Duvduv

Jake, if the letters are actually cut and paste jobs, composites using pre-existing monotheism-friendly texts with a few additions relating to the Christ before the canon was actually finalized, what's the big deal?
After all, we all know there is no evidence that any letters were actually written to anyone, or that they were actually received by anyone or collected by anybody from anywhere.
Heck, there were archival libraries in the empire center, and skilled writers could put together whatever they wanted to, based on their ideologies.
What would this have to do with "Marcion"?

James The Least

"See what large letters I use as I write to you with my own hand!" Galatians 6:11

It is a rather astonishing indictment, when realizing that "Paul" was probably an invention of one of the churches, probably Marcionite, that they would not only pretend to be a non-existent person, but would further cover their deception by pretending that they weren't deceiving anyone. Protesting too much, as 2 Peter does to perfection.

With this level of deception going on, this was truly the greatest con job ever sold to humanity, and "The Father of Lies" would be a most fitting title for the anonymous nutjob writing under the name of "Paul."

jakejonesiv

But, quite obviously, they were written by one or more persons. Who did it, when and why, from your point of view? This must be addressed to have a coherent explanation.

Jake

stephan huller

Another point to consider. Irenaeus's argument of an overlapping of Johannine and Pauline traditions would have had to have been written AFTER Victor's cutting off of the churches of Asia Minor (= the Johannine Church). It was an attempt at reconciliation in a post-Victor era. This aligns the Muratorian canon as an expression of this attempt to reconcile Paul to John. Irenaeus also makes an appeal to Justin but Justin doesn't know Paul. Does that mean that Justin's gospel but no Pauline epistles canon is reflective of the original churches of Asia Minor too. Was Paul only introduced within or rolled up within a Pauline-Johannine reconciliation effort in the third century? Much of what is written in the Muratorian canon can be argued to be read that way. Also the Alogoi-Gaian opposition to the Johannine canon may well be regarded as traditional hostility of Pauline Churches (= Rome-Alexandrian axis) to the churches of Asia Minor (= the Johannine/Polycarpian tradition).

In short: the fact that Irenaeus has to argue for a Pauline foundation for the Johannine Church may be the clearest evidence for 'seam' of the ecumenical effort at the heart of the canon in the third century. Traditionally scholars have wrongly focused their attention on the Peter-Paul conflict. The canon itself may have deliberately distracted our attention there for reasons that become clearer from Tertullian's testimony - vis. Paul originally claimed to 'improve' upon Peter's original composition. In other words, the hostility and reconciliation tradition here is a distraction from the charge of counterfeiting and forgery that must have been leveled against Paul.

Paul took the gospel of Peter and added to it (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:1 - 3:10). He added 'secret wisdom' in the manner of Mark in the Letter to Theodore.

jakejonesiv

Hey James,

That is interesting!

If Paul had really signed in large letters (Gal. 6:11), it would be self evident to the readers. The text masquerades as a letter written long before, where one describes what can not be seen to readers of latter generations. It is the artifice of the forger to convince his readers the text is ancient.

Jake

Bernard Muller

I do not see what is the big deal about who was the first to have 10 copies of the Pauline epistles in the same location. Maybe Marcion, maybe some others we do not know, maybe they were split in several locations while Marcion had the 10 together. So what?

Cordially, Bernard

jakejonesiv

Hi Bernard,

It would seem to make quite a bit of difference from your point of view. The longer the time interval after the alleged career of Paul, the less certain we can be that the documents that were at long last collected are the unadulterated words of the Apostle. Or were even written by him in the case of Marcion being the colletor.

Whereas, a very early collection would secure a set of texts with greater appeal to both authenticity and integrity.


Jake

aa5874

There may not be enough available information to find out who actually wrote the Pauline letters due to the massive amount of fraud surrounding the Pauline character and letters.

In any event, there would have been a big black hole in the History of the Church without the Pauline letters and the Acts of the Apostles.

Essentially, the Roman Church NEEDED the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles to write Their History.

Once we remove Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters from the Canon and references to them from Apologetics then the History of the Church collapses.

Church History 3.3. 5.[u]Church History 2.17.6. Who could have written the AUTHENTIC Acts of the Apostles and the UNDISPUTED Pauline letters??

Who were the DIRECT benefactors of the so-called Authentic Acts of the Apostles and the UNDISPUTED Pauline letters??

Justin?? Marcion?? The Church of Rome??

stephan huller

My working hypothesis as to the name Mark for Paul. Kronholm (Motifs from Genesis 1-11 in the genuine hymns of Ephrem the Syrian with particular reference to the influence of Jewish exegetical tradition, LiberLäromedel/Gleerup, 1978) notices an interesting play on words in Ephrem's refutation of Marcion. He writes that according to Ephrem:

The full citation in Ephrem is "Marcion he polished so much as to make him rusty. He scoured him to the point of blunting his mind with blasphemy." The play on words is between Marqion and maroq "to polish, to finish, to perfect."

Although Mark is a personal name in Latin and Greek, an Aramaic-speaker would have taken it as a TITLE if it had been useful to do so. The Samaritan Targum translates Sh-L-M as maroq or mirroq, this definitely doesn’t mean that the Samaritans would have expected to use either of these two specific forms as a name or a title. These two forms are only the infinitives of the root M-R-Q, and the form marqa would have been felt as the ABSTRACT NOUN from the same root. As for speakers of what is attested in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, and Jewish and Samaritan speakers of Hebrew, they would have felt the form marqa to be the abstract noun from the root M-R-Q meaning in legal usage “signed, sealed, and delivered”.

None of the extant Jewish Targums use this word in this place, but the LXX has a translation that looks like the equivalent, which means there was probably once a Jewish Targum with this form. Besides, how else can you explain why it is that the massively important figure Mårqe is not known to us by his Hebrew or Aramaic personal name? So” John Mark” would be a personal name followed by a title.

Is John Mark a Catholic response to an original understanding of the apostle as 'maroq po'olo' (Deut 32:4) = the perfect work of God?

jakejonesiv

Dear aa5874,

Thanks for the reply.

I appreciate that you are honest enough to admit that "There may not be enough available information to find out who actually wrote the Pauline letters.."

The Pauline epistles must have been written by one or more individuals. There had to be a time when they were revealed to the world. It weakens the impact of your theory if all you can say is "I do not know."

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV