stephan huller

If the Catholic epistles reinforce a supernatural Jesus in their present form, for what purpose did the Marcionites tamper with these same scriptures?

tanya

1. Can we have a link to the changes made by the Marcionists?

2. How do you define "Catholic"? Are we to understand this sect as different from the Protestants? Orthodox?

Specifically, when you write "epistles", are you referring to the Byzantine or Hort & Westcott Greek edition, or some specific extant collection of Paul's letters, e.g. Codex Sinaiticus?

I am certain that far more significant illustrations, with important theological distinctions can be found. I list this verse only to show that there are different Greek versions, so, before one starts elaborating how the Marcionists changed these epistles, we need to know WHICH version they had used, how they changed the text, and why they changed the text, if they did. First, in other words, we need some information about their texts.

Bingo the Clown-O

Hey, wait a minute!

Hold on here!

You can't fool me.

Has Doherty ever claimed that Marcionites tampered with certain scriptures for the purpose of reinforcing a supernatural Jesus?

Or is that just one of your sneaky postulations?

aa5874

There is absolutely no actual evidence that Marcion was aware of the Pauline letters.

Ephrem the Syrian wrote Three Proses "Against Marcion" and they do NOT show any real evidence that Marcion had knowledge of Pauline letters.

Hippolytus in "Refutation of All Heresies" also claimed that Marcion did NOT use the Pauline letters.

Bingo the Clown-O

Well then that settles it.

Evidently Stephan is clueless.

outhouse

It didnt reinforce the Marcionites view of a supernatural Jesus.


In the beginning, the movements were wide and varied, with many different beliefs. These differents sects all thought their version of jesus was correct.

Adam

The standard usage of "Catholic epistles" means the general or "universal" epistles not directed (by Paul) to a specific church or purpose. This thus includes James, I Peter, II Peter, the three by John, and Jude. Much of the foregoing discussion is irrelevant.

Toto

The so called proto-orthodox charged that Marcion tampered with Paul's letters. A lot of people suspect that it was the orthodox who added phrases such as "born of a woman."

Robert Price has remarked that standard brand academics are much more willing to consider that the gospels are largely mythical than they are to examine the idea that Paul's letters are second century forgeries or that his letters contain extensive interpolations made in the second century.

Doherty has tended to follow that standard academic consensus on many issues, including the dating of the Pauline letters, and to offer alternative interpretations of phrases such as "born of a woman." His case would be much easier if he simply claimed that all those inconvenient phrases were anti-Marcionite interpolations. But he would have had even less of a chance of getting academics to take him seriously if he had done that.

Do you accept the likelihood of interpolations? Is your question an attempt to get Doherty to discuss the issue of interpolations?

tanya

Thank you Adam, for clarifying that the word epistles is not synonymous with the writings of Paul, as I had misunderstood.

I appreciate your correction of my error.

On the other hand, however, my question remains unanswered, by you or by Stephan, and, in my opinion, the question remains relevant.

No. If I have written something interpreted as supporting that contention, then I have submitted snippets to the forum, which are both "irrelevant", and obtuse.

Just to be clear, I have no earthly notion of what Marcion wrote, or who he was. I have never encountered any of his compositions. I am uncertain whether he even existed, or if he may have been simply another fictional character in Eusebius' novel.

aa5874

Who are these proto-orthodox??

Irenaeus who claimed Jesus was cucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age thereby making the Pauline writings to be historically bogus??

Do people here really understand the very serious implications of the so-called proto-orthodox Irenaeus??

Irenaeus, the so-called proto-orthodox, single handedly destroyed the history of the ENTIRE Canon and the Pauline writer.

It makes very little sense to moan about "standard brand academics" when Robert Price himself writes books that do not follow "standard brand academics".

There is NOTHING at all preventing Robert Price from Exposing the bogus history of the Pauline letters.

1. We have ZERO corroboration for the Pauline letters in the Canon. ZERO

2. The author of Acts, writing most likely in the 2nd century or later, made NO mention at all, Nothing, of the Pauline letters.

What is preventing Robert Price, Doherty and other Scholars from telling people that the Pauline letters have no real PROVENANCE in the 1st century??

Your statement about Doherty is contradictory and cannot be reconciled. The very argument of Doherty is against standard academia--JNGNM.