jakejonesiv

The second century proto-catholic Church at Rome had taught that their authority was handed down from the apostles. Marcion undercut that claim by introducing the teaching that Paul had exclusively gained the truth by revelation.
"With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, ..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1

The Pauline epistles, especially Galatians chapter 1, strongly supported Marcion.
Galatians 1
1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
8. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto
you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other
gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
11. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of
me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by
the revelation of Jesus Christ.
15. But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb,
and called me by his grace,
16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen;
immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17. Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;

Marcion came forth with the first collection of Pauline epistles. Who else before Marcion and some Gnostics held Paul in such high esteem? Certainly not the proto-catholics. As late as Tertullian, Paul was still known as "The Apostle you [Marcion] claim as your own" (AM 1:15; cf PH 24). Basilides the heretic (about 138 CE) was the first to elevate any Christian text (in this case Pauline Epistles 1 Corinthians and Ephesians) to the level of Scripture (Hippolytus, Refutatio, 7,13-14). It is clear that the figure of Paul arose and held the ascendency in heretical circles, and was only grudgingly accepted by the catholics after massive changes.

The emerging catholic church absorbed the ultra-Paulinism of Marcion by redacting and rewriting the Marcionite epistles and forging the Pastorals and Acts. Thus Paul was brought down to the level of, and even subordinate to, the Twelve and Peter. A false harmony of Christian origins was created in order to sustain the myth of the catholic (universal) church.

The proto-Catholic church had responded by promoting Peter to go one on one with Paul, and had persued the doctrine of the parallelism of Peter and Paul; that their joint actions had established the Church at Rome. This doctrine is seen plainly in Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3. This harmonization of Peter and Paul appears in the interpolation of Galatians 2:7b-8. The first trip to Jerusalem is bogus. It is meant to subtly undercut Paul's claims of independence and exclusivity of revelation.

Thus we see that "Acts of the Apostles" followed and is intended to emasculate Paul. Paul is given a false background of "Saul" joined in the flimsiest fashion. Paul is nowhere identified with Saul except in the canonical book of Acts. The author of Acts knew that Pauline authority derived from the epistles written in his name, but he effectively took them away from Paul by never openly acknowledging them. The catholic author of Acts was out to neuter the fire breathing Apostle who thundered that anyone who opposed his gospel was to be accursed. Galatians 5:2 states "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Acts turns Paul into a milksop and a toady. He directly undercut Galatians 5:2 with Acts 16:3. "Paul wanted to take him [Timothy] along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." It is not believable that such an act could be attributed to Paul without sinister motivation.

Then we see the author of Acts snatching the Pauline teachings of the epistles and putting them into the mouth of Peter (Acts 15:7-11), while Paul and Barnabas are reduced to telling miracle stories (15:12)! It is Peter (not Paul) who receives divine revelation to eat with Gentiles. Acts 10:10 ff.

We see, that even after this, the catholics demote Paul even more, and moved Peter above him. Paul is taken down another notch in THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS, Chapter 24.
"Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine..."
Tertullian continues to argue that if Paul did preach from divine revelation, then any who followed him was a heretic, "if any heresy [Marcion!] affirms ... the same" then "Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret." Paul has been completely deprived from his authority, and made dependant on Peter and the other apostles for everything he preached.

Matthew 16:17 (a third century interpolation) completes the subjugation of Paul. Peter's confession is proclaimed, "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you"; Divine revelation has been transferred from Paul to Peter! The subjugation of Paul was complete.

Jake Jones IV

bacht

Any thoughts on when the Pauline letters were written Jake? Do you grant the possibility that Marcion himself wrote the originals, or do you think the traditional 1st C dating has any merit?

jakejonesiv

IMO all the Pauline epistles are be posthumous and therefore inauthentic. The earliest is 1 Corinthians and dates to the early second century. Along with the fragments included in 2 Corinthians, these documents record a crisis when the Pauline Christianity faced extinction.

Aside from possibly of Galatians --and perhaps a few sections in Romans and others-- I don't think Marcion wrote the PE. However, the Marcionite recension is earlier and more authentic than the canonical version in all cases.

show_no_mercy

I always figured that the reason why Paul's letters make up half of the NT is because the proto-Orthodoxy stole him from the Marcionites, rehabilitated him via forged epistles, and used the popularity of Paul to lure those in the Marcionite churches to the proto-Orthodoxy.

jakejonesiv

I agree. The proto-orthodox had two goals.

1. To co-opt the Apostle and make him a good catholic, i.e. Saint Paul.
2. To evangelize the Marcionite areas where the Pauline epistles arose, in an attempt to gain converts.

I would also include the psuedopedigrapic epistle of 1 Peter in this effort.

1 Peter was written in the mid to late second century by the proto-orthodox author to evangelize the areas of the Marcionite strongholds "in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1:1). The heretics controlled western and central Asia Minor in the early second century. Marcionites, Cerinthians, Montanists, etc. As Walter Bauer observed in "Othodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity," pages 172-173, Christianity was synonmous with heresy in these regions until nearly the 3rd century.

The trick to gaining acceptance for St. Peter (in order to begin insinuating Catholic doctrine) was to make him seem a part of the circle of Paul. Silvanus (5:12) was the companion of Paul (2 Cor 1:19; 1 Thes 1:1; 2 Thes 1:1). Mark (5:13) was also associated with Paul. Peter is made to sound as much like Paul as possible to gain acceptance of the Marcionites. 1 Peter 1:3-12 cf. Ephesians 1. It is the agenda of the proto-orthodox church to harmonize the two legendary figureheads of the competing sects.

But to what end? There is indeed a gentle introduction of catholic dogma. That Jesus suffered "in the flesh" (4:1) is an antidocetic statement. The handing over of one's soul to a "faithful creator" is anti-dualism of the Father of Jesus and the Creator (Demiurge) as a separate and lesser being. That Jesus was foretold by the prophets. And perhaps most importantly, that the church at Rome had pre-eminence, that it was "the chosen one." 5:13.

The First Epistle of Peter is a nice piece of second century proto-orthodox propoganda.

Jake

aa5874

This verse actually shows the reverse.

Marcion's phantom Jesus did not die, so was not raised from the dead.

The Pauline epistles was used to counter Marcion' Jesus. The epistles of the writer called Paul do not support Marcion.

Marcion's Jesus, unlike the Jesus of the Pauline writer was NOT the son of the God of the Jews.

Justin Martyr will give the fundamental differences between Marcion's God and his phantom son Jesus and the God and father of Jesus of the entire NT and church writers.

Most importantly, Justin Martyr was a living WITNESS to Marcion.

See www.earlychristianwritings.com

Justin Martyr in First Apology 26 It is extremely important to recognise that Marcion did not believe in the Pauline God.

Justin Martyr in First Apology 58 It is also most fundamental to understand that Marcion did not believe in the Pauline Jesus.

Romans 1:4- - The Pauline God and Son is of Jewish origin.

Based on Justin Martyr, such scenario is hardly likely to be true. And further Justin did not once mention Paul.

But it was Peter who was emasculated in Acts of the Apostles. There are 28 chapters in Acts, after the 15th chapter the name Peter had vanished never to be mentioned again and the author himself is directly associated with Paul, becoming a travelling companion, witness and preacher with Paul, and the next 13 chapters are devoted strictly to the adventures of Paul and the author of Acts of the Apostles.

Paul and the author of Acts are now the main characters in Acts.
The Lord had called Paul and the author to preach.

Acts 16:10 - These are excerpts of Paul and the author, not Peter, in their missionary work together.


The author of Acts wrote nothing about Peter after the 15th chapter of Acts.
Peter has vanished, he was insignificant, emasculated.

mountainman

Did the gnostics hold "Paul" or anyone in "esteem"?

I dont think so. The gnostics appear to have a satirical invective,
similar to emperor Julian's invective, against the orthodox. Paul
was no exception.

The Gnostic author of the Acts of Paul describes Paul as ....

A man small in size, with a bald head and crooked legs; in good health; with eyebrows that met and a rather prominent nose; full of grace, for sometimes he looked like a man and sometimes he looked like an angel.

Glenn Davis comments of the Aesop fable reference:

Paul is being subject to a process of Homerization.
He has been likened to the mouse in Aesop's fables.
His companion, Thecla, was women's liberationist, preaching and
baptizing ---- which was scandalous in the eyes of the
literary profile known to the planet as Tertullian.

The primary evidence - gthe text from the manuscript tradition
shows that Paul is cast into story where women baptise!
This is simply an ancient satire against Paul.
This evidence suggests in fact that there is negative esteem
in "The Acts of Paul" from the gnostics, not positive esteem.

IamJoseph

Saul arrived in Judea 30 years after Jesus passed away - they never met. Saul was expelled from the Nasserite group who knew Jesus first hand, for his pagan, Hellenist views. The rest is later European insertions, and the hoaxing of the entire Christian population. Its easy to exploit belief and inculcate by force.

jakejonesiv

HI AA,

I am not sure where you got the idea that Marcion’s Christ did not die and was not resurrected. Perhaps you have been taken in by some of Tertullian’s failed reductio ad absurdum. In the Marcionite, pre-Catholic version of Pauline theology, Christ’s death was a ransom for freeing from the law, paid to the Demiurge.

Christ according to Marcion, Jesus died and was raised from the dead. Romans 1:1. However, Romans 1:3 was not in Marcion’s recension (Origen, Commentary on John 10.4; see Harnak, Marcion 102). [The proto-orthodox used the tactic to accuse Marcion of deleting text, even when the text demonstrably was never there to begin with; as when Tertullian accused Marcion of deleting “M” material from the gospel of Luke!]

It is noteworthy that almost all of the texts used to bedevil Earl Doherty (Romans 1:3, 9:4-5; Gal 4:4 etc) were not in Marcion’s recension. These are proto-orthodox redactions to counter Marcion’s docetism, which was based on Phil. 2:7, Romans 8:3. [I disagree with Earl on a point; there is no reason a mythological character could not be deemed to descend to the surface of the earth].

Bart Ehrman has clearly demonstrated in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, even after we enter the period of extant manuscripts, the orthodox scribes continued to modify these same texts for theological and dogmatic reasons. Not just innocent copying errors, but deliberate changes to support orthodox doctrine against their opponents. And, if they changed scriptures after 200 CE, they were much more so likely to corrupt the scriptures during the second century CE, when, if the Church Fathers are to be believed, the doctrinal wars with the Marcionites and other heretics raged, and orthodox Christianity faced it's most severe challenge in its history.

Justin Martyr is evidence in just the opposite direction you presume. Justin Martyr, in Rome in the middle of the second century never so much as mentioned Paul’s name. That is either because Justin has never heard of Paul, or held him in such low esteem that he could not bear to mention his name. The last option is unlikely because he doesn’t hesitate to mention heretics and those with whom he disagreed. There is a third possibility; Justin indeed had heard of Paul, but knew him by another name. Simon Magus was "the Great" and Paul was "the Small" so you have a play on words from the git-go.
But I digress. For the OP it is sufficient to note that, Paul was the Apostle that the heretics claimed as their own (Tertullian, AM 1:15; cf PH 24). “With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, ..." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:13:1 It was to this the proto-orthodox were responding.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Justin Martyr wrote earlier than Irenaeus and Tertullian. He was a contemporary of Marcion. Justin and said Marcion derived his doctrine from Simon (First Apology, XXVI). But Justin never mentions the alleged Paul at all. Paul and Simon Magus appear to be equivalent.

I have noted earlier that those who favor Paul tend to call him "Paul" and those who oppose him call him "Simon." See for example the Pseudo-Clemintines where Simon is transparently Paul. The proto-orthodox went through the process of domesticating Simon into Paul in the later half of the second century with the production of Acts, the Pastoral Epistles, and the catholic redactions to Marcion's Apostilicon.

You can actually read the dramatization where Paul battles his evil doppelganger the Magician in Acts 13.

As late as chapter 13, Saul still doesn't have his new name, Paul. Saul, Bar-Nabas, and John meet a magician named Bar-Jesus, the son of Jesus (13:6). The irony is too thick to cut with a knife. Of course, this magician must be labeled a false prophet (13:6).

The author of Acts immediately wishes to confuse the fact the magician was known as the Son of Jesus by changing his name to Elymas (13:8), and claiming that is what Bar-Jesus meant all along. It makes no sense and has lead to many variants in the extant manuscripts.

Bar-Jesus/Elymas was with the proconsul Sergius Paulus. This is the first time in Acts we encounter a Paul, and it isn't Saul.

But is soon as Sergius Paul is introduced, within two verses, Saul takes his name! "Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence .... But Saul, also known as Paul..." Acts 13:7,9.

This is the old switcheroo. Sergius Paulus loses his name (he is merely the proconsul in 13:12), and henceforth the Apostle is known by his familiar name, Paul! How blatant can you get?

Now that the Catholic Apostle, St. Paul, has fully been revealed by gaining his rightful name, sort of like Batman getting his first bat suit. He is now ready to battle the Magus, the arch heretic whom he calls "... son of the devil, you enemy of all that is right, full of every sort of deceit and fraud" Acts 13:10.

But there is something the author of Acts cannot hide; the new Paul is battling his evil doppelganger, his mirror image. Paul continues in 13:10, "will you not stop twisting the straight paths of the Lord?" But wait, in Acts 9:11 it is Saul who is on Straight Street; now Elymas Bar-Jesus the Magician who is on Straight Street, and he is making it crooked.

The magician (is he son of Jesus or son of the Devil?) is struck blind for a time, just like the presumed Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus.

"Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus. For three days he was unable to see..." Acts 9:8-9. "You will be blind, and unable to see the sun for a time." Immediately a dark mist fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand" Acts 13:11.

This story is the twin to Simon Peter's confrontation with a near identical Magician, the anti-Simon, Simon Magus. Acts 8:9-24. (In Acts, Peter and Paul are like the Double Mint Twins).

Who then is this son of Jesus, Elymas the magician? The closest one can find is Josephus Antiquities 20.7.2, which mentions a Jewish magician on Cyprus named "Atomos". But variants of this text give Simon as the magician's name.

Hermann Detering in "The Falsified Paul", pages 164-165 commented that when referring to a person, "Atomos" in Greek and "Paul" in Latin are equivalent.

Jake Jones IV