stephan huller

But for you forgery is just an excuse to make the texts disappear. One down a couple hundred to go ...

DCHindley

Jake,

This is very interesting!

I'm curious, though, is there a file with Detering's Original Text of Galatians "Revised version of 17. December 2003"? The only version I can locate in my own files or on his website is one named GAL-TXT (both dated Jan 22, 2002) with 2 columns in Greek, labeled "Marcionitische Rezension (MRez)" & "Katholische Rezension (KRez)" with no commentary.

Thanks!

DCH

DCHindley

The more I study this, the more I realize that much of these reconstructed "original" versions of Marcion's version of Galatians is pure speculation based on what critics think Marcion would have said.

My delicate sensibilities would force me to put together a table in which the verses that are indisputably attested in Marcion's text are colored Green, those that are indisputably attested to be omitted marked in Red, and the rest of the received text marked Yellow. It is the yellow text that seems to be included by this critic or excluded by that critic (often on the basis that it seems awkward to the critic or an obvious gloss according to many other text critics).

For interpretive analysis of the doctrines of Marcion's "gospel," only the Green text can be used with any certainty. Inferences can also be made from what is omitted in the Red text, but of lesser certainty as it is not clear whether these are proto-orthodox insertions or not. Of the Yellow text, we can draw no certain conclusions at all as to what Marcion's doctrine was. None!

When I find a little time, I'll be doing some color coding. For now, I must grill chicken.

DCH

mountainman

From similar patterns of evidence we may reasonably suspect the heresiologists of pious forgery. The texts are before us with all their usual disclaimers, even the letter of Jesus to Agba, and the "TF". We must explain the evidence, not wish it away.


Eusebius had many continuators but no rivals.
Did Eusebius mutilate Marcion?
Heresiologists wrote pseudo-history about the heretics.
Isn't it likely Eusebius would have misrepresented Marcion?
Outside of Eusebius, what do we know of Marcion?
I know that there may be a few inscriptions ....

jakejonesiv

Hi David Hendley,

I think much can be learned from an examination of Galatians and Acts to study the relationship between the two very different versions of Paul.

According to Robert Price, Marcion’s original version of Galatians started with chapter 3.

Marcion has "found" the Epistle to the Galatians, which is an indication that he forged it himself. Tert. AM 4.3.1. It was his cover letter to the Apostolikon. This portrayal of Paul was very much in keeping with Marcion's Paul who exclusively knew the truth according to revelation.

The catholics then wrote Acts, to portray a sanitized Paul who wrote no epistles and was indistinguishable from Peter. The most catholicized of Paul’s three conversions is that of Acts chapter 9. However, he is not known here by his future name of Paul, but instead as “Saul.”

A Marcionite redactor then appended Chapters 1 and 2 to Galatians to repudiate the portrayal of Paul in Acts chapters 9 and 15. This Marcionite redactor also added the biographical elements of Marcions life to the story.

In Acts 9:3, Saul/Paul is converted on the road to Damascus. In Galatians 1:15, Paul is set apart and called from his mother’s womb.
In Acts 910,17ff, Paul is instructed by Ananias and the disciples of Damascus. In Galatians 1:1,11-12,16 Paul is not taught by any human being, but receives direct revelation from Jesus Christ. Only Paul’s gospel is accepted, all others are to be rejected. Galatians 1:8,9.

According to Acts 9 just as soon as Paul recovered his strength, he began preaching in a very confrontational manner in Damascus (9:20) and Jerusalem (9:28). According to Gal. 1:22. Paul was unknown personally to the churches of Judea.

Finally, the catholics redacted the entire epistle. There are many proto-orthodox changes (including the "first trip" to Jerusalem 1:18-19), but the most notable was the insertion of Justin's views about Abraham being justified by faith.

Let's look closer at the peculiar relationship between Acts chapter 9 and the Epistle to the Galatians.

It is not just a simple matter of the author of Acts attempting to subjugate Paul to the proto-orthodox Apostles, although that is certainly going on. The texts are in fact “in conversation” with each other through a series of redactions. For eaxample, we see that both Acts 9 and Galatians 1 are indebted to Euripides Bacchae.

It is evident that Galatians 1 was written after Acts 9 because Gal 1:17 states Paul returned to Damascus. Returned? Galatians doesn’t mention Damascus before this. It was mentioned in Acts 9:3. These texts evolved “in conversation” with each other. This is supported by the fact that the so-called biographical details of Acts 9 and Galatians 1 in conjunction were derived from Elijah in 1 Kings 18 and 19.

This is where the story turns very interesting. It turns out that the proto-orthodox created the incidents in the life of Paul by the very same methods they used to create the life of Jesus; by recasting tales from the Septuagint!

Paul and Elijah both set out to purge the enemies of the "true" faith, the prophets of Baal for Elijah (1 Kings 18) and the church for Paul (Gal 1:13,23).

Elijah is turned aside (1 Kings 19:3) as is Paul when he encounters the risen Christ (Acts 9). {note: Acts 9 is the most catholicized of the "conversion" tales, and was written in response to Marcion's Galatians).

Now here is the key part; Elijah immediately goes to Horeb, the mountain of God (1 Kings 19:8). Likewise, Paul turns aside into Arabia (Gal 1:17), where Mount Sinai is supposed to be located (Gal 4:25). It is on the Mount that Paul would naturally receive his alleged divine revelation, Gal. 1:12.

After that, both Elijah (1 Kings 19:15) and Paul (Gal. 1:17) go to Damascus.

Uh-oh! :constern01: So that's where this Damascus business comes from!?! Just when you think you are on firm historical footing, the "weaver of tales" displays his hand and the ground shifts beneath your feet.

The deeds of the alleged Paul, like those of Jesus, vanish away when scrutinized. They are again and again revealed to be nothing more than midrash (loosely defined) on OT tales.


Jake Jones IV

DCHindley

Mr Jones III.6,

While I was going over all that comparative data I also wondered if the story of "Paul's" conversion was not in some way authbiographical of Marcion.

What troubles me, though, is Gal 1:17

Neither went I up into Jerusalem to those who were before me apostles; but I went into Arabia, and again returned into Damascus.

Marcion went up from Pontus in Asia Minor to the wigs-of-bigness at the church of Rome to offer his interpretation of Jesus' significance, certain that they would agree it was more perfect than what they had so far developed.

The orthodox claim his interpretation was rejected, and Marcion responded by creating his own congregations, although he himself remained in Rome.

This does not sound like going to Arabia and then back to Damascus. Is this supposed to be coded language similar to the sectarian DSS? Yet little if any of this was translated into Greek, unless Marcion learned Hebrew in order to conduct his in-depth study of Jewish scripture. That may not be that crazy -if- Aramaic was commonly spoken in Pontus, and Marcion already knew that language. That being said, I am not aware of Marcion betraying any knowledge of Hebrew.

And if autobiographical of Marcion, what does the author mean by "those who were before me apostles"? I don't believe that Marcion called himself an "apostle".

The other thing that such a scenario you suggest causes my delicate sensibilities is that I am not at all sure why the orthodox would adopt Marcion's creation to adapt. Why not just denounce it as a fabrication?

For a fabrication to have any traction, there would already have to be a Paul tradition well enough known to make the "finding" of Paul's letters plausible. The Valentinians and other Gnostics from Egypt also thought Paul was the cat's meow, because the high Christology could be interpreted or 'explained' in widely different ways.

But would it be so plausible that the orthodox would believe that Marcion had actually "found" them? What would be the point of changing them?

DC Hind-ley (Yes, I am aware of the joke potential)

jakejonesiv

Hi David C. ,

If the proto-orthodox simply wrote Paul off, they must give up all hope of converting Marcionites and the others who looked favorably on the Apostle Paul. We see in the epistle of 1 Peter that they were interested in evangelizing the "provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" which were the very hot bed origin of Marcionism/ultra-Paulism.
N/A
And we can see how gently they had to undercut Paul in 2 Peter 3:16. If they ignored Paul, they would be accused by the heretic opponents of ignoring the gospel in all its fullness, and they would relinquish the goal of being the catholic (Universal) church.

So they had to subtly reposition Paul to a position more congenial to orthodoxy.

The hotbed of Marcionism was anachronistically referenced in Acts 20:29 (Acts dates to the later part of the 2c) where the author of Acts sought to undermine the authority of Marcion by having the catholicized St. Paul issue a warning, "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock." How would an alleged historical Paul know such a thing? He wouldn't! The words are placed in his mouth by the author to counter the opponents of his own day.

This is obvious also in Acts 16:6, "They passed through the Phrygian and Galatian territory because they had been forbidden by the Holy Spirit from preaching the message in the province of Asia." This was to undermine the authority of Marcion, the ultra-Paulinist of the second century.

Jake

aa5874

Your post makes ZERO chronological sense.

According to Tertullian and Church writers:

1. Paul was 100 years BEFORE Marcion.

2. The Pauline Epistles were written to the Churches where Paul PREACHED.

3. Marcion was a CHRISTIAN BEFORE he became a Heretic.

4. Paul was KNOWN by Peter, the disciples and James's the Lord's brother.

5. Paul was KNOWN in MAJOR Cities of the Roman Empire.


It makes ZERO sense that Marcion would have manipulated the Pauline writings since he would have been IMMEDIATELY recognised as a FRAUDSTER.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Marcion did actually PREACH in MAJOR CITIES of the Roman Empire.

For example, in order for Marcion to have used the Epistle to the Galatians, he MUST remove at least the first TWO chapters.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Galatians are about events with PAUL that happened 100 years BEFORE Marcion.

In effect, ALL chapters that contain EVENTS that occurred 100 years ealier during the time of Paul would have to be REMOVED by Marcion.

It is most unlikely that Marcion would have Manipulated the ALREADY existing PAULINE Epistles about events 100 years earlier when Marcion preached DUALISM and was NOT in Damascus during the reign of King Aretas c 37-40 CE.

Iskander

Why should you bother to interrupt narcissist monologues?, dear aa5874


I wonder why this style of posting , which is frequently found in the BH&C is not classified as non-preferred.

Toto

This thread is a discussion, not a monologue.

We believe in free speech. If I were to edit out non-preferred styles, you might find yourself under attack.