Christian Texts and History • Answering to a Stuart's question...

Since I don't like to dirty his thread with my posts, I answer here to:

The question we will look at is does it represent Marcionite thought, or does it represent something else?

I concede willingly that Valentinian (et similia) pieces are sown in the letters, only I disagree probably with Stuart insofar he thinks that this is evidence that existed letters (even if letters fabricated "under the false name" of Paul) before Marcion.

The reason basically is that Paul as character (without letters) is invented the first time by Acts (by now the Internet is enough as source to support this claim), and the direct objector to Acts (and as such the more probable inventor of the letters) could only be Marcion.

Hence how can I explain the presence of items foreign to Marcionite theology?

• If the items are from the anti-demiurgist field, then the reason for their presence is obvious: Marcion absorbed them in the same way a modern politician absorbs his own kind in the coalition of which he is the leader.

• If the items are from the "YHWH as supreme god" field, then the reason for their presence is obvious: Catholics and Montanists (the latter being Catholics too) corrupted the Apostolikon by introducing the said items.

In both the cases, it is impossible that the items survived before Marcion in the form of billets or tiny letters "by Paul".

Marcion is left as the more probabile first link (in absolute chronological terms) between the name of "Paul" and the terms "letters".

Hence any possible attempt by Stuart in denying the chronological priority of a such link is confuted in advance.

Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Wed Jan 15, 2025 10:20 am

---