Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-17-2007, 07:25 AM

You know that Marcion probably wrote Galatians and that 1Corinthians is likely a compilation of 3 or more letters.

Drop those in the pseudonymous group as well, as a matter of fact drop "Paul" in there with them...

Vivisector · 10-17-2007, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You know that Marcion probably wrote Galatians ...

Since I'm not much of a scholar of Paul's letters, can you help bring me up to speed with the basics of this hypothesis?

Cheers,

V.

Ben C Smith · 10-17-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You know that Marcion probably wrote Galatians and that 1 Corinthians is likely a compilation of 3 or more letters.

I do not know that at all. But maybe you know more than I do.

Ben.

(I have often been tempted to think that 2 Corinthians is a compilation of letters, but not 1 Corinthians.)

Solo · 10-17-2007, 08:28 AM

Hi Ben,
in the conservative circles (see e.g. Catholic Ency) the common authorship of Col & Eph is assumed by Paul's circumstance of imprisonment (Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon are referred to as the "captivity epistles"). Curious about this: how do you read Paul's references to his being "a prisoner" of/for/in Jesus Christ ? Does he mean that literally ? Or is he talking about his condition ? If you are inclining to the former, could you give me your reading of Phl 1:7 ? Much obliged.

Jiri

dog-on · 10-17-2007, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

You know that Marcion probably wrote Galatians and that 1 Corinthians is likely a compilation of 3 or more letters.

I do not know that at all. But maybe you know more than I do.

Ben.

(I have often been tempted to think that 2 Corinthians is a compilation of letters, but not 1 Corinthians.)

:devil1:

and my bad, I meant 2 Cor...

Ben C Smith · 10-17-2007, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Curious about this: how do you read Paul's references to his being "a prisoner" of/for/in Jesus Christ ? Does he mean that literally ?

No, I do not think he means that he is literally a prisoner of Jesus.

Quote:

Or is he talking about his condition ?

I think he using his current status as a Roman prisoner (in Philemon) as an inspiration for the expression prisoner of Christ.

Quote:

If you are inclining to the former, could you give me your reading of Phl 1:7 ? Much obliged.

In Philippians 1.7 (which I presume is the verse you mean, as opposed to Philemon 1.7), I think Paul is simply emphasizing that the Philippians (not least because of their recent monetary generosity) participate in the work of the gospel despite not being apostles. It is not the Philippians who are in Roman chains, not the Philippians who have been called upon to give a defense of the gospel, yet they are participants with Paul in these matters, because of their link (which is at least financial and of course also spiritual or mystical) with Paul.

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 10-17-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IMO Ephesians rewrites the material in Colossians in a way that is both more theologically developed and more 'Gnostic' in the sense of speculations about heavenly worlds and concern about spiritual evil in the heavens.

Do you have some examples?

The clearest example IMO is Ephesians 6:12

Quote:

For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.

but many of the references to the heavens or heavenly places are IMO relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Unless one dates Ephesians later than I would (IMVHO the author of 1 Clement knew Ephesians) this poses difficulties for the idea that Colossians is non-Pauline. There may not be time for Colossians to be both substantially post-Pauline and substantially pre-Ephesians.

It is hard for me to imagine Colossians as Pauline. Everything Paulish, as it were, seems to come out different. But of course I may be wrong.

Do you have some examples of Clementine knowledge of Ephesians?

Thanks, Andrew.

Ben.

Chapter 59

Quote:

[Grant unto us, Lord,] that we may set our hope on Thy Name which is the primal source of all creation, and open the eyes of our hearts, that we may know Thee, who alone abides 't Highest in the lofty, Holy in the holy ; who layest low the insolence of the proud, who scatterest the imaginings of nations ; who settest the lowly on high, and bringest the
lofty low ; who makest rich and makest poor ; who killest and makest
alive ; who alone art the Benefactor of spirits and the God of all flesh ;
who lookest into the abysses, who scannest the works of man ; the
Succour of them that are in peril, the Saviour of them that are in
despair ; the Creator and Overseer of every spirit ; who multipliest the
nations upon earth, and hast chosen out from all men those that love
Thee through Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom Thou didst
instruct us, didst sanctify us, didst honour us. We beseech Thee, Lord
and Master, to be our help and succour. Save those among us who
are in tribulation; have mercy on the lowly; lift up the fallen; show
Thyself unto the needy ; heal the ungodly ; convert the wanderers of
Thy people; feed the hungry; release our prisoners; raise up the
weak; comfort the faint-hearted. Let all the Gentiles know that Thou
art God alone, and Jesus Christ is Thy Son, and we are Thy people and
the sheep of Thy pasture.

is held by some scholars to allude to Ephesians 1 (the italicised part should be compared to Ephesians 1:4-5) but it is not a clear quotation.

However Clement clearly knew a collection of Paul's letters and we have no evidence of a collection lacking Ephesians. (although we do have evidence of one lacking the pastorals.)

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 10-17-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Curious about this: how do you read Paul's references to his being "a prisoner" of/for/in Jesus Christ ? Does he mean that literally ?

No, I do not think he means that he is literally a prisoner of Jesus.

I think he using his current status as a Roman prisoner (in Philemon) as an inspiration for the expression prisoner of Christ.

Quote:

If you are inclining to the former, could you give me your reading of Phl 1:7 ? Much obliged.

In Philippians 1.7 (which I presume is the verse you mean, as opposed to Philemon 1.7), I think Paul is simply emphasizing that the Philippians (not least because of their recent monetary generosity) participate in the work of the gospel despite not being apostles. It is not the Philippians who are in Roman chains, not the Philippians who have been called upon to give a defense of the gospel, yet they are participants with Paul in these matters, because of their link (which is at least financial and of course also spiritual or mystical) with Paul.

Ben.

Thanks, Ben.

I take it the "Roman chains" refer to the later part of 1 Phl (12-18) in which Paul offers that the "whole praetorian guard" knows the gospel because of his imprisonment. I am sure you understand my skepticism about this Acts-soaked pulp originating in Paul's head.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 10-17-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I take it the "Roman chains" refer to the later part of 1 Phl (12-18) in which Paul offers that the "whole praetorian guard" knows the gospel because of his imprisonment. I am sure you understand my skepticism about this Acts-soaked pulp originating in Paul's head.

I, OTOH, am not so sure I understand.

I may later regret asking, but why exactly are you skeptical about Paul in Roman bonds?

Thanks.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 10-17-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...is held by some scholars to allude to Ephesians 1 (the italicised part should be compared to Ephesians 1:4-5) but it is not a clear quotation.

However Clement clearly knew a collection of Paul's letters and we have no evidence of a collection lacking Ephesians. (although we do have evidence of one lacking the pastorals.)

Thanks, Andrew.

How would you distinguish between Clement knowing the Pauline letters precisely as an existing collection and Clement knowing them each on its own merits (for example, writing from Rome and thus knowing Romans, having regular exchanges with Corinth and thus knowing Corinthians)? Simply because he seems to know so many of them? How many (and which ones) do you think we can be certain he knew? 1 Corinthians springs to mind as a sure one, of course, but how sure are we about the others?

Ben.

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

10-17-2007, 07:25 AM	#11
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	You know that Marcion probably wrote Galatians and that 1Corinthians is likely a compilation of 3 or more letters. Drop those in the pseudonymous group as well, as a matter of fact drop "Paul" in there with them...

10-17-2007, 08:28 AM	#14
Solo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 2,579	Hi Ben, in the conservative circles (see e.g. Catholic Ency) the common authorship of Col & Eph is assumed by Paul's circumstance of imprisonment (Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians and Philemon are referred to as the "captivity epistles"). Curious about this: how do you read Paul's references to his being "a prisoner" of/for/in Jesus Christ ? Does he mean that literally ? Or is he talking about his condition ? If you are inclining to the former, could you give me your reading of Phl 1:7 ? Much obliged. Jiri

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.