Rick Sumner

Are you aware that the theological, rather than Christological, doxology in Romans 9-11 is the only such doxology in the Pauline epistles, making it unique in that regard? Are you further aware that it would benefit Marcion more to take it out than it would Christians to put it in for precisely that reason?

This is a point against the primacy of Marcion, not a point against the authenticity of Rom.9-11.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jakejonesiv

Hi Rick,

Your remarks are very pertinent.

Dr. Hermann Deterring, in examining this section of Romans finds the linguistic differences indicates two different authors, rather than the cutting down of the work of one author. The linguistic divisions follow along closely with the text derived from the reconstructed Marcionite text, as well as the theological divisions.

I will admit to being inadequate to discuss the linguistic evidence that marks most of Romans 9-11 as a redaction. One can refer to Hermann Detering: Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt, seite 102 for these details.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

You are mistaking the proto-orthodox for all Christians. Even Tertullian ended up being declared a heretic.

IMO, all the heretics and all the church fathers were spin doctors. Truth was secondary to partisan advantage, and all sides would lie and forge scriptures if it was to their advantage.

jakejonesiv

When I read 1 Enoch 62-63, I don't see a dependancy on Matthew 25:31-46 or vice versa. Same with Revelation 12:2 and 1 Enoch 62:4.
The most prudent course is to suggest that both developed from common ideas in 1-2c. Judaism.

Jake Jones IV

Rick Sumner

I would certainly be interested in knowing what side in particular you would consider as gaining an advantage from a theological doxology. In particular, I'd like to know who would like such a thing after the "Jewish Christians" (for lack of a better term) were all but non-existent, as was the case by the time of Marcion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

The most prudent thing is to suggest, for example, that the depiction of the Danielic "Son of Man," found first in the gospels, and later in Enoch, and nowhere before the gospels are in fact independent?

You're kidding, right?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jakejonesiv

Hi Rick,

Sorry, I am not following your last two comments. It may be my fault because I am operating at about 50% today and fading.

Could you say again, in a different way?

Thanks for your patience.

Jake Jones IV

Rick Sumner

In a nutshell, the thrust of my first comment is that I am not aware of any post-Marcion group that would benefit from a theological rather than Christological doxology--indeed, most would be hindered by it, being as christ-centric as they are. It's an invitation to you to name such a group, since you seem so certain that they existed to offer the interpolation.

The second comment is far simpler: The most prudent choice is dependence.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spamandham

I'm referring to the Book of Parables in 1 Enoch, generally dated to the first century BCE. There is a progression from Jewish ideas toward Christian ideas in various apocryphal books.

Keep in mind that even though the books of Enoch are not part of the current canon, they were considered scripture by the early church, and early Christians would have been very familiar with them.

Many ideas found in typical Christian beliefs are based on the books of Enoch rather than anything in the current scriptural canon. The idea of fallen angels, a war in the heavens, guardian angels, the names of the various important angels in Christianity, the idea of an actual heavenly place of suffering filled with demons (hell in modern language) and much more, all come from the books of Enoch, and are only very vaguely referred to in the Bible.

One of these ideas is a figure known as The Son of Man. You can read about it here http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html . Start reading at about chapter 42. The interesting thing about Enoch, is that the stories regarding the Son of Man, are specifically called parables. Enoch was using symbolic language, not literal language. Considering the similarities between Paul's Christ and Enoch's Son of Man, the obvious simple conclusion is that Paul's character is based off of Enoch's, and Paul would have known this was a fictional character.

It's just silly to ignore the influence of Enoch on Christianity, and the obvious conclusion that the earliest Christian writings referred to a character from a story known to be a parable. Enoch is the codex for unlocking Christian history, and it seems to be almost universally ignored.

jakejonesiv

Are you refering to Romans 11:33-36? The catholic redactor had inserted the words, in order to support the catholic doctrine of strict monotheism against Marcionite dualist theology.
See Hermann Detering: Der Römerbrief in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt, page 111.

If you see a literary dependance between 1 Enoch 62-63, and Matthew 25:31-46 I would be happy to you expound upon it.

Jake Jones IV