Toto

Robert Price has just written a book to do that. The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk). It has just been published, and the publisher is having some problems with distribution.

DCHindley

Stephen,

As far as I am aware, the Marcionites did not 'tamper' with the Catholic epistles (James, Jude, 1 & 2 Peter, and 1, 2 & 3 John).

Are you trying to make a point?

I doubt that you said what you did out of ignorance, so what is going on in your devious and manic mind? :clapping:

DCH

aa5874

In the writings attributed to Justin there is NO indication that Marcion wrote any books.

It is claimed Marcion was Preaching and Teaching during the time Justin--NOT writing but Teaching.

[u]First Apology It was in "Against Heresies" that it was first mentioned that Marcion corrupted the Pauline writings but there is a massive problem in "Against Heresies" and other writings attributed to Irenaeus.

The Pauline writer could NOT have been preaching Christ Crucified as stated in "Against Heresies" if Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius at around 50 years of age.

We can reasonably deduce that it is "Against Heresies" that Must be corrupted.

Some Apologetic source CORRUPTED "Against Heresies" and other writings attributed to Irenaeus because the claim that Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about the age of 50 cannot be reconciled with the supposed time Paul preached Christ crucified in the Pauline letters.

It makes no sense to me for Marcion to be fabricated but more sense to give the false impression that a well known 2nd century Marcion was aware of the Pauline letters when he was NOT.

The pattern is blatant.

The writings attributed to Irenaeus were mutilated to give the false impression that Marcion was aware of the Pauline writings.

stephan huller

It's a question. like "how's your day going?" No ulterior nothing

Toto

Duvduv's hobby horse has been split off here

stephan huller

I don't know what is so complicated about my question. In the earliest Church we are told there were two 'brands' of the Pauline writings. Is Earl suggesting that both the Catholic scriptures and the heretical scriptures reinforced a supernatural Jesus? The Patristic evidence suggests that the heretics and especially the Marcionites altered the Pauline epistles, principally to 'deny' Jesus was a human being. This testimony is quite consistent. I have always taken this to mean that the Catholic epistles (our recension) reinforced the Catholic position in the debate with the heresies. Is Earl suggesting that the debates were fictitious? Or that our epistles reinforced the heretical opinion (Pagels attempted to develop the Valentinian exegesis of the Pauline epistles in the Gnostic Paul). Is the implication that the Marcionites and Valentinians used the same scriptures or different scriptures? Did the orthodox and heretics use the same scriptures or different scriptures? If the Marcionites and the orthodox used the same version of the Pauline letters why did the orthodox claim they were altered? If he concedes that they were altered, why would they be altered if the existing Pauline scriptures already reinforced the existence of a supernatural Jesus?

gurugeorge

I'd say:-

The Marcionites and the proto-Gnostics had the same Pauline writings, but much earlier and much slimmer than what we have, maybe only some core segments out of what we have in the Canon. The proto-orthodox are later (circa 130-150 CE - e.g. Polycarp, Justin Martyr), and they claim a lineal descent from "Peter". Perhaps originally it was an innocent error and/or community self-understanding, that got copied into a firmer position, then became useful to trump the Pauline type of Christianity-from-Scripture-and-inspiration (Apostleship, as it was understood in the earliest days).

The key to all this is to understand the purport of one of the central arguments of the Pseudo-Clementines/sayings of Peter - that eyeballing and being-the-disciple-of trumps mere visionary-experience-of. This is the key to understanding the main way in which proto-orthodoxy was different from gnosticism, etc.. They claimed lineal descent to people who supposedly eyeballed and were disciples of, the cult figure.

Initially Christianity was: kind of like symposia mixed with synagogues. "Paul", whoever he was, was one of a bunch of Apostles who had studied an idea, a particular version and revision of the Messiah idea, inspired by a particular reading of Scripture, and meditated and had visions around it. Initially a purely Jewish cult, "Paul" broadened this earliest Christianity's appeal. What stemmed from "Paul" was Marcionism, and several strands of proto-Gnosticism. At this time (pre-Diaspora) the cult was very small beer (I'd estimate only a few thousands dotted around - i.e. like small study groups that travelling business class gurus could have, each church with maybe a few hundred people might have its own "take" on the inspired writings produced by themselves and by other schools in the cult), and a cult united perhaps not so much by doctrine but by practice (i.e. the kind of symposia/synagogue meal and philosophical rumination, Scripture study, and magical practices (communications with spirits, "prophecy", inspiration to write gospels, etc.)).

One of several forms of the cult circa 130-150 CE was a subsect that understood GMark literally (as opposed to its original proto-Gnostic intent as a hermenutic teaching), elaborated and pro-Jewified it into GMatthew and slightly later created GLuke and Acts (GLuke possibly partly by an independent route supplementing GMark material with material from some ur-Luke that might even predate GMark)

In tandem with the creation of GLuke and Acts, the "Pauline" writings were included into the proto-orthodox Canon in order to co-opt the Marcionites the the proto-Gnostics into a "Catholic" church that would bind them all by some core doctrine. Polycarp hedged an originally proto-Gnostic "Paul" about with proto-orthodox interpolations and manipulations.

In reality the only absolutely essential part of proto-orthodox doctrine was the claimed lineal descent to people who supposedly eyeballed and were disciples of the cult deity while he was on earth. This hard historicization of the cult deity was a result of their stupid misunderstanding of the purport of GMark, which was actually a proto-Gnostic allegory, disguising secret teachings about the celestial Jesus with an earthly, captivating story, somewhat similar to the novels of the day, on the one hand, and Stoic exemplary biography, on the other. The proto-Gnosticism is shown by the fact that the disciples are portrayed as stupid. This is both an anti-Jewish barb and an artifact of the text's proto-Gnosticism. (Only the demons really understand who Jesus is, apparently!)

(It's only a bit later that the doctrinal criteria became more theological.)

So: the rescension of "Paul" we have now is a Catholicization of originally proto-Gnostic writing (that also partly inspired Marcionism).

Not that they're all that opposed. Catholicism is itself potentially compatible with Gnosticism (as Clement and Origen would have no doubt agreed, up to a point), and Catholicism's emphasis on the spiritual aspect of the cult deity is itself the remnant in Catholicism itself of its link to the earliest original forms.

aa5874

Your imagination has gone wild. It is most amazing how you can believe what you imagine without a shred of corroboration.

Please, where is the supporting data for your fantastic stories??

Please, identify an established Gnostic source in the 1st century??

After reading your post I can understand how we have so much fantastic fables in the Canon.

The fact is that we have no recovered dated sources to place the Pauline writings in the 1st century. Even the very NT Canon does NOT corroborate early Pauline letters.

The evidence suggests that the Pauline writings were composed AFTER the writings of Justin and AFTER the writings of Irenaeus--after c 180 CE.

In effect, Marcion was most likely already dead before the Pauline letters were composed.

EarlDoherty

I've been reading this thread, but I haven't jumped in because I am still trying to get a handle on your question. Let's assume the Marcionites tampered with the Pauline epistles. Why wouldn't they? The interests of the Paulines as we have them hardly coincide with the interests of the Marcionites. The epistles present a supernatural heavenly Jesus. The Marcionites, while maintaining his spiritual nature, saw him as coming to earth. As well, their preaching of a Higher God over that of the God of the Jews was hardly evident in Paul and would need exegesis or tampering to make it reflect that. So why wouldn't they? I just don't see the thrust of your question.

And by the way, are you making a distinction between exegesis and redaction in the accusations by the fathers that Marcion 'tampered' with the epistles? Are we in a position to tell the difference?

Earl Doherty

Chili

It is an inspired religion put together from those big fish they caught in John 21.

This was when Thomas was convinced with the exlamation: my Lord and my God, that so defrocked Peter as Jewish faith, as they were twins in doubt and in faith. This so means that without doubt faith is no longer called faith and that is why Peter could catch nothing all night: no faith left in him.

The Jesus said: cast your net on the other side of your boat (read mind), and then, Peter first put on a new cloak, dove in headfirst and hauled in those big once that they moved to Rome. I actually think that that was their first 'Ave Maria' procession for She was, is and always will be the seat of wisdom in Rome.