaries such as Cerdon. And of course, Hippolytus was wrong, Paul was a dualist or at the minimum the epistles ascribed to him contain statements amenable to dualism.

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." 2 Cor 4:4.

Jake

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Marcion's position sounded a bit like the much later Protestant's Sole Fide doesn't it? Perhaps that is because they both got it from the same place, the Pauline epistles. And the same argument could be made today against e.g. the Southern Baptists with their doctrine of once saved always saved (a perversion of the Reformed Perseverance of the Saints). But in practicality, it makes no difference. If you act badly, you really weren't "saved" to begin with.

But as interesting as that subject is, Tertullian mocked the Marcionites for actions that were supposed to be of utmost piety among the proto-orthodox, and for that he was a hypocrite.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

It is extremely significant that Apologetic sources contradict Tertullian and Irenaeus.

Hippolytus explained the doctrine of Empedocles and clearly stated that Marcion used the same doctrine not the revealed teachings of Paul.

Refutation of All Heresies 7.17Marcion taught that the Demiurge was Evil. No such teaching is found in the Pauline letters and the Gospels.

Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies 7.18
Apologetic sources contradict writings attributed to Tertullian and Irenaeus.

Hippolytus clearly claimed that Marcion preached about Another God, the GOOD God found in the writings of Empedocles.

Hippolytus clearly claimed Marcion preached that the Demiurge was Evil, did forbid marriages and to abstain from meats which are "the purification rites" of Empedocles---Not the Pauline teachings.

Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies 7.19 Marcion did NOT need the Pauline letters when Paul preached that Jesus was God's Son MADE of a woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJVHippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies 7.19Neither the Gospels nor the Pauline writings support the teachings of Marcion which is compatible with writings attributed to Justin Martyr and Ephraim the Syrian.

The Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters--the Entire Canon-- do NOT state the Demiurge is Evil, do NOT state the Son of God was unbegotten, do NOT forbid marriage and to abstain from meats.

Marcion was long dead before the Pauline letters were composed.

The Pauline letters are most likely anti-Marcionite writings invented perhaps as late as the 3rd century.

jakejonesiv

But you attempt to use him for your own purposes.
You selectively believe what Epiphanius wrtites, and selectively disbelieve Tetullian and Irenaeus. That makes your skepticism special pleading. It is extremely significant Tertullian and Irenaeus are supported by many sources.

So what? How do you know that Epiphanius existed according to the same standard of proof you use for others? Even if he did, he lived 1,000 years after Empedocles and hundreds of years after the time of Paul and Marcion. So please explain why his testimony is better than Ireneaus and Marcion.


Maricon's version of Galatians 4:4 did not contain "born of a woman, born under the law."

Right. So what?


Indeed, the Father and Christ are superior to the Demiurge, but the Demiurge as world creator, had his independent sphere of activity. We don't know how Marcion believed this dualism came about; we have no record of him following Empedocles. According to both Marcionites and proto-orthodox, Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. In Romans 3:24, the word “redemption” (apolytrosis) means release, or deliverance on the payment of a price. One doesn't have to pay a ransom to another being over which you have complete power. This Demiurge ia a "god" who casts souls into hell blaming the victim for something over which they have no control. If you do not confider that evil, get a new dictionary.

Marcion had a collection of ten Pauline epistles before the middle of the second century CE. The only question is did Marcion cut down the catholic version, or was the catholic version derived from Marcions by redaction?

The Pauline letters as we have them now were most likely redacted with anti-Marcionite material in the second half of the second century, perhaps into the early 3rd century.

Bernard Muller

According to Hyppolitus of Rome, the Naassenes were among the first gnostics, probably starting around 110 CE.

From against all Heresies, book 5, chapter 2:
"What, however, the natural use is, according to them, we shall afterwards declare. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly"- now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes,-"and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."30 For in these words which Paul has spoken they say the entire secret of theirs, and a hidden mystery of blessed pleasure, are comprised."
It seems that very early, they made use of Paul and Romans 1:27.

Also in chapter 3 of same book:
"Paul the apostle, he says, knew of this gate, partially opening it in a mystery, and stating "that he was caught up by an angel, and ascended as far as the second and third heaven into paradise itself; and that he beheld sights and heard unspeakable words which it would not be possible for man to declare."
Here they made use of 2 Corinthians 12:3-4

Also in same chapter:
These are, he says, what are by all called the secret mysteries, "which (also we speak), not in words taught of human wisdom, but in those taught of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him."
Here these Naassenes made use of 1 Corinthians 2:13-14a.

Also these Naassenes, who were part of many sects themselves, knew about the canonical gospels and the one attributed to Thomas (which, I think, knew about the aforementioned gospels).

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller

to Jake,
Evidence, please.

Cordially, Bernard