Paul Needed to be a Persecutor

[robert j]

About Paul as a persecutor in Galatians 1:13-17 --- from another recent thread —-

'
I've been stuck on this passage for a long time. Try as I might, I still can't fully make sense of it, but also think it is key to understanding the origins of the Pauline letters and worship of Jesus.

Fully agree with the last part, Paul’s claim of having been a persecutor "is key to understanding the origins of the Pauline letters and worship of Jesus."

All of the reconstructions of Marcion's letters include the statement that Paul was persecuting the assembly in v13.

On the face of it, this statement seems not to make much sense. Hence I've argued that v 13 should instead be read ...

No need to get mucked-up with attested readings of the later Marcionites here, or to make stuff up. Paul is best understood on his own terms.

Most modern English Bibles translate this, "I was violently persecuting the church of God"

There is no “violently” in the extant text. Apparently in response to the legends in Acts, some bible translators insert that word, to the detriment of their credibility. Paul admits in his letters to the Corinthians as being somewhat of a milquetoast.

Even the Greek word typically translated here as “persecuting” does not always have a negative connotation. The verb is better understood in general terms as “pursue”, and one can pursue an enemy or one can pursue love ---

… but always pursue (διώκετε) the good … (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

An entirely reasonable translation could be like this ---

For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, that I was pursuing (ἐδίωκον) the assembly of God to an extreme degree and was destroying it. (Galatians 1:13). (Galatians 1:13)

If we take Paul at his word here, he could have been destroying the assemblies with persistent and impassioned rhetoric and counter-arguments. Curiously, and quite significant I think, Paul admitted that the assemblies that he supposedly pursued in Judea and was destroying wouldn’t even recognize him (Galatians 1:22-23).


Why Paul Had to Claim be a Persecutor

Paul’s enterprise consisted of recruiting Gentile patrons with the claim they could become sons of the God of the Jews and full-fledged participants of the “Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16), without the need to follow the Mosaic rituals and without the benefit of circumcision. Only faith in his system was required.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:26)

But the Jewish scriptures are unequivocally clear in several passages, some in the direct words of the deity no less, that circumcision was an absolute, non-negotiable requirement, both for native-born Jews and for converts. (Genesis 17:9-14, Exodus 12:43-49, Joshua 5:2-5, etc.)

Paul had a very real problem to solve before embarking on his evangelical work.

How could Paul claim to have been advanced in Judaism, and then promote participation with the God of the Jews, yet deny one of the most basic and explicit requirements of that God? Paul needed a darn good explanation.

So Paul claimed that he himself had initially thought the idea of full-fledged participants with the God of the Jews without the requirement for circumcision was ludicrous, and he claimed that he relentlessly opposed the idea. (Yes, just like those Jews telling his Galatians it was ludicrous).

Paul claimed that he himself adamantly opposed the concept, that is, until God himself set him straight by revealing the Son, and appointing Paul to spread the good news among the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16).

But how could Paul make his redemption from the law work, and sound convincing? How could Paul countermand the very explicit scriptural requirements? The scriptures were the “hill” on which Paul’s claims would live or die, and he turned to the scriptures for a solution.

Paul used the concept of a heavenly Son of God, perhaps drawing on Philo for inspiration, but Paul brought his Son down in the form of a man. "Having come of woman, having come under the law, that He might redeem those under the law" (Galatians 4:4-5), thus giving his incarnated spirit adequate standing (in a legal and logical sense) so that the sacrifice would be relevant to men.

Drawing on the scriptures and conflating two verses from Deuteronomy in the LXX (27:26 and 21:23), Paul claimed that his JC figure suffered a redemptive death by being hung on a tree (Galatians 3:10 and 3:13-14), a death that apparently provided all believers redemption from both the Mosaic rituals and from the requirement of circumcision. And Paul played silly word games to establish his JC figure as the seed (singular) of Abraham, so that faith has superseded the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision (Galatians 3:16, see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9411).

These were certainly bold claims, and stretched logic. Even the Galatians apparently became skeptical. But by many twists of fate, and although the faith system has undergone very significant “evolution”, Paul's claims continue to be accepted by millions to this very day. Christians still claim to be sons of Abraham and full participants with the God of the Jews without regard to circumcision.

Paul apparently told the same story of being a persecutor to all his congregations. He mentioned it only briefly without much elaboration to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 15:9) and to the Philippians (3:6). Elaboration wasn’t necessary because he had already told them the story.

Using a slightly different translation here (NASB vs NRSV):
"But when He who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, ...."

The "mother's womb" is important here. Here I take "mother's womb" to be a metaphor for the Judaism of his youth. This could be read as saying, "God had separated me from the Jewish nation and made a separate covenant with me.

There's way more to Paul's story ---

With Paul, Look to the Scriptures First

It is beyond question that Paul drew heavily on his own very creative manipulation of the scriptures in developing his faith system. This from Hays as associate professor of New Testament, now the George Washington Ivey Professor Emeritus of New Testament at Duke Divinity School and an ordained minister ---

“In Paul we encounter a first-century Jewish thinker who, while undergoing a profound disjuncture with his own religious tradition, grappled his way through to a vigorous and theologically generative reappropriation of Israel’s Scriptures.”

(Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 1989, Richard B. Hays, p. 2)

reappropriate --- to employ or adapt something for a use different from its original purpose

Some have wondered how Paul could claim to have been both an ektroma (abortive) and have been chosen by God from the womb. Paul’s use of Jeremiah and Numbers provides the solution. Just like Miriam in Numbers 12 who was reprimanded by the Lord for having spoken against Moses and became like an ektorma (Numbers 12:1-12, LXX), Paul claimed to be like the ektorma (1 Corinthians 15:8-9) because he had persecuted the assembly of God.

It does make sense here to say that 1 Cor 15:8-9 is meant to recall the story and language of Numbers 12:1-12.

But Paul also claimed to have been chosen from the womb to work among the Gentiles like Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:4-5, LXX), but also just like Jeremiah (1:6-8, LXX), it was only later in life that Paul was appointed by God to begin his work among the Gentiles. And just like Miriam was eventually “cleansed” by a sojourn in the desert allowed by the grace of God (Numbers 12:13-15, LXX), Paul saw himself as “cleansed” when called by God with the revelation of the Son, followed by his sojourn in the desert of Arabia.

Paul likely also drew on Isaiah 49:5-6 for his concept of having been selected from the womb, and for his "assignment" to bring the good news to the Gentiles.


Assemblies of God?

This is a very confusing statement. But the term "assembly of God" could be read here as the temple priesthood.

"You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the Jewish priesthood and was trying to destroy it.

Examples in Paul ---

For I make known to you, brothers, the good news having been announced (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν) by me, that it is not according to man. … but by a revelation … For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, that beyond exceeding measure I was persecuting the assembly of God (ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ) and was destroying it. (Galatians 11-13)

And for his own congregations ---

To the assembly of God (ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ) being in Corinth … (1 Corinthians 1:2)

Again, one may need only look to the scriptures. I think Psalms and Joel are likely sources for Paul to have chosen this phrase to describe the groups of patrons he recruited, and for groups he claimed to have existed in Judea.

I announced good news (ευηγγελισάμην), righteousness in the great assembly (εκκλησία). (Psalm 40:9, LXX)

And Joel chapter two is rife with Pauline concepts.

A nearly verbatim citation from chapter two in Joel was used in Romans ---

Whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. (Rom 10:13 and Joel 2:32, LXX)

The phrase above in Joel is directly followed by a very Pauline concept ---

For in mount Zion and Jerusalem shall be one rescuing, as the Lord said, and one announcing good news (ευαγγελιζόμενος) of which the Lord was called upon. (Joel 2:32 LXX --- beginning of Joel 3 in some bible versions)

In Joel 2 there is also a trumpet announcing the coming of the day of the Lord (2:1), and coming wrath throughout the chapter.

And back to the question at hand ---

… Proclaim a sacred service. Gather together people. Sanctify an assembly (εκκλησίαν) ... (Joel 2:15-16, LXX)

One last comment here. Trying to understand the earlier Paul by using what little we can accurately know about the later Marcion, or by using the way the Marcionites chose to selectively spin Paul’s letters to support their own predilections as found in the polemic writings of their doctrinal enemies, can lead to endless tail-chasing.

Paul is best understood on his own terms.

robert j

[robert j]

One last comment here. Trying to understand the earlier Paul by using what little we can accurately know about the later Marcion, or by using the way the Marcionites chose to selectively spin Paul’s letters to support their own predilections as found in the polemic writings of their doctrinal enemies, can lead to endless tail-chasing.

Paul is best understood on his own terms.

I wrote this partly out of frustration, not with any one person, but primarily with oft-encountered claims that Marcion was the author of some or all of the original letters. At one time I would readily engage in back-and-forth discussion with those advocating such positions. But no longer, or at least only rarely. In my experience, little if any progress ever comes about.

But I do want to acknowledge here that attested Marcionite readings are most certainly useful, along with extant manuscripts and other attestations, in the investigation of the earliest form and earliest variants in Paul’s letters.

I am not going to get further involved at this time in discussion on this specific topic, the evidence is complex and I prefer to spend my time elsewhere. But of course as always, comments are always welcome.

Just a few tidbits here. Granted, these are mostly appeals to authority, but reading and evaluating the scholarship for oneself is the most productive for those interested ---

Based on the recent studies of Clabeaux and Schmid, Gamble observes that

[citation of Gamble begins] the large majority of peculiar readings attested for Marcion can otherwise be closely paralleled in the larger textual tradition of Paul’s letters, especially the so-called Western text and some parts of the Syrian tradition. This means that Marcion is not to be credited with extensive tendentious emendations, and that the text of the epistles belong to a common pre-Marcionite form of the Pauline text that was already current around the beginning of the second century. [citation of Gamble ends]

This would mean not only that Marcion did not create the first collection of Paul’s letters, but also did not rescue Paul from complete obscurity, since others before him cared enough about what Paul had written to collect and circulate his letters.

BeDuhn, The First New Testament, 2013, pp. 205-206

(and see footnote 13 on pages 356-357, listing Gamble, “The New Testament Cannon: Recent Research,” 284, along with additional discussion).

I think BeDuhn’s characterization here is important, Paul’s letters were apparently still relatively obscure prior to Marcion putting them forward in support of his doctrines, but not completely so.

And a few tidbits from Clabeaux ---

Readings that Marcion attests have more than once driven scholars down blind alleys when they assumed Marcion to be the source of these readings … It has long been known that some of the striking characteristics of the Marcionite Pauline Corpus are attested by the OL [my note: OL = Old Latin, pre-Vulgate] … The more the evidence is examined the more clear it becomes that the correspondence between the text attested by Marcion and the OL cannot be explained as a result of dependence of the OL on the Marcionite text. (pp. 3-4)

Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul --- A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion, 1989.

On pages 145-147 Clabeaux discusses the Alexandrian text type witnesses, and some pre-Marcionite variants found in both the Alexandrian witnesses and in the OL. He offers these comments ---

The pre-Marcionite text becomes a meeting place for the Alexandrian and a Western (in the full sense of the word) witness. (p.147)

[and]

I want to argue that the pre-Marcionite Pauline Corpus circulated throughout the Mediterranean and left its mark long before the time of fixing of the text-types of which we speak today. (p. 147)

[rgprice]

I agree with much of this. I think I finally wrapped my head around what's going on with Paul.

I think the "assembly of God" that Paul addresses and talks about persecuting was a pro-Roman faction of Judaism. Interestingly Paul never talks about "Romans", instead he uses the term Greeks, but its pretty clear that by "Greek" Paul means all civilized non-Jews. Paul seems to make three classifications of people: Jews, Greeks and barbarians. Romans are Greeks as far as Paul is concerned.

At any rate, what I think Paul was talking about is that as a devout Jew he initially persecuted these pro-Roman Jewish congregations. However, he had a revelation (realized that "Romanized Judaism" could also be spread to "Greeks") and then adopted this Romanized Judaism himself and began evangelizing is to Gentiles.

So in other words what he is describing is a situation prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, when Paul himself was a zealot who was upset with the Romanized Jews were were abandoning the traditions of their ancestors with the adoption of this "Judaism light". This is a sort of weak version of Judaism that was more liberal and open to Hellenistic/Roman societal norms. But then Paul realized that while this form of Judaism was opening Jews to a Roman way of life, it could ALSO more easily turn Gentiles to a more Jewish way of life as well. This "Romanized" form of Judaism was a compromise between Hellenistic religion and Judaism and for Paul, if this was a way to convert more Gentiles to the worship of the Jewish God, that was fine.

So now I think I understand the persecution that Paul talks about if I look at it in this context.

This conflict, then, played out between Romanized Jews and zealots, leading to the First-Jewish-Roman War, in much the same way that the Maccabean Revolt reportedly began.

My perspective then is that Paul's ministry took place before the war, and his letter collection was published after the war by someone who viewed Paul's message as one that could have averted the war had it been listened to. This points, IMO, to the publication of the letter collection between the First and Second Jewish Roman Wars, perhaps in the environment of the lead up to the Second Jewish-Roman War. This, then would support the passage in 2 Thessalonians (either an interpolation into an authentic letter or a fully forged letter) that describes the Man of Lawlessness as referring to Bar Kokhba.

[Stuart]

I have found myself agreeing with Clabeaux a lot. My conclusion is that the Marcionite text of Paul represents a stage of the letters at a point of time where revisions from many sects had been made, but the major Lukan redaction had not yet occurred. They were simply in the state at the time the Marcionites split off from the rest of the church maybe a decade before the middle of the 2nd century. The Marcionites did not start, nor finish the gospel or the Pauline epistles, but they Canonized them by freezing the text at that point. A freeze that predates the main church proto-orthodox freeze and canonization of those texts by maybe decades, even a century. The strongest evidence is the complete lack of any Lukan favorite words in the attested Marcionite text.

The mistake scholars make is in thinking that earlier equates with original. Vinzent makes this mistake and draws a lot of wrong conclusions (which Guiseppe follows and presents unwaveringly).

Note, with what I said above, the straw that may have broken the camel's back was a major revision to Paul or the Gospel being accepted by the main church driving the Marcionites to grab the books they had in the previous form and break away. The writing of chapters 1 and 2 of Galatians in Marcionite form may have been the last thing written by them before the split, and precisely over the issues of the split, Paul's authority front and center.

We must always keep in mind that the openings and closings of the letters, which are really a collection of tracts, were not written by the authors of them, but rather by the collector and editor who bound them in a serial collection. For the most part they never mention the place of the title except in the elements a collector would have added, at the opening and closing and possibly some pseudo biographical travelogue material.

[MrMacSon]

I read an argument somewhere recently - not here - in a 'learned or even scholarly commentary iirc - that Paul would have been persecuting Jews, not Christians. Sorry, I can't recall where.

[rgprice]

I read an argument somewhere recently - not here - in a 'learned or even scholarly commentary iirc - that Paul would have been persecuting Jews, not Christians. Sorry, I can't recall where.

Yes, but it gets complicated on how you define things. Some would argue that "Christians" were "Jews" at the time, so its a distinction without a difference. But this claim is what I have thought for a long time as well, that Paul was a persecutor of Jews and that he persecution git turned around. But now I'm saying that I don't think that's the case. I think Paul was persecuting a form of Judaism that was Romanized and thus "not authentically Jewish" in his eyes at the time.

[Irish1975]

I have found myself agreeing with Clabeaux a lot. My conclusion is that the Marcionite text of Paul represents a stage of the letters at a point of time where revisions from many sects had been made, but the major Lukan redaction had not yet occurred.

I think we can safely conclude that these texts were eclectic, but nothing beyond that. It is a leap to speak of “revisions from many sects.” As for the collection being prior to “the major Lukan redaction,” YES OF COURSE. If water flows down hill.

They were simply in the state at the time the Marcionites split off from the rest of the church maybe a decade before the middle of the 2nd century. The Marcionites did not start, nor finish the gospel or the Pauline epistles, but they Canonized them by freezing the text at that point. A freeze that predates the main church proto-orthodox freeze and canonization of those texts by maybe decades, even a century.

There is no simply no evidence about “Marcionites” in the mid-2nd century. Nor, for that matter, about “the rest of the church.”

The notion that these Marcionites “Canonized” these texts by “freezing” them is promoted now by BeDuhn and others. But it too is based on absolutely nothing. It is also anachronistic and incoherent in itself, since no one can explain what it would mean to “freeze” or “canonize” scriptures during this period. This is all rooted in Zahn’s and Harnack’s bogus ideas about the “history of the canon.” It’s like we’re drawing cartoons.

The best that we can say is that these texts are “pre-canonical.” The “major Lukan revision” is the only “canon” of the 2nd century that anyone can talk about with any credibility, but even that is probably anachronistic. Trobisch is right to distinguish “canonical edition”—a type of book or text—from “the canon,” which is a normative theological idea having to do with reception over long periods of time.

The mistake scholars make is in thinking that earlier equates with original. Vinzent makes this mistake and draws a lot of wrong conclusions (which Guiseppe follows and presents unwaveringly).

Well it depends how we use the word “original.” Of course no one knows who wrote these texts, or where or when. But that is not a reason for positively denying that they are “original” in some sense. They pre-existed the Lukan redaction, and were almost certainly the basis for that redaction. So they are “original” in relation to the canonical NT. It would be better to say that they were the primary source for “Luke” and company.

We must always keep in mind that the openings and closings of the letters, which are really a collection of tracts, were not written by the authors of them, but rather by the collector and editor who bound them in a serial collection. For the most part they never mention the place of the title except in the elements a collector would have added, at the opening and closing and possibly some pseudo biographical travelogue material.

Absolutely. The geography of the epistles is a final glaze, entirely superficial to the content. And the chronology is non-existent. That’s why the canonical redactor had to make it all up in Acts.

[Irish1975]

One last comment here. Trying to understand the earlier Paul by using what little we can accurately know about the later Marcion, or by using the way the Marcionites chose to selectively spin Paul’s letters to support their own predilections as found in the polemic writings of their doctrinal enemies, can lead to endless tail-chasing.

Paul is best understood on his own terms.

I wrote this partly out of frustration, not with any one person, but primarily with oft-encountered claims that Marcion was the author of some or all of the original letters. At one time I would readily engage in back-and-forth discussion with those advocating such positions. But no longer, or at least only rarely. In my experience, little if any progress ever comes about.

But I do want to acknowledge here that attested Marcionite readings are most certainly useful, along with extant manuscripts and other attestations, in the investigation of the earliest form and earliest variants in Paul’s letters.

I am not going to get further involved at this time in discussion on this specific topic, the evidence is complex and I prefer to spend my time elsewhere. But of course as always, comments are always welcome.

Just a few tidbits here. Granted, these are mostly appeals to authority, but reading and evaluating the scholarship for oneself is the most productive for those interested ---

Based on the recent studies of Clabeaux and Schmid, Gamble observes that

[citation of Gamble begins] the large majority of peculiar readings attested for Marcion can otherwise be closely paralleled in the larger textual tradition of Paul’s letters, especially the so-called Western text and some parts of the Syrian tradition. This means that Marcion is not to be credited with extensive tendentious emendations, and that the text of the epistles belong to a common pre-Marcionite form of the Pauline text that was already current around the beginning of the second century. [citation of Gamble ends]

This would mean not only that Marcion did not create the first collection of Paul’s letters, but also did not rescue Paul from complete obscurity, since others before him cared enough about what Paul had written to collect and circulate his letters.

BeDuhn, The First New Testament, 2013, pp. 205-206

(and see footnote 13 on pages 356-357, listing Gamble, “The New Testament Cannon: Recent Research,” 284, along with additional discussion).

I think BeDuhn’s characterization here is important, Paul’s letters were apparently still relatively obscure prior to Marcion putting them forward in support of his doctrines, but not completely so.

And a few tidbits from Clabeaux ---

Readings that Marcion attests have more than once driven scholars down blind alleys when they assumed Marcion to be the source of these readings … It has long been known that some of the striking characteristics of the Marcionite Pauline Corpus are attested by the OL [my note: OL = Old Latin, pre-Vulgate] … The more the evidence is examined the more clear it becomes that the correspondence between the text attested by Marcion and the OL cannot be explained as a result of dependence of the OL on the Marcionite text. (pp. 3-4)

Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul --- A Reassessment of the Text of the Pauline Corpus Attested by Marcion, 1989.

On pages 145-147 Clabeaux discusses the Alexandrian text type witnesses, and some pre-Marcionite variants found in both the Alexandrian witnesses and in the OL. He offers these comments ---

The pre-Marcionite text becomes a meeting place for the Alexandrian and a Western (in the full sense of the word) witness. (p.147)

[and]

I want to argue that the pre-Marcionite Pauline Corpus circulated throughout the Mediterranean and left its mark long before the time of fixing of the text-types of which we speak today. (p. 147)

These citations from BeDuhn and Clabeaux are absurd. It is just a massive non-sequitur to draw any conclusions about how long these texts were circulating “before Marcion” or “throughout the Mediterranean.” The tolerance for BS in this field is unparalleled.

The deep similarities to Western variants of canonical NT simply do not warrant the conclusion they want to draw. I’m sorry but, until someone can explain the logical force of this “argument” by Gamble, Clabeaux, etc, it just falls to the ground.

Gamble: This [deep parallels betwen Mcn and Western text] means that Marcion is not to be credited with extensive tendentious emendations, and that the text of the epistles belong to a common pre-Marcionite form of the Pauline text that was already current around the beginning of the second century.

It only “means” that for faith-based historians. In the world of logic and ordinary historical reasoning, it doesn’t “mean” that at all, since there just isn’t any evidence for such a fable.

[Stuart]

I have found myself agreeing with Clabeaux a lot. My conclusion is that the Marcionite text of Paul represents a stage of the letters at a point of time where revisions from many sects had been made, but the major Lukan redaction had not yet occurred.

I think we can safely conclude that these texts were eclectic, but nothing beyond that. It is a leap to speak of “revisions from many sects.” As for the collection being prior to “the major Lukan redaction,” YES OF COURSE. If water flows down hill.

You need to dig deeper. There are conflicting theologies withing the attested Marcionite text, including elements that support positions which clearly are based on the Jewish God as high God. Some elements align more closely with groups like the Apelleans for example, than the Marcionites. Of course the Marcionite sect itself had probably not yet formed hermeneutical teachings that would characterize them after the split.

That the main church possessed and continued to modify the texts after the Marcionites split says very clearly that these collections belonged to many sects. The main church itself was composed of pretty much all the sects, with as yet no split with Gnostics. Perhaps the term "proto-heretics" ought to be used alongside "proto-orthodox" for the lines were not clear yet.

I think it's a stretch to say a single sect was responsible, as nearly every sect claimed Paul and his writings.

Note: I do not believe a Marcion person existed, rather it refers to the legendary patron saint Mark, a follower of Paul. The character split into two, with the one the proto-orthodoxy held onto given a story of falling out with Paul (portrayed in Acts) and becoming a follower of Peter to sanitize him.

They were simply in the state at the time the Marcionites split off from the rest of the church maybe a decade before the middle of the 2nd century. The Marcionites did not start, nor finish the gospel or the Pauline epistles, but they Canonized them by freezing the text at that point. A freeze that predates the main church proto-orthodox freeze and canonization of those texts by maybe decades, even a century.

There is no simply no evidence about “Marcionites” in the mid-2nd century. Nor, for that matter, about “the rest of the church.”

The notion that these Marcionites “Canonized” these texts by “freezing” them is promoted now by BeDuhn and others. But it too is based on absolutely nothing. It is also anachronistic and incoherent in itself, since no one can explain what it would mean to “freeze” or “canonize” scriptures during this period. This is all rooted in Zahn’s and Harnack’s bogus ideas about the “history of the canon.” It’s like we’re drawing cartoons.

The best that we can say is that these texts are “pre-canonical.” The “major Lukan revision” is the only “canon” of the 2nd century that anyone can talk about with any credibility, but even that is probably anachronistic. Trobisch is right to distinguish “canonical edition”—a type of book or text—from “the canon,” which is a normative theological idea having to do with reception over long periods of time.

The first part I answered above.

The second part I think is self evident from the Patristic writings which repeatedly reference a different Marcionite text that is pre-Lukan revision, well into the 4th and even 5th century. Repeatedly the church fathers refer to the Marcionites as claiming the text of the Catholics had been altered by the "Judaizers." A term by the way is relevant to the OP of this thread (will circle back in another post). Canonization of the text and freezing of it, except for approved modifications are pretty much one and the same.

That there was a separate version held by the Marcionites is the simplest explanation for why the 3rd and 4th century heresiologists knew of such a text.

As for the myth of the Marcionites splitting in the second century, that seems to have been the concurrent opinion of both the church fathers and the Marcionites, as far as we can reconstruct their "quoted" lines in Adamantius, and responses by Tertullian to claimed statements. As ancient history goes that is reasonable grounds. I think you take it rather far to jump from the opinion that the sect leaders (e.g., Ebion, Valentinus, Marcion, etc) may have been aptronyms, names made up from the movement. But if Adamantius dialogue from Megethius and Markus are to be believed, the sect itself traced it's lineage to one Mark/Marcion a follower of Paul, and their succession of bishops having authority thus from Paul, I see this myth as no different than Catholics claiming their bishopric succession as deriving from Peter. There are hints in the NT that another line existed in Asia for a time claiming to be from John, and even possibly an "Ebionite" line claiming from Jacob/James. But to make the jump from the sect leader may be no more than a legend, a mythical patron saint (which I agree is probably so), to the sect never existing is a stretch. You need to do a lot more proof work for me to accept that, especially for the sects with the most in depth counter writings from the church fathers.

You need to reference the primary sources and not the commentators, who are sometimes right, sometimes not. But in the case of a 2nd century Marcionite split there is more than a little bit of writing, including comments about how one cannot tell until you hear the preaching that you have wandered into a Marcionite church.

[Irish1975]

Lol, whatever. Move some goal posts, change topics, condescend, revert to remembered argument with someone else, etc.

Good luck with “Mark” = “Marcion.” Sancta simplicitas.