This is a A BestOfThread from Paul's letters all derived from Marcion?. It was a lengthy discussion concludes that the Faulines were written by MarcionOrLater.
1
1
2I think it'd be worth considering (critically of course)
Robert M Price's 2012 The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul, eg., -The Pauline epistles began, most of them, as fragments by Simon (part of Romans), Marcion (the third through sixth chapters of Galatians and the basic draft of Ephesians), and Valentinian Gnostics (Colossians, parts of 1 Corinthians, at least). Some few began as Catholic documents, while nearly all were interpolated by Polycarp, the ecclesiastical redactor who domesticated John (as Bultmann saw it), Luke (as per John Knox), and 1 Peter, then composed Titus and 2 Timothy. The result is that in the end we stand, almost uncomprehendingly, before a pile of literary scraps. (Kindle Locations 11693-11701)
Previously, Price wroteSomewhere between 100 and 150 CE, Paulinism as a theological system arose out of a mystical and speculative circle. Van Manen speaks of the Paulinist movement and Gnosticism arising from the same circles ... Tertullian called Paul “the apostle of Marcion and the apostle of the heretics,” and both Irenaeus and Tertullian noted how much 'the heretics' cherished Paul’s writings. The first commentators on the epistles were the Gnostics Valentinus1, Heracleon?, and Basilides2 [c. 100 - c. 139 e.v.].
Price, The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul (Kindle Locations 937-942)Other scholars who have looked closely at Pauline authorship to consider reviewing are Edgar J. Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, though finding or getting access to their works may prove tricky.
- Theudas is said to have imparted to Valentinus the secret wisdom that Paul had taught privately to his inner circle, including his visionary encounter with the risen Christ (we may only 'know' that from Clement of Alexandria Stromateis bk 7, chap 27).
- Basilides is supposed to have been vested with secret revelations from Paul through his “interpreter” named Glaucius; by others from the disciple Matthias; by others from the now unknown and possibly fictitious prophets Barcoph and Barcabbas (He also wrote 24 commentaries on 'the Gospels', called Exegetica; there are fragments) https://hermetic.com/sabazius/basilides
As would be the case for the written arguments of the Dutch Radicals starting with Allard Pierson, who denied Pauline authorship of Galatians. He was fiercely attacked by his colleague Abraham Dirk Loman, but two years later Loman had also abandoned the historicity of Paul. Similarly, Willem Christiaan van Manen, who had written a doctoral thesis defending the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians, wrote in 1889 that he had come to the same conclusions as Loman.
3It is a list of cases where I think Clabeaux is convincing. I.E. It is based on Clabeaux but leaves out the examples which IMO are unconvincing.Andrew, do you have a citation for what work this list is quoted from?However in the majority of cases where Clabeaux claims the reading is secondary on internal evidence appear IMO sound. A list of these follows.
Andrew CriddleOur earliest evidence that Marcionites carried out a ritual of baptism for the dead seems to be Chrysostom in the late 4th century. The apparent basis for this practice is concern about Catechumens who die unbaptized. It seems unclear that this is a practice introduced by Marcion as distinct from a pre-Marcionite practice later dropped by the orthodox or a post-Marcionite development. The absence of any clear reference to such a Marcionite practice in Tertullian Against Marcion may suggest that it is a post-Marcionite development.Could you also give me feedback on my assertion that (1 Cor. 15:29) is demonstrably Marcionite (from Detering).
EDITED TO ADD
a/ There is a passage in Epiphanius similar to Chrysostom and of roughly the same date.
b/ Some scholars do regard Tertullian as referring to a Marcionite practice of vicarious baptism but IMO this is interpreting Tertullian on the basis of later (4th century) writers. For the Latin see https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertull ... nem5.shtml and for a more recent English translation https://www.tertullian.org/articles/eva ... k5_eng.htm .
c/ What may be the earliest surviving interpretation of this passage is Theodotus according to Clement ExcerptaAnd when the Apostle said, “Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead?” . . . For, he says, the angels of whom we are portions were baptised for us. But we are dead, who are deadened by this existence, but the males are alive who did not participate in this existence.
“If the dead rise not why, then, are we baptised?” Therefore we are raised up “equal to angels,” and restored to unity with the males, member for member. Now they say “those who are baptised for us, the dead,” are the angels who are baptised for us, in order that when we, too, have the Name, we may not be hindered and kept back by the Limit and the Cross from entering the Pleroma. Wherefore, at the laying on of hands they say at the end, “for the angelic redemption” that is, for the one which the angels also have, in order that the person who has received the redemption may, be baptised in the same Name in which his angel had been baptised before him. Now the angels were baptised in the beginning, in the redemption of the Name which descended upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him. And redemption was necessary even for Jesus, in order that, approaching through Wisdom, he might not be detained by the Notion of the Deficiency in which he was inserted, as Theodotus says.
4[So I'll restate my question:I'll state the heart of my assertion here:Could you also give me feedback on my assertion that (1 Cor. 15:29) is demonstrably Marcionite or later (from Detering).I'm only hoping to show that 1Cor. has prima-facia proof that it was not wriiten pre-63 AD, and hence I can tar the Detering's First4 (Hauptbreiefe), and maybe all of them, with the False brush and call them Faulines.There is absolutely no way proxy baptism could be in a pre-60 AD story line, no matter when it was written.
NO WAY. The Jamesian church was less than 30 years old, and they were all deep Hebrew believers (except the Apostate SPaul).
And throw them out of my canon.
My aim here is to justify the Ebionaen rejection of Paul, which I am interpreting to be a rejection of the >=Marcionite Faulines and its Crowleyist theology.Thanks for those valuable references I had not detected.EDITED TO ADD
My argument is that that verse sets the earliest date for 1Cor. and by implication Detering's First4 Faulines (Hauptbreiefe), so personally I wouldn't argue "absence of any clear reference to such a Marcionite practice in Tertullian" with respect to the date of the First4, as I'll hapilly concede that to be >= 144 AD. I might use it to argue nobody did the monstrous practice anyway, but that would be a digression here.
5I agree with you, and go further as I see it just as a quote by Tertullian of 1Cor. 15 because of the "he asks,". My question is more: what historical evidence is there, before ~142 AD, against me labelling proxy baptism a MarcioniteOrLater ritual, to stop me from labelling 1Cor. a Marcionite writing because of that verse. That's the argument in that JHC paper by Detering I link to. Detering also does a good demolition of the authenticity of the Ignatian letters (all "recensions") that might be used to claim that Paul's letters were extant before Marcion.
I think it's a strong theological argument. I think I could also make the argument that Romans 7 is pure Marcionite theology: dead Gods. (I'm sure others already have; I'm an amateur at this).
QED: I can tar the Faulines with the brush of MarcionOrLater, and throw them out of the Ebionaen Canon.
6Bernard D. Muller. "#73 Two arguments in favour of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical" ones". historical-jesus.info. 14 Nov 2013. Archived from the original on September 20, 2015. by "Wayback Machine". Wikipedia.
7Maybe even if there were earlier versions in the nascent orthodoxy they'd find it hard to impose what was being circulated around and used, this is what emerged. If it derived from Marcion's edition it makes the Paul corner of the church seem not 'in charge'. Cause there's plenty of early writings around that don't know anything Pauline, would be good to collect them up to see how they stack up against each other
EG The Preaching of PeterPaul - missing, the 12 preach to the gentilesin the Preaching of Peter the Lord says: I chose out you twelve, judging you to be disciples worthy of me, whom the Lord willed, and thinking you faithful apostles; sending you unto the world to preach the Gospel to men throughout the world, that they should know that there is one God
Acts - don't know the epistles
Gospels - don't line up too well with the epistles
Revelation / James - seem anti-Pauline
Shepherd of Hermas - doesn't know Paul and this is big
Justin - seems not to know him
8What you say is not evidence, but what you're saying meets my description of MarcionOrLater.What Detering said is not evidence, the 2nd century Marcionites may have had such a practice but the earliest unambiguous evidence is much later.I'm following Detering in the reference I cited, and you provide nothing to contradict him:Proxy baptism for the dead has not been confirmed earlier than among the Marcionites in the second century.
Would you agree to rephrasing Detering:That's sufficient to my purposes: "Paul could not have written 1Cor., and it dates to MarcionOrLater."Proxy baptism for the dead has not been confirmed earlier than among the Marcionites in the second century, but the earliest unambiguous evidence is much later, i.e. the date of Marcion Or Later.
BTW, what would you point to as the "much later unambiguous evidence"?For my purposes, all that matters is that I am ascribing it to someone other than Paul, and hence ascribing the authorship of the Paulines to someone other than Paul. I ascribe them to Faul: False Paul aka MarcionOrLater.
(I don't care who wrote it/them as long as it's not Paul, and is later.)
9That doesn't seem reasonable at all to me unless you can point to the writings that he read, before him (pre-144 AD) that contained proxy baptism.it seems to me that the most reasonable explanation for his views is that his views came from the writings that he read,
Marcion created a church, the biggest denomination of its time, that was definitely anti-monotheistic Christian, and big enough to come up with proxy baptism. And there's no trace of any writings before him (pre-144 AD) that contained proxy baptism, so it seems to me he gets the credit for it unless you can find another big leader before then. After all, it is a little unusual and not in anything Jesus taught.
...That's the way I see it, especially if we allow that some of the letters could be MarcionOrLater.If this is true, then it means Marcion's letters are the authentic ones, with the possible exception of Romans, and the orthodox letters are all revisions of Marcion's.
Chrysostom is always fun to read, but again it's just a homily on 1Cor., that assumes 1Cor. is wriiten by Paul. The good bit is:Chrysostom in the late 4th century and There is a passage in Epiphanius similar to Chrysostom and of roughly the same date.Or will you that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression?
which to me says Chrysostom associates proxy baptism with the Marcions, before Detering.
On that I'll rest my case: Paul could not have written 1Cor., and it dates to MarcionOrLater.
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Thu Jan 18, 2024 4:28 am