arnoldo

If you could kindly provide any actual evidence that Marcion in any way, shape, or form, actually wrote any of the New Testament it would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime I will agree with the following german theologian on the possibility that Paul did not actually exist per se. . .

Source: The witnesses to the historicity of Jesus (Arthur Drews)

spamandham

I'm not qualified to provide such a thing, and neither have I argued for it. I was merely summarizing Detering's position.

arnoldo

I'm not qualified either however so far no one has presented any evidence that Marcion wrote any scripture, however he may have deleted passages of scripture that he found objectable. From my limited understanding of Marcion he seemed to present the same moral arguments against the God of the Old Testament which some skeptics present on this board; i.e., the Jewish God was cruel, unjust, immoral, etc. Thus Marcion presented that there was a higher God than Jehovah which was of a more spiritual nature than the physical creator of the universe. This higher being sent Jesus into this physical world however since anything material is of a fallen nature, Jesus was an entirely spiritual rather than physical being. 1 John 4:1-2 explicitly states the Jesus had a real earthly existance;

Just as a flatlander would have difficulty conceptualizing a spherical orb entering it's dimension it seems Marcion could not fathom the concept of Jesus tabernacling in an earthly body. Also many pagans at the time of Marcion also seemed to be attracted to Marcion's cult which at times demanded that it's followers remain celibate and abstain from marriage. Thus it seems absurd for some to argue that Marcion wrote any of Paul's letters which permits marriage amongst the congregation.

Toto

And what evidence do you have that Marcion deleted passages? Some assertions by his enemies who might be covering up the facts of their own additions to the scriptures?

Those who argue that Marcion wrote the original of Paul's letters also charge the orthodox with altering them to fit their positions.

arnoldo

It would be interesting to learn if the "orthodox," in fact, altered Marcion's writings, wouldn't it? :constern01:

show_no_mercy

It would be interesting to learn if Marcion, in fact, altered the proto-Orthodox's writings, wouldn't it? :constern01:

There's no evidence either way.

Toto

There is "evidence" of a sort, based on literary analysis. But since it is necessarily "speculative," believers like arnoldo can reject it.

arnoldo, would you be willing to lay out what you think the evidence shows, and what it is based on, rather than just claiming there is no evidence for an alternative scenario?

arnoldo

A. Their is "evidence,"based on literary analysis, for christian writings existing as early as the first century. Some of the alternative scenarios presented so far are;

B. Marcion was the source of these early christian writings in the second century

or

C. Constantine had these texts manufactured in the third century.

Between B & C scenarios "B" seems the most plausible, however there is no absolute evidence for either scenarios A, B, or C. Despite the writings of the Dutch Radicals, which support scenario B, it is based on speculation, rather than fact.

Toto

There are many other possible scenarios. Please ignore C - it has been discussed to death and has no significant support.

The orthodox view is that Paul's letters were written in the mid first century, and collected and possibly edited later.

The dispute is generally over how extensive the editorial additions were, and how many letters were forged or written in Paul's name.

The only clear evidence is that a collection of Paul's letters was in general circulation in the mid second century. Anything else is speculation - did Paul write the original letters, when he wrote them, who added to them, who added forged letters to the collection, etc.

So if there are statements for or against marriage in Paul's letters, you must add some literary analysis, or speculation, before you can claim that represent's Paul's original thinking, versus a later addition.

arnoldo

Agreed.