spamandham

Considering that the only copies we have of these letters actually originated with Marcion, and considering that we have external evidence of Marcion's willingness to insert his own text and theology into his texts (such as recorded by Tertullian), would it not be more appropriate to date the letters to the beginning of the first century, since it isn't possible to isolate what Paul might have written from what Marcion injected?

Is there a vald textual technique of isolating what Paul wrote from what Marcion wrote?

spin

This thread might be useful for the topic question.


spin

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure where this idea comes from. Tertullian Adversus Marcionem is clear evidence on how Marcion's version read, and it is a derivative of the text that we have.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Dean Anderson

Is it a derivative of the text we have, or is the text we have a derivative of Marcion's text?

How do we know which of these is the case?

(That's a genuine question, not a leading one, by the way...)

Roger Pearse

Discovering which variant of two versions of the same text is original is what textual criticism is for: for the healing of texts damaged in transmission (although whether a text edited to produce another qualifies as merely 'damage' might be queried, I suppose). The version that explains the existence of the other tends to be preferred.

I've never looked at the modern discussion of this -- sorry.

Tertullian makes the point that even Marcion's edited version contains enough material to demonstrate that Marcion's religious position is wrong. This tends to support the assertion that Marcion was editing a pre-existing text. (We could also point out that Marcion only lived in 140 while we have a bit of a manuscript of John dating from before then; that the Jewish origins of Christianity are proclaimed all over the place, and before his time, while his text has removed all these; etc).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sparrow

Is the bit of manuscript to which you refer the one known as P52? If so, I though the current consensus was a date between 125 and 160 CE. This would not necessarily predate Marcion would it? Or do you have better info regarding the dating?

Thanks

Roger Pearse

P52 is what I had in mind. The paleographical dating by Roberts & co -- i.e. all the paleographers of the time -- was to 100-150 with a most likely of around 125, and probably earlier rather than later. There have been isolated attempts to push it later, but I don't know that any have been accepted. However I do recall Andrew Criddle referring to a general redating of papyri which might push it a decade later -- unfortunately I don't have the details.

I'm not a fan of the evident revisionism-led comments of Brent Nongbri's recent paper on the subject.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

P52 was dated a very long time ago, when the general palaeographic data available for the era was still being analysed. It's dating was accepted by religionists and it has stayed that way for many decades. The Wiki entry on the document has a relatively useful section on dating which I'd recommend. The early dating is definitely not to be accepted.


spin

Sparrow

Thanks for that. I'd actually already read the Wikipedia article, but always treat them with some skepticism. But I have to throw the same skepticism at those who magically seem to be able to reconstruct an entire gospel from the P52 fragment. It does seem that this particular fragment has been tortured into attestations it can't really make.

DCHindley

Whoo-wee, I think that you have made some giant assumptions about Marcion and his involvement with the Pauline corpus, gospel of Luke and Acts!

While looking at web sites the other day, here is a web page with a summary of the discussion on this matter at the March, 1967 meeting of the PHILADELPHIA SEMINAR ON CHRISTIAN ORIGINS (PSCO):

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/psco/archi...4-min.htm#Set4

While everyone is arguing the evidence from papyri here, and making assumptions about Marcion's role in collecting, editing and publishing Pauline books, what about the internal evidence within the books?

I mean things like:

1) Paul's rant about women's hair in 1 Cor 11:6 ("For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil." I do not ever see anybody discuss this, but around 52 CE, which is very close to the traditional dating of this book, Queen Helena of Adiabene was in Jerusalem to discharge a Nazirite vow she took upon herself, which involves *shearing off her hair* to offer to a priest in the temple. If anyone here is unaware of this figure (shame on you!) then be advised she was at the center of a debate about whether her son(s), both princes, should convert to Judaism by accepting circumcision, or whether it was better to remain faithful gentiles. The full conversion option was chosen by her sons and it created quite an uproar in the kingdom of Adiabene and among Jews of the diaspora. Paul, as I have long advocated, himself was of the opposing position, and as such would be expected to be critical of her vow. I am unsure how this fits into my redacted Pauline corpus hypothesis, as the rant is more characteristic of the redactor than the "original" Paul.

2) the bit about the "man of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 ("3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." Yeah sure, 2 Thess is disputed by some as "authentic." The PSCO discussion cited above also deals with the state of debate on the relationship of the pastoral epistles to the other undisputed letters. To be honset, there hasn't been much movment since. Anyhow, this seems like a reference to the emperor Gaius' attempt to erect a statue of Zeus (modelled on his own features, of course) in the Jerusalem temple around 39-40 CE.

The long and the short of the matter is this, Paul, whoever he was, may have been active about a decade earlier than Acts would seem to suggest.

DCH