Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 01-10-2011, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I respect and admire Detering greatly but I don't see how it is possible that the Pauline writings were created in the mid second century.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't possible, but I do think that any theory holding that the entire corpus was a second-century fabrication has serious problems with parsimony.

You have to do more than just assert that.

What makes you say that?

Doug Shaver · 01-10-2011, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't possible, but I do think that any theory holding that the entire corpus was a second-century fabrication has serious problems with parsimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

You have to do more than just assert that.

I and others in this forum have done more, many times. This is not the first thread in which the subject has been discussed.

bacht · 01-10-2011, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I respect and admire Detering greatly but I don't see how it is possible that the Pauline writings were created in the mid second century.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't possible, but I do think that any theory holding that the entire corpus was a second-century fabrication has serious problems with parsimony.

Doug would you accept Marcion's testimony that he didn't write Paul's epistles, but simply used them as examples of the only true apostolic teaching?

show_no_mercy · 01-10-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't possible, but I do think that any theory holding that the entire corpus was a second-century fabrication has serious problems with parsimony.

Doug would you accept Marcion's testimony that he didn't write Paul's epistles, but simply used them as examples of the only true apostolic teaching?

Paul's letters must have come into the foray after the gospels. That is, assuming that the gospels were indeed written anonymously. Paul's letters are introduced with apostolic authority; the kind that didn't exist when the gospels were written. If there had been any sort of apostolic authority when the gospels were written, then they would have come titled originally as "According to xyz Awesome Apostle" and would not have gained their apostolic "pedigree" in the late 2nd century.

Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. A book of the law by Moses (Deuteronomy) was "discovered" by Josiah when it just so happened to fit the religious reforms he was trying to make. Why remove Christians from their religious heritage? The books of the NT follow the same modus operandi.

Paul's letters may or may not have existed prior to Marcion. But the "discovery" of Paul's letters fits Marcion's agenda just like the "discovery" of Deuteronomy fits Josiah's agenda. Note also that the 2nd century is where we start getting the glut of "Acts of xyz Awesome Apostle" type of writings as well (though most scholars remove the canonical "Acts of the Apostles" from its 2nd century family).

bacht · 01-10-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Doug would you accept Marcion's testimony that he didn't write Paul's epistles, but simply used them as examples of the only true apostolic teaching?

Paul's letters must have come into the foray after the gospels. That is, assuming that the gospels were indeed written anonymously. Paul's letters are introduced with apostolic authority; the kind that didn't exist when the gospels were written. If there had been any sort of apostolic authority when the gospels were written, then they would have come titled originally as "According to xyz Awesome Apostle" and would not have gained their apostolic "pedigree" in the late 2nd century.

Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. A book of the law by Moses (Deuteronomy) was "discovered" by Josiah when it just so happened to fit the religious reforms he was trying to make. Why remove Christians from their religious heritage? The books of the NT follow the same modus operandi.

Paul's letters may or may not have existed prior to Marcion. But the "discovery" of Paul's letters fits Marcion's agenda just like the "discovery" of Deuteronomy fits Josiah's agenda. Note also that the 2nd century is where we start getting the glut of "Acts of xyz Awesome Apostle" type of writings as well (though most scholars remove the canonical "Acts of the Apostles" from its 2nd century family).

No doubt the "discovery" of Paul's letters was fortuitous to say the least.

One of the earliest Xtian writings we have is the Revelation, apparently from Asia Minor. This seems to be a Jewish Christian piece, maybe inspired by teachers from Palestine or Syria.

If Ephesus was a seedbed for gnosticism it's not impossible that someone like Paul got the ball rolling there.

Doug Shaver · 01-11-2011, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I wouldn't go so far as to say it isn't possible, but I do think that any theory holding that the entire corpus was a second-century fabrication has serious problems with parsimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Doug would you accept Marcion's testimony that he didn't write Paul's epistles, but simply used them as examples of the only true apostolic teaching?

The relevance of the first part of that question eludes me. I have never suspected that Marcion wrote any of the Pauline documents.

We don't have Marcion's testimony for anything. If we did, then I would take his word for it if he said he believed they were examples of the only true apostolic teaching, absent any clear and unambiguous evidence that he was lying.

stephan huller · 01-11-2011, 07:36 AM

Roger Pearse has noted in his latest post that Professor Markus Vinzent, Chair of History of Theology from King's College London in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, has completed a study which argues that Marcion wrote the original gospel.

Dear Stephan,

thanks for your note, and specifically for picking up that I am not claiming that Marcion is 'Q', but given that a number of scholars have credited Q with being the oldest extant written source of sayings (with narratives) of Jesus, I hope to be able to show that looking at all the available evidence, a late dating of the canonical Gospels is a less problematic hypothesis than a pre-Marcionite dating. Given, that this part - even not essential for my overall argument on the status of Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity - came up while I was developing the latter, I have now set down to write a follow up to the forthcoming Resurrection book that deals specifically with the question of the origin of the Gospels and the potential place of our canonical Gospels in the debate with Marcion.

Best yours Markus

Toto · 01-11-2011, 07:58 AM

Has Markus Vinzent been abducted by aliens? asks Roger, based on

Markus Vinzent, “The Resurrection of Christ in Second Century, Early Christianity”

Quote:

In a recent fascinating and astoundingly controversial patristics seminar held at the University of Cambridge, Professor Markus Vinzent offered a précis of his soon to be published book: Christ’s Resurrection in Early Christianity. The focus of his presentation was the lack of attestation to the resurrection of Christ in early Christian literature between the time of Paul and Marcion.He posited that whilst Christ’s resurrection was a strong belief in Paul, it was of little interest to other early Christians; hence, once interest in Paul’s theology waned, so also did interest in the resurrection.

On his view, after Paul’s death there was a long period in which he was not in vogue and thus the resurrection was largely forgotten apart from notions of a general resurrection of the body but with the writings of Marcion, and the subsequent reaction to these, Christ’s resurrection slowly became a more formalised doctrine. He also states that had Marcion not put Paul’s letter together with a gospel, the resurrection of Christ would not have made it into the creed. In the midst of making this point, Vinzent made some other even more astonishing claims for those in the biblical studies world:

First, he believes that the first gospel to be produced in written form was from the hand of Marcion since there is no mention of the gospels before him.

stephan huller · 01-11-2011, 08:08 AM

Sorry for the inherited cultural bigotry. Vinzent is German (or at least graduated from a German university). There's a natural limit to his stupidity (unless alcohol or freshly pressed uniforms are involved).

avi · 01-12-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse's BLOG

The focus of his {i.e. Dr. Vinzent's} presentation was the lack of attestation to the resurrection of Christ in early Christian literature between the time of Paul and Marcion.He posited that whilst Christ’s resurrection was a strong belief in Paul, it was of little interest to other early Christians; hence, once interest in Paul’s theology waned, so also did interest in the resurrection. (emphasis by avi)

But, does Dr. Vinzent then suppose that Paul's epistles were written BEFORE Marcion? I thought, from the title, i.e. “The Resurrection of Christ in Second Century, Early Christianity”, that Dr. Vinzent suggests that Paul wrote AFTER Marcion. I acknowledge having had some difficulty understanding the exchange between Roger and Dr. Vinzent on Roger's BLOG. Maybe it is crystal clear, and I simply missed it....

As far as I understand it, most Biblical scholars, including both Roger and Andrew, support the idea that Paul wrote his epistles in the FIRST century...

Since there is fundamentally no data to resolve the issue, I find the argument of aa5874 to be persuasive, for a second century post gospel origin to Paul's epistles. I am very hard pressed to explain to anyone, including myself, how we claim to know anything at all, regarding "Marcion", since our only extant text about him, as I understand the situation, is from folks like Tertullian, who was so poorly regarded, he was booted out of the church as a Montanist heretic, after only ten years of practicing Christianity....

Did Tertullian write his famous expose against Marcion, while still a Christian, or only after he became a Montanist, and had left the Catholic church?

To what extent does Tertullian's support for Trinitarianism conflict with the views of Marcion, i.e. and thereby serve as a basis for Tertullian's critique of Marcion?

avi

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

01-11-2011, 07:36 AM	#77
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Roger Pearse has noted in his latest post that Professor Markus Vinzent, Chair of History of Theology from King's College London in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies, has completed a study which argues that Marcion wrote the original gospel. Dear Stephan, thanks for your note, and specifically for picking up that I am not claiming that Marcion is 'Q', but given that a number of scholars have credited Q with being the oldest extant written source of sayings (with narratives) of Jesus, I hope to be able to show that looking at all the available evidence, a late dating of the canonical Gospels is a less problematic hypothesis than a pre-Marcionite dating. Given, that this part - even not essential for my overall argument on the status of Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity - came up while I was developing the latter, I have now set down to write a follow up to the forthcoming Resurrection book that deals specifically with the question of the origin of the Gospels and the potential place of our canonical Gospels in the debate with Marcion. Best yours Markus

01-11-2011, 08:08 AM	#79
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Sorry for the inherited cultural bigotry. Vinzent is German (or at least graduated from a German university). There's a natural limit to his stupidity (unless alcohol or freshly pressed uniforms are involved).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.