Jarek said
. No congregations that came in contact with Paul survived, and no other tradition survived until the release of a Corpus
That seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Rome came in contact with Paul and survived.
Jerusalem came in contact with him and survived, at least till the whole city was depopulated which can hardly be placed at his feet.
Corinth survived for centuries, until the city itself was depopulated.
Of course the bigger problem with this line of argument is how do you know what churches had contact with Paul if you dismiss his letters as spurious?
Steefen said
Steefen said
The gospels take Paul’s words of the Last Supper?
Interesting, in the gospels: the lead up to Paul’s words is so continuous.
It is more likely that Paul’s words are an excerpt from gospels rather than the gospels extrapolating on Paul’s words.
Professor Walsh
I tell my students, Paul’s mission was not the only game in town.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Of course not, Paul supposedly found a pre-existing community of followers of Jesus in Rome.
= = =
Why publish Paul’s letters before the gospels were written and not the letters of the founder of the pre-existing Roman community?
Paul does not even meet with the founder of the pre-existing Gentile, Roman community?
The Imperial City founder of the Jesus community there was more important in Rome than Paul was.
Paul did not give a copy of his letter to the Romans to the Imperial City Founder of the Jesus Community there?
What was the reaction of the Imperial City Founder?
Paul meets with James and Peter but does not meet with the Imperial City Founder?
Paul has greetings to this person and that person and a Roman treasurer but not the Imperial City Founder, no greetings for him?
Paul was not even curious if the Imperial City Founder had visions/dreams/communications from Jesus?
Paul was an exploiter of the pious, Paul was a fraud. Josephus was an exploiter of those less intelligent than he was intelligent–that’s how he was able to exploit people to kill themselves and only he survived.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Paul was just passing through Rome to Spain.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Tiberius Claudius Epaphroditus or Epaphroditos (Greek: Ἐπαφρόδιτος; born c. 20–25 – died c. 95), was a freedman and secretary of the Roman Emperor Nero.
Epaphroditus – Livius.org
Dec 16, 2019 — Epaphroditus: name of two Roman patrons of the literary arts, a courtier and a grammarian. Both were born between 20 and 25 and died in c.96
Paul’s ‘Comrade-in-Arms’ Epaphroditus and the First Gospels
The Fallible Gospels, Part 99: Marcion and the Letters of Paul
Marcion: Forgotten “Father” and Inventor of the New Testament
Was Marcion Right about Paul’s letters? – Vridar
Marcion always used Paul for the author of the Gospel and the Letters ? ? ?
Roger Parvus, author of the article, “Was Marcion Right about Paul’s letters?” / Vridar
Roger Parvus is the author of this post. Roger is the author of A New Look at the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch and Other Apellean Writings and two series of Vridar posts: ** you do not have permission to see this link **. In a previous life Roger was a Catholic priest.
Marcion’s claim that the original author of the Gospel and Pauline letter collection was someone who professed allegiance to a God higher than the Creator of this world, to a God higher than the God of the Jews.
Steve Campbell, Astrologer
The God of the Jews is a local god, a god of a people. Henotheism. Ethnocentricity.
The God of the Jews managed the biblical Jesus for failure not for success and let the wicked tenants kill his son.
The God of the Jews managed his staunch believers to attack Rome. This god was out of His mind as usual–go attack your patron empire, OMG, you must be out of your mind. Go poke a bear, or something. Of course, that revolt was lost, the battle (for example, the battle of Galilee) and the war (The First Jewish-Roman War).
Amen – the sun sets on it, end of a prayer, the day’s productivity is over, matters are settled.
The sun sets on it is somewhat astrological because it is a reference to the interaction of a planet (the Earth) with a star (the Sun).
A Solar System God or a Galactic God is higher than any local god on earth.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
True. Let’s get back to Parvus who’s talking about gnostics more than astrology.
Roger Parvus
I cannot recall ever having come across a single mainstream Christian book that even considered for a moment that Marcion may have been right. Their attitude is understandable since, if Marcion was right, it would mean that the original Gospel and the Pauline letters were written by someone who was basically a gnostic, by someone who sounds very much like Simon of Samaria or one of his followers.
Take Marcion at his word.
As far as we know Marcion never claimed to be the author of those writings. He claimed that when he came across them they were in a contaminated state. They had been interpolated by people who Judaized them, who turned their original author into someone who believed in a single highest God who was the God of the Old Testament and the Creator of the world.
The original Gospel and Pauline letters were Simonian and that it was their opponents who Judaized those writings? (I say “Simonian” because the early record does not contain the name of any other first-century Christians who held the belief that the creators of this world were inferior to the supreme God, and that those creators tried to hold men in bondage by means of the Law.)
The extant record says he at some point made the acquaintance of the Simonian Cerdo. If anyone would have recognized what had been done to the Simonian writings it would have been the Simonians themselves.
= = =
Two more sections and the conclusion follow from Parvus.
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** › 2012/01/23 › was-marcion-right-ab…Jan 23, 2012 — Now, as far as is known Marcion always used the name ‘Paul” for the original author of the Gospel and Letters, the Apostle who professed …Marcion always used Paul for the author of the Gospel and the Letters ? ? ?
Potentially interesting. Do you have a source for this claim?
Porphyry said
Steefen said
** you do not have permission to see this link ** › 2012/01/23 › was-marcion-right-ab…Jan 23, 2012 — Now, as far as is known Marcion always used the name ‘Paul” for the original author of the Gospel and Letters, the Apostle who professed …Marcion always used Paul for the author of the Gospel and the Letters ? ? ?
Potentially interesting. Do you have a source for this claim?
I was reading what Parvus wrote here:
** you do not have permission to see this link ** dot org/2012/01/23/was-marcion-right-about-pauls-letters/
However ! ! !
“In Marcion’s New Testament, [The Evangelion] was not attributed to Luke … Irenaeus records a tradition that the “Luke” to which the gospel was ascribed was “the attendant of Paul” who recorded a book Paul declared.
bottom of page 66 – top of page 77
The First New Testament by BeDuhn
Steefen
Same thing: it is Paul’s gospel with Luke as scribe.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Two more sections and the conclusion follow from Parvus.
= = =
Roger Parvus
Section 1: To Explain Paul’s Zigzagging
Why did Paul speak like a gnostic? My suspicion is because he was one, the first Christian one. And that his given name was Simon.
Section 2: A Paul by Any Other Name?
The early record is clear that Simonians used many names and titles for Simon. And it seems that in time the name Simon became a kind of sacred name to the Simonians. According to Hippolytus, Simonians were okay with calling Simon ‘Zeus’ or “Lord,’ but accused anyone who used the name ‘Simon’ of being ignorant of the mysteries. So it may be that Cerdo did not reveal it to Marcion.
Simon claimed to be a new manifestation of the Son who suffered in Judaea, and Simonians claimed that Simon was given his name because he “heard/obeyed” the Father when he earlier descended to this world to redeem men. The etymological root of the name Simon means “heard, hearkened, obeyed,” so it actually makes better sense of the hymn in Philippians if the name given was ‘Simon’ and was only subsequently changed to ‘Jesus’ when the letter was Judaized. I think there is also double-meaning Simonian wordplay still present in Mark’s Gospel that involve Simon’s name. For instance, when the Father says at the Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son—Hear Him” the words “Hear Him” are both a command and an identification i.e. This is my beloved Son whose name is “Hear Him” (Simon).
In Conclusion
To finish up: Marcion never fully embraced Simonianism, but I think that from his acquaintance with Cerdo he learned that the Gospel and Pauline letters in use in Rome in the 130s had been interpolated. I think Marcion was correct in that basic contention. And I think he was right that the original versions of those writings were authored by someone who believed in a supreme God above the Creator God of the Jews. Those writings viewed this world including the flesh as inferior not because of some sin by man, but intrinsically by reason of its creation by the inferior world-creating angels. And they portrayed the future not as some millennial kingdom of God on this earth, but as escape of the souls of the redeemed from this world, back to the invisible, immaterial world of the highest God.
I part ways with Marcion, however, in his identification of who it was that Judaized the Gospel and Letters. He apparently, according to Tertullian, accused the false brethren mentioned in the letter to the Galatians. I suspect it was done by the proto-orthodox Roman church around 130 CE. And Marcion apparently thought the Gospel was written by Paul. I think the first Gospel that contained a life of Jesus was a Simonian allegory about Simon that may have been written as late as the 120s.
The proto-orthodox Judaization of the Simonian Gospel and Letters was ultimately successful, of course. They succeeded in co-opting Simonian Christianity.
According to Acts, Simon was a Samaritan magus or religious figure of the 1st century AD and a convert to Christianity, baptised by Philip the Evangelist.
Wikipedia entry for Simon Magus
Steefen
Well, Steve, you finally get your launch into videos about Simon Magus.
Andiamo.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Okay.
M. David Litwa, PhD
Steefen
Paul said he had a gospel.
That gospel had very limited narrative.
Later gospels provided more narrative content from Homeric epics, the biography of Julius Caesar, thematic writings of Cicero, and characters of the Jewish Revolt (woe-speaking Jesus).
Just how did Paul’s gospel miss so much narrative content from “Oral Tradition” and memories from Peter and James?
Of course, I would say a biblical Jesus, 27 – 33 CE is a backdated composite character of historical fiction. There was no “oral tradition” narrative of historical events 27 – 33 CE.
There was no Lord’s Supper, 27 – 33 CE.
Did the Lord’s supper come from Paul then the gospel writers
or
the gospel writers then Paul?
A few months ago, I said the Lord’s Supper was an interpolation of what was in the gospels.
Today, I said the lead up to what was in Paul’s letter about body and blood is seamlessly continuous that it is more likely body and blood was lifted from the gospel narratives and placed in a letter of Paul.
Others in the thread suggested that the Last Supper passage in a Pauline letter comes after the gospels,
perhaps whole letters come after the gospels
instead of before the Synoptic Gospels.
How can Marcion only know of one gospel, the gospel of Paul via Luke and more than four letters of Paul, but not know more than one gospel?
There were no other gospels? Paul’s letters circulated more than the narrative filled Synoptic gospels and the Gospel of John. The Synoptic gospels and John left a lesser impression on Marcion than Paul’s letters?
How can Marcion only know of one set of letters of a church founder and not know of a church founder in Rome who pre-dated Paul’s arrival in Rome?
How can Marcion know what was in proto Luke but not know what was in Matthew? No sayings of Q were in Paul’s gospel “dictated to Luke”?
In Marcion’s Evangelion, BeDuhn includes Jesus healing a leper.
Jesus tells the leper who was healed: go show the priest; offer for your purification as Moses commanded.
Jesus cares about Mosaic tradition but does not care about the establishment of Yom Kippur and not running afoul of Leviticus 17: 10?
The gospels must post-date AD 70.
The gospel of Paul via Luke must post-date AD 70.
Because ? ? ?
Because even Marcion’s gospel includes body and blood Last Supper which is a losing my religion passage of Jews devastated by losing battles and war against Rome or a passage of Rome destroying Temple Judaism for the religious fervor that fed Zealots. Whichever the case, the establishment of Yom Kippur and God’s injunction against cannibalism and human sacrifice is canceled by body and blood sacrifice of Jesus during the Last Supper.
Is the gospel of Paul by way of Luke a second edition of an earlier gnostic gospel of Simonianism?
It seems so.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
So, what would have been the Gnostic attitude to the destruction of the Holy of Holies where God resided in the Temple of Jerusalem?
Steve, author of Historical Accuracy
Oh come on, the Gnostics would not have been devastated by what they saw as a lesser god having existential problems. Let people lose their religion, let them lose that religion. Put that in the gospel; have Jesus going against Yom Kippur and have Jesus leading people to have that God turn his face away.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
So Jews losing their religion, Gnostics encouraging Jews to lose their religion, and Romans fed up with religious zealots rebelling are all reasons to quash militant messianism motivated by Torah and Jewish Apocalypticism.
Porphyry said
Steefen said
Wait, Professor Litwa.
Simon is Jesus.
Peter kills Simon by making Simon fall while he is ascending.
Peter kills Jesus.
I’m lost.
No, you’re not. In the video beginning at about 8:11, Litwa said according to Irenaeus, Simonians were using a trinitarian concept of God: the Son was Simon in Judea, the Father was Simon in Samaria, and the Spirit was Simon to the rest of the world.
With Peter killing Simon while he was ascending, he was actually killing Jesus, the Son with respect to Judea.
So, my video comment to Litwa is, Peter kills Jesus and who was Peter following but Simon with Simon being Jesus, the Son.
Porphyry said
Steefen said
Wait, Professor Litwa.
Simon is Jesus.
Peter kills Simon by making Simon fall while he is ascending.
Peter kills Jesus.
I’m lost.
Well somebody is lost but probably not you. If you take the time to figure it out all you’ll get as a reward is for your head to explode. I note that one of the interesting aspects of these pseudo-historical theories is how they rely on taking some parts of the scriptures figuratively and some parts absolutely literally but at no point is there is a discussion about what process you used to determine which from which.
Porphyry said
Jarek said
. No congregations that came in contact with Paul survived, and no other tradition survived until the release of a Corpus
That seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Rome came in contact with Paul and survived.
Jerusalem came in contact with him and survived, at least till the whole city was depopulated which can hardly be placed at his feet.
Corinth survived for centuries, until the city itself was depopulated.
Of course the bigger problem with this line of argument is how do you know what churches had contact with Paul if you dismiss his letters as spurious?
There are no communities that Paul allegedly wrote to. At the time of publication of the Corpus, there are already other Proto-Orthodox communities in these cities. No one acknowledges Paul and his concept of the meaning of the resurrection is virtually forgotten for 80 years after his death.
I want to draw your attention to the most important argument, which should be the only one on my part. If the original letters were published, untouched by the hand of the editor without the additional 3 fakes, I would be on the side of consensus opinion … but it is not, and it is time to discuss in detail one and only one problem In a separate topic …
Porphyry said
Jarek said
. No congregations that came in contact with Paul survived, and no other tradition survived until the release of a Corpus
That seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Rome came in contact with Paul and survived.
Jerusalem came in contact with him and survived, at least till the whole city was depopulated which can hardly be placed at his feet.
Corinth survived for centuries, until the city itself was depopulated.
Of course the bigger problem with this line of argument is how do you know what churches had contact with Paul if you dismiss his letters as spurious?
There are no communities that Paul allegedly wrote to.
Paul allegedly wrote to Corinth. He allegedly wrote to Rome. I must not be understanding you.
Steefen said
Porphyry said
Steefen said
Wait, Professor Litwa.
Simon is Jesus.
Peter kills Simon by making Simon fall while he is ascending.
Peter kills Jesus.
I’m lost.
No, you’re not. In the video beginning at about 8:11, Litwa said according to Irenaeus, Simonians were using a trinitarian concept of God: the Son was Simon in Judea, the Father was Simon in Samaria, and the Spirit was Simon to the rest of the world.
With Peter killing Simon while he was ascending, he was actually killing Jesus, the Son with respect to Judea.
So, my video comment to Litwa is, Peter kills Jesus and who was Peter following but Simon with Simon being Jesus, the Son.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Interesting off ramp but this discussion has to get back on topic.
Jason BeDuhn, PhD
Christian communities were faced with fundamental questions of identity and association with respect to the Jewish roots of their faith. [There were newly emerging Jewish orthodoxies after the dust from the destruction of Temple Judaism settled.]
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Nonconformity to Temple Judaism and the newly emerging orthodoxies was part of Christianity’s decisions for its future.
The Lord’s Supper was a break with Yom Kippur and Leviticus 17:10: an atheistic stance against the God of Leviticus is noncomformity–no, we are not going with that way of forgiving sin, we are not going with sacrificing animals for sin, God is going to sacrifice his son and we are saying goodbye to Abraham and Isaac.
Of course, the problem with that is it goes against Jesus being an observant Jew in the last century, in the last 45 years of Temple Judaism.
The atheistic stance against the God of Temple Judaism opens the door to Gnosticism.
Cerdo (Greek: Κέρδων) was a Syrian Gnostic who was deemed a heretic by the Early Church around the time of his teaching, circa 138 AD. Cerdo started out as a follower of Simon Magus, like Basilides and Saturninus, and taught at about the same time as Valentinus and Marcion. According to Irenaeus, he was a contemporary of the Roman bishop Hyginus, residing in Rome as a prominent member of the Church until his forced expulsion therefrom.
He taught that there were two gods, one that demanded obedience while the other was good and merciful. According to Cerdo, the former was the God of the Old Testament who had created the world. He also said that the latter God was superior but that he was only known through his son, Jesus.
Wikipedia entry for Cerdo (Gnostic) [a Simonian]
I maintain that there was no Last Supper remembrance tradition being practiced until after there was no Yom Kippur at the Temple of Jerusalem and Paul would not write a letter promoting that tradition while Temple Judaism was still being practiced. In the past, I have asked, where was the outrage against [such nonconformity, such sacrilege]? Stephen, the Hellenist, was martyred. The left behind disciples of Jesus carrying out that tradition would have caused a stir if not also murdered for doing that at the Temple at Solomon’s Portico.
So, the Last Supper in Corinithians is an interpolation from a post-Temple time.
Bring in Marcion, and we have Paul’s gospel recorded by Luke.
I am not going to date the gospel of Luke (Paul’s gospel) before AD 70.
Bart D. Ehrman (on Be Duhn writing about Marcion)
This will be a book to be reckoned with.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I’m working on the reckoning in this thread.
As Roger Parvus said, entertain the idea that Marcion’s assertions are correct.
Then, we have a Paul who did know the biographical information of the biblical Jesus found in Mark and Luke; and, his letters did not need biographical information about Jesus because that was covered in his gospel.
That messes up Paul’s biography where he comes into the picture only after Jesus has been crucified.
Paul’s gospel is first.
Mark’s gospel follows.
Gospel of Paul and Luke (with Marcion being accurate about the Evangelion in his collection) follows with Luke trying to make a better Pauline gospel and a better Markan gospel.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
According to scholarly timeline, Paul spoke of his gospel before Gospel of Mark.
Luke’s gospel is completed after Mark’s gospel.
Other than that, one has to move Paul and his letters and his gospel after AD 70.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)