From: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles - Hermann Detering (we have taken the liberty of changing "Paul" to Faul where the subject is excludively the Faulines, as we want to separate it from Paul-in-Acts, the son of Herod, and we have replaced "Jewish-Christians" by Ebionaens.)
4. We most urgently need a new examination of the question of the historical setting from which the Fauline Epistles are to be understood. It is still everywhere assumed as a matter of course that the historical references in the Epistles relate to situations in the middle of the first century. Although the radical Dutch critics indicated a series of anachronisms that seem to hint at a later period, they have so far scarcely been considered by scholarly research. To mention only a few:
The (re)construction of such a scenario could take place, e.g., with the help of the Epistle to the Galatians. In my opinion, the point of departure should be the altercation about the question of the figure and importance of the apostle, which manifested itself in the middle of the second century among Catholic, Ebionaen, Marcionite, and Gnostic Christianity. The questions were, as we learn mainly from Irenaeus and Tertullian:[^47] Who was Paul? What was his attitude towards the Law of the Old Covenant and to circumcision? Which Christian group has the greatest right to appeal to him? Was he the "apostle of the heretics," i.e., the Marcionites and Gnostics (Tertullian), or was he the apostle of the Catholics? Or, was he even the "Fiend," as the Ebionaens maintained?[^48]
Whereas the Ebionaens rejected Paul, both Marcionism and Catholicism (after an initial reluctance) appropriated the apostle. For Marcion Faul was the most important apostle, as God had entrusted only him with the secret of revelation (Irenaus, Haer. 3.13.1: solus Paulus). The exclusive appeal to Faul i.e., precisely the Faul of the Epistles (in the Marcionite version) enabled Marcion to launch his attack against Catholic Christianity and cleanse the Gospel of Judaistic additions.[^49]
Catholic Christianity about this time was consolidating itself in Rome, and from Rome outwards. It, too, started (after initial resistance) appealing to the apostle Paul in addition to Peter. The Catholic concept of Paul is the one that we meet with in the Acts of the Apostles. The author of the Acts sketches the apostle's image in such a way that he (quite unlike the Faul of the Epistles, which the author mentions nowhere!) appears as a Law-abiding Jewish Christian, who, e.g., practiced ircumcision (Acts 16:3). Paul is further made second to the Twelve as a representative of (Rome-) Jerusalem. This comes to pass through denying Paul's having been an eye-witness of the resurrection and his being relegated, immediately after his conversion, to the congregation in Jerusalem.[^50] In this way the pretension of the Marcionites that God has entrusted the secret of the revelation to Faul and to him only ("solus Paulus"; Irenaeus Haer. 3.13.1), the supreme patron of their religious community, is definitely combated. Paul did not receive his knowledge from immediate revelation, but from the representatives of the Jerusalem congregation.[^51]
My opinion is that the Epistle to the Galatians (in its original form) must be understood against just this background as a Marcionite polemic pamphlet. The (Marcionite) author of Galatians defends himself against the annexation of the apostle and the falsification of his image by the Catholics. Contra the allegation of his dependence on the apostles (as Acts would have it), he straight away starts his letter by pointing out that his apostle is an "apostle not of men neither by men" (Gal 1:1). What is more, he has Faul give information about the historical circumstances of his relationship to the Jerusalem apostles before him, viz. the exact information now needed by the Marcionites in order to legitimate themselves as a sovereign church. In the Marcionite version of Galatians (in which 1:18-1:24 is missing, just like the "again" in 2:1,[^52] and consequently only one journey to Jerusalem is mentioned) Faul, after his revelation that came straight from God (1:16), did "not take up contact" with the Jerusalem Christians. That appears from the fact that, to be sure, he went to Arabia and returned again unto Damascus, but he did not go immediately to Jerusalem. Only after fourteen years (2:1) did he go to Jerusalem because of the problem of circumcision.
It is evident that, for us today, the protest of Galatians (2 Corinthians, too) against Luke's [the author of Acts - ed.] image of Paul remains perceptible only in a curiously dimmed way. The reason is that the Catholic editors saw themselves obliged to gag the apostle in crucial places. A clear example of this is the pericope (Gal. 1:18)-(Gal. 2:2), which, as already mentioned, did not yet form part of the Marcionite version of the Epistle.
What is obvious here, is the attempt at "cutting Paul down to size," i.e., to subordinate the hero of the Marcionites to the leader of the Jerusalem party to whom Rome appealed, i.e., Kephas-Petrus, and this, indeed, as soon as possible after Paul's conversion. The insertion has as its purpose to rob Paul of his sovereignty and to make him a man dependent on Jerusalem. The Epistle to the Galatians, where in the introduction it is explicitly said that Faul is the apostle called by God, "not of man, neither by man," is remodeled on the basis of the Catholic Acts of the Apostles. Just as in Acts, the tendency of the Galatian gloss is that Faul has had "no revelation of his own" at all (against the assertion of the Marcionites), but that he was with the Apostles, i.e., with Peter. The latter (and not God) instructed him as the representative of the Jerusalem congregation. Consequently the Marcionites cannot appeal to Paul, nor can they claim to be an independent church. Just as Paul was dependant upon Jerusalem, they are dependent on Rome (the legitimate successor to the Jerusalem church!).
This is merely a quick sketch of how we might reconstruct the historical context of Galatians if we were to place the Epistle in the first half of the second century and understand it anew. It should at least show the perspective under which a historical location of the document in the second century could be attempted. The key question must be the one regarding the cui bono? To which Christian group in the second century could the Epistles be useful?
The answer is clear: the first to profit by the Fauline Epistles were undoubtedly the same as those in whose midst a canon of ten Fauline Epistles is demonstrable for the first time: the Marcionites. Only a thorough re-editing has made possible the reception of the Fauline Epistles by the Catholic Church. Only such a redaction has transformed Marcion's Faul, the "apostle of the heretics," into the Catholic Saint Paul, who henceforth ranks equally beside Saint Peter.
4. We most urgently need a new examination of the question of the historical setting from which the Fauline Epistles are to be understood. It is still everywhere assumed as a matter of course that the historical references in the Epistles relate to situations in the middle of the first century. Although the radical Dutch critics indicated a series of anachronisms that seem to hint at a later period, they have so far scarcely been considered by scholarly research. To mention only a few:
- The question of Israel's repudiation, dealt with exhaustively in Romans 9-11 (e.g. (Rom. 11:15)f; cf. (1Thess. 2:16)), as well as the updating of the Old Testament remnant theme (Rom. 9:27; 11:5), could only arise later, presumably only after 135 (at the earliest after 70).
- For the persecutions of Christians, of which mention is made again and again in the Fauline Epistles (Rom 8:35; 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 12:10; Gal 6:12; 1 Thess 2:14 etc.) there is no evidence before Nero. The putative persecution of Christians in 64 after the fire of Rome is, moreover, historically disputed. Speaking of persecutions isapart from those under Domitian (Eusebius, EH 3.17ff.) and the ones the Ebionaens were exposed to under Bar Kochba (Justin, Apol. 1,31; Eusebius, EH 4. 8,4) only possible after 135 in connection with the so-called Aposynagogos, i.e., the exclusion of Christians from synagogue life. And indeed, the Aposynagogos itself is unattested before Justin in the middle of the second century (Justin, Dial. 48.5).
- Does the dispute concerning Faith and Law, indeed just like the question of circumcising, belong to the first century, or rather in the second? (Cf. Justin, who in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho again and again occupies himself with exactly these questions: e.g., Dial. 23.4, where the theme of circumcision is debated.)
- The implied theological level of the congregations of the Fauline Epistles assumes a longer period of incubation and could not possibly have been arrived at within two decades.
- The Frenchman DelaFosse, congenial to the Dutchmen, has drawn our attention to indications in the Fauline Epistles that their author in a few pericopes refers to the so-called "Pascha conflict" under Victor in the second century, reported by Eusebius (1 Cor. 5:8).[^45]
- Proxy baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29) has not been confirmed earlier than among the Marcionites in the second century.[^46]
The (re)construction of such a scenario could take place, e.g., with the help of the Epistle to the Galatians. In my opinion, the point of departure should be the altercation about the question of the figure and importance of the apostle, which manifested itself in the middle of the second century among Catholic, Ebionaen, Marcionite, and Gnostic Christianity. The questions were, as we learn mainly from Irenaeus and Tertullian:[^47] Who was Paul? What was his attitude towards the Law of the Old Covenant and to circumcision? Which Christian group has the greatest right to appeal to him? Was he the "apostle of the heretics," i.e., the Marcionites and Gnostics (Tertullian), or was he the apostle of the Catholics? Or, was he even the "Fiend," as the Ebionaens maintained?[^48]
Whereas the Ebionaens rejected Paul, both Marcionism and Catholicism (after an initial reluctance) appropriated the apostle. For Marcion Faul was the most important apostle, as God had entrusted only him with the secret of revelation (Irenaus, Haer. 3.13.1: solus Paulus). The exclusive appeal to Faul i.e., precisely the Faul of the Epistles (in the Marcionite version) enabled Marcion to launch his attack against Catholic Christianity and cleanse the Gospel of Judaistic additions.[^49]
Catholic Christianity about this time was consolidating itself in Rome, and from Rome outwards. It, too, started (after initial resistance) appealing to the apostle Paul in addition to Peter. The Catholic concept of Paul is the one that we meet with in the Acts of the Apostles. The author of the Acts sketches the apostle's image in such a way that he (quite unlike the Faul of the Epistles, which the author mentions nowhere!) appears as a Law-abiding Jewish Christian, who, e.g., practiced ircumcision (Acts 16:3). Paul is further made second to the Twelve as a representative of (Rome-) Jerusalem. This comes to pass through denying Paul's having been an eye-witness of the resurrection and his being relegated, immediately after his conversion, to the congregation in Jerusalem.[^50] In this way the pretension of the Marcionites that God has entrusted the secret of the revelation to Faul and to him only ("solus Paulus"; Irenaeus Haer. 3.13.1), the supreme patron of their religious community, is definitely combated. Paul did not receive his knowledge from immediate revelation, but from the representatives of the Jerusalem congregation.[^51]
My opinion is that the Epistle to the Galatians (in its original form) must be understood against just this background as a Marcionite polemic pamphlet. The (Marcionite) author of Galatians defends himself against the annexation of the apostle and the falsification of his image by the Catholics. Contra the allegation of his dependence on the apostles (as Acts would have it), he straight away starts his letter by pointing out that his apostle is an "apostle not of men neither by men" (Gal 1:1). What is more, he has Faul give information about the historical circumstances of his relationship to the Jerusalem apostles before him, viz. the exact information now needed by the Marcionites in order to legitimate themselves as a sovereign church. In the Marcionite version of Galatians (in which 1:18-1:24 is missing, just like the "again" in 2:1,[^52] and consequently only one journey to Jerusalem is mentioned) Faul, after his revelation that came straight from God (1:16), did "not take up contact" with the Jerusalem Christians. That appears from the fact that, to be sure, he went to Arabia and returned again unto Damascus, but he did not go immediately to Jerusalem. Only after fourteen years (2:1) did he go to Jerusalem because of the problem of circumcision.
It is evident that, for us today, the protest of Galatians (2 Corinthians, too) against Luke's [the author of Acts - ed.] image of Paul remains perceptible only in a curiously dimmed way. The reason is that the Catholic editors saw themselves obliged to gag the apostle in crucial places. A clear example of this is the pericope (Gal. 1:18)-(Gal. 2:2), which, as already mentioned, did not yet form part of the Marcionite version of the Epistle.
What is obvious here, is the attempt at "cutting Paul down to size," i.e., to subordinate the hero of the Marcionites to the leader of the Jerusalem party to whom Rome appealed, i.e., Kephas-Petrus, and this, indeed, as soon as possible after Paul's conversion. The insertion has as its purpose to rob Paul of his sovereignty and to make him a man dependent on Jerusalem. The Epistle to the Galatians, where in the introduction it is explicitly said that Faul is the apostle called by God, "not of man, neither by man," is remodeled on the basis of the Catholic Acts of the Apostles. Just as in Acts, the tendency of the Galatian gloss is that Faul has had "no revelation of his own" at all (against the assertion of the Marcionites), but that he was with the Apostles, i.e., with Peter. The latter (and not God) instructed him as the representative of the Jerusalem congregation. Consequently the Marcionites cannot appeal to Paul, nor can they claim to be an independent church. Just as Paul was dependant upon Jerusalem, they are dependent on Rome (the legitimate successor to the Jerusalem church!).
This is merely a quick sketch of how we might reconstruct the historical context of Galatians if we were to place the Epistle in the first half of the second century and understand it anew. It should at least show the perspective under which a historical location of the document in the second century could be attempted. The key question must be the one regarding the cui bono? To which Christian group in the second century could the Epistles be useful?
The answer is clear: the first to profit by the Fauline Epistles were undoubtedly the same as those in whose midst a canon of ten Fauline Epistles is demonstrable for the first time: the Marcionites. Only a thorough re-editing has made possible the reception of the Fauline Epistles by the Catholic Church. Only such a redaction has transformed Marcion's Faul, the "apostle of the heretics," into the Catholic Saint Paul, who henceforth ranks equally beside Saint Peter.
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Sat Feb 17, 2024 10:46 am