boneyard bill

It has always seemed quite clear to me that Paul was aware of the gospel story and that the church preceded Paul. After all, he tells us that. But it also seems quite plausible to me that the gospel story could have preceded the written gospels by a considerable period of time.

Paul makes no mention of any written gospel, and even if the Pentecoste story is not true (I don't know how we can say for sure that it is fictitious), speaking in tongues could easily have been a church tradition prior to Paul and the story in Acts, fictitious or otherwise, was offered as an explanation of its origins.

An oral gospel tradition that Paul was aware of would also explain why the letters sometimes contradict the written gospels.

stephan huller

The question of whether or not you believe the Apostolikon reflects the existence of a written gospel at the time of the Apostle is pushed aside by the absolute certainty that Marcionite acknowledged exactly this paradigm. The Marcionite Apostle, the author of the Apostolikon also wrote the gospel of the community.

ph2ter

DCH,

Through the mediation of Stephan Huller. Look what he done to me .
The idea of this topic was to speculate that Mark and Paul are one and the same person.

Thank's, but actually I haven't read that books. I take the tour to this stuff firstly reading some of Yulia Ustinova's "The supreme gods of the Bosporan Kingdom" initially not anticipating any connection with Paul or the first Christians. Noticing some affinity with the first Christians I found information also in "Jewish communities in Asia Minor" by Paul R. Trebilco
Mentioned transcriptions are taken from "Associations, synagogues, and congregations" by Philip A. Harland

I don't know from whom the letter is, but yes, it is dated to the 3-d century CE.


I don't remember reading it anywhere, but it is my reflection of the data in the books mentioned. I am very glad to be in agreement with you and Klopenborg.

If I am not wrong, Galatia was an inland province not containing any city along any sea coast, stretching from south of Sinope to the Lycaonia which was north of Cilicia. I think it is conceivable to propose that Paul could be from Sinope which was just north of Galatia. This region is a quite good place for the controversies reflected in Paul's letters in which the main conflict was between uncircumcised Theosebes and circumcised Jews which were gathering in the same synagogue buildings.


Stephan,

It is mentioned that Paul was very eager in prosecution of the "church of God".

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
This could be the church of Theos Hypsistos containing uncircumcised Theosebes as the members organized in synodoi/thiasoi associations with already established secret mysteries which could have been in connection with the Jewish messianic ideas about "Isu Chrestos". Paul's father could be the leader of the Jewish community/synagogue at Sinope who was later remembered as a bishop. Of course, this is, for now, only a wild speculation.

stephan huller

Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. From them I prove that the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man: from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of what you say. Therefore you deny the Apostle Paul. [emphasis mine] I do not blaspheme him whom I defend. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? Or who are you, to believe in despite of him from whom alone there is proof of what you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine. [Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.1]

DCHindley

Now that is good stuff, and I am going to make an effort to acquire copies. This is very relevant for understanding the world in which someone like Paul operated. Not just his gentile friends but the other Jews who had been reacting to his very generous POV regarding association between Jews and gentiles.

That may have been true in the period in which Galatia existed as a client kingdom, but the Hellenized cities in the regions of Pisidia (Antioch) and Lycaonia (Derbe, Iconium & Lystra) were annexed to it after it became a Roman province. I wouldn't say that the residents of these cities and the Celtic residents of Ancyra embraced one another in a giant group hug or anything like that. Acts says he visited all of these Hellenized cities, but the port city of Pontus is about 350 miles (565 Km) north-east of any of them.

DCH

stephan huller

I have decided to quote THE WHOLE of Tertullian's statement at the beginning of Book Five of Against Marcion (it isn't real all Tertullian; it certainly was developed from some earlier testimony). It should be read with Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.14 - 16 to prove once and for all that the Marcionite likely did not identify the Apostle by the same name as the Catholics (i.e. 'Paul'):

Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. From them I prove that the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man: from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I dislodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of what you say. Therefore you deny the Apostle Paul. [emphasis mine] I do not blaspheme him whom I defend. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? Or who are you, to believe in despite of him from whom alone there is proof of what you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evidence, as as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine.

I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of his apostle (Et ideo ex opusculi ordine ad hanc materiam devolutus apostoli quoque originem a Marcione desidero)

I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher (novus aliqui discipulus nec ullius alterius auditor). For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed without good reason, and that that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin (qui nihil interim credam nisi nihil temere credendum, temere porro credi quodcunque sine originis agnitione creditor) and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace (quique dignissime ad sollicitudinem redigam istam inquisitionem, cum is mihi affirmatur apostolus quem in albo apostolorum apud evangelium non deprehendo)

So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him (Denique audiens postea eum a domino allectum, iam in caelis quiescente, quasi inprovidentiam existimo si non ante scivit illum sibi necessarium Christus), but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse [ex incursu] and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design (sed iam ordinato officio apostolatus et in sua opera dimisso, ex incursu, non ex prospectu, adiciendum existimavit, necessitate, ut ita dixerim, non voluntate)

So then, shipmaster out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle (Quamobrem, Pontice nauclere, si nunquam furtivas merces vel illicitas in acatos tuas recepisti, si nullum omnino onus avertisti vel adulterasti, cautior utique et fidelior in dei rebus, edas velim nobis, quo symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum) who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship (quis illum tituli charactere percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit, ut possis eum constanter exponere, ne illius probetur qui omnia apostolatus eius instrumenta protulerit)

He himself claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ (Ipse se, inquit, apostolum est professus, et quidem non ab hominibus nec per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum)

Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his claim is confirmed by another person's attestation (Plane profiteri potest semetipsum quis, verum professio eius alterius auctoritate conficitur)

One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records (Alius scribit, alius subscribit, alius obsignat, alius actis refert). No man is for himself both claimant and witness (Nemo sibi et professor et testis est) Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ (Praeter haec utique legisti multos venturos qui dicant, Ego sum Christus)

If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ (Si est qui se Christum mentiatur, quanto magis qui se apostolum praedicet Christi) Thus far my converse has been in the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now on I propose to shatter your confidence, for you have no means of proving its validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but reject the means of establishing them (Adhuc ego in persona discipuli et inquisitoris conversor, ut iam hinc et fidem tuam obtundam, qui unde eam probes non habes, et impudentiam suffundam, qui vindicas, et unde possis vindicare non recipis)

Let Christ, let the apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it except from the Creator's archives (Sit Christus, sit apostolus, ut alterius, dum non probantur nisi de instrumento creatoris) [Tertullian Against Marcion 5.1]

Tertullian certainly believes that the apostle is properly named 'Paul.' And the Marcionites? Not so much.

In order to properly make sense of the Marcionite references we can't allow ourselves to force our inherited presuppositions on the text. We can't rape the material. To carry the analogy one step further we have to apply a sensitivity that we would if we were making love to a super model. You know, being sensitive to nuance and subtleties ...

Reading this passage alongside Irenaeua Against Heresies 3.14 - 16, all the references to Marcion experiencing what the Marcionite apostle went through (cf. 2 Cor 13.4 in Eznik), writing what the Marcionite apostle says he wrote, Origen's report of the enthronement of Marcion beside Jesus and the linguistic relatedness of 'Marcion' and 'Mark' (i.e. where one is a diminutive of the other) coupled with the Marcionite rejection of Acts all make me very confident the Marcionites did not identify their Apostle as being named 'Paul.'

ph2ter

The book of Acts in its diaspora setting by Irina Levinskaya is also very interesting.
Some snippets from the book:
The worshipers of Theos Hypsistos were later called Hypsistarians. In the 4-th century Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa mentioned them in Cappadocia. This group rejected all images and sacrifices while observing the Jewish sabbath and some of the food laws, but they rejected circumcision. They acknowledged the only one God, whom they called Theos Hypsistos, but they denied his role as God the Father. Despite that, they considered themselves to be Christians.
Epiphanius mentioned another similar group which he called Messalians (prayer people in Syriac) in Antioch and Mesopotamia.
Cyril of Alexandria mentioned group which worshiped Hypsistos Theos in Phoenicia and Palestine. They called themselves Theosebeis and their beliefs where somewhere between Gentiles and the Jews.
In the 5-th century also existed a group named Caelicolae.
From a letter of Pliny we know that in Pontus Christianity had established itself by the early second century. It looks that early Bosporan Christians were following a pattern which had existed previously and forming thiasoi like the God-fearers worshipping the Most High God earlier. Probably some of the members of the Christian communities in the Bosporan Kingdom were former members of thiasoi of Theos Hypsistos. In three Iranian languages (Pahlavi, New Persian, Sogdian) one of the names for Christians 'tarsakan' was derived from the Iranian root with the meaning 'fear'. This could be the proof of semantic continuity between God-fearers and primitive Christianity. Hypsistarioi, Coelicolae, Theosebeis and Massalians point in the same direction. All these groups were formed by Gentiles and were under Jewish influences and at one stage or another connected with Christianity. The Coelicolae were condemned as Christian apostates and obliged by law to rejoin the Church. The Messalians were forerunners of the Christian sect with the same name. The father of Gregory of Nazianzus, a member of Hypsistarii was readily converted by bishops on their way to the Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the bishop of Bosporus was also present.
The previous religious experience among the Hypsistarioi who worshipped the Most High God was good preparation for conversion to Christianity.

The idea of a good and evil god could easily find a way to the first Christians in the area (around Euxine Sea) by the means of Iranian influence through the Zoroastrian system. Maybe it is not at all strange that Marcion was by the official Church described as a dualist, wrongly or truly.
Galatians maybe look so similar to Marcionite doctrine that easily Marcion could write it, because Paul and Marcion are really one and the same.

stephan huller

That's interesting stuff about the sect mentioned in Gregory of Nazianzus. He's a very learned source. Late of course, but unlike many of the fathers he certainly wasn't a Philistine. I have already argued that the Messalians were Marcionites somewhere. It is worth noting that what makes figuring out the origins of the heresies difficult is that most of the names used by the Church Fathers ARE NOT the names by which the sectarians identified themselves.

This is clear from Tertullian's testimony about the Valentinians. The Marcionites clearly called themselves 'Christians' in Osrhoene. Also if they obscured the name of the author of their gospel, they certainly didn't call themselves 'those of' whoever it was whose name they refused to reveal. That's one of the reasons I find parallels between Clement of Alexandria's attitude towards Mark in the Letter to Theodore and the Marcionite attitude toward their evangelist.

I even wonder if Valentinians and Marcionites were grouped together because Valentinians were the pneumatic class of the Marcionite Church (this would certainly explain the conflicting reports about Origen's benefactor Ambrose). I can't prove it yet. It's just a suspicion I have. The basis for this suspicion is the fact that (a) the Pauline writings do make reference to the gnostic terminology and the Marcionites must have had a 'hidden' interpretation of something if the Apostle makes reference to the existence of such (b) the Marcionite-Marcosian parallels in Irenaeus, Epiphanius and Gregory of Nazianzus and (c) the role of kabbalah within rabbinic circles.

What I mean by (c) is that if you look at Jews from without you think they are these strict monotheists because this is all the women and children and laypeople know. In the higher ranks of Jews throughout ALL the ages they're all kabbalists (unless they hang around mzungus too much).

Indeed even the authorities who wrote classic treatises AGAINST kabbalah end up being kabbalaists when their record is scrutinized!

The point is that scholarship never looks deep enough for a CONTEXT for all these strange things reported about sectarians in the Church Fathers. The European Church - i.e. the Catholic Church - HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDAISM (other than 'confessing' some bullshit about a 'belief in the Creator'). It doesn't look Jewish. It doesn't smell Jewish. It doesn't act Jewish. So the thought is that Christianity represents a break from Judaism. That's the way it was supposed to be and then the heresies represent a 'break from the break from Judaism.'

I think that's illogical. The Marcionites are more Jewish sounding, smelling and acting than the Catholics. The Valentinians seem just like kabbalists and share many of their interpretations. There are just too many white people studying what is certainly a Jewish messianic tradition reshaped under an Imperial directive to stop waiting for a future advent of a human messiah.

I think Morton Smith recognized this (the stuff about needing to recognize the Jewish roots of Christianity) even if he didn't come out and say it like that ...

aa5874

That is the story of "PAUL". There is NO other story. No other story can be made up for "Paul".

There is "Acts of the Apostles" and the "Pauline writings" and it is CLEAR that both are fundamentally similar with respect to "PAUL".

"PAUL" in his "OWN" story claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH he NOW preached.

But, "PAUL" has ADMITTED he PERSECUTED the FAITH he NOW preached.

Do you NOT understand?

The Gospel, the Good News of the Resurrection, was KNOWN or BELIEVED before "PAUL" even began to preach the FAITH.

1 Cor 15.9 Gal 1.23,
"Paul" could NOT have been operating in a VACUUM.

Once "PAUL" claimed he persecuted the FAITH that he NOW preached then it was PUBLICLY KNOWN, BELIEVED or PREACHED that JESUS was ALREADY RAISED from the DEAD after being PUBLICLY CRUCIFIED in a PUBLIC TRIAL in the PRESENCE of JEWS and ROMANS in JERUSALEM.

It must be OBVIOUS that the PAULINE WRITER is AFTER gMark since the author of gMARK did NOT know OVER 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus.

And an apologetic source did ADMIT "PAUL" was AWARE of gLuke.

"Church History" 3.4.8
The written EVIDENCE of antiquity has placed "PAUL" after gLuke has been written