the Paul & Marcion 'dynamic' & back-dating

[MrMacSon]

.
From this post - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 353#p46353 - on another thread -

There are two major figures in early christian history - Paul and Marcion. If one wants to give primacy to Marcion, as Stephan does, then it makes no sense to have Paul and Marcion operating in the same time slot. Stephan has suggested, if I remember correctly, because of that that Paul=Marcion. As I pointed out to him at the time that makes no sense.

--------------------------

At the very least, as has been mentioned previously, here, two voices can be discerned in 1 Corinthians 15. i.e. an early and a late voice. An early 'Paul' and a late 'Paul'. In other words, not one but two major figures involved in the development of early christian ideas.

The Paul=Marcion equation silences these two voices. The Marcionite 'voice' is early - as is evidenced by the writings of the early christians. The Paul 'voice' is later.... What Acts has done is condense christian history to a pre 70 c.e. history. The history of the later years is backdated - and what were two voices, two historical figures involved with early christian developments - becomes one voice. The voice of 'Paul'. The earlier 'voice' is submerged by the later voice of 'Paul'. The Marcionite voice (of the early christian writings) is submerged by the voice of the later figure of 'Paul'.

-----------------------------

A similar sort of idea is reflected by Hermann Detering.....from Marcion to Paul. However, if Paul is re-dated to the usual dating for Marcion - late dating - then there is a big gap in early christian history - the pre 70 c.e. time slot. Rather than going the route that Paul=Marcion, it's better, if one is searching for early christian origins, to keep them separate. Allowing one figure to be early and the other figure late. Acts being the effort to place early christian pre-70 c.e. - therefore the late figure, Paul, had to be backdated to pre-70 c.e. - a Marcion time frame.

Hermann Detering

One might consider, with some radical critics, whether the relationship "From Paul to Marcion" should not be reversed. In that case, Marcion would not be a pupil of Paul, but the figure of "Paul" would in reality be a creation of Marcionism, by means of which the Marcionites retrojected their theology into the apostolic past, in order to provide themselves with a pedigree and a precedent for their doctrines in the theological conflicts of the second century.

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/detering.html

I agree it is reasonable to propose and argue that a lot of stuff has been back-dated.

Lena Einhorn presented a good argument for a block of Josephus narratives about people and events in the mid 1st century having been back-dated into the Christian narratives -

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn, PhD

(Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, Nov.17-20, 2012)

see Figures 3 & 4

And if Josephus's War and Antiquities are late 1st century, then such wholesale backdating would have had to take place late 1st century or later.

However, it would seem that it is possible that 'Marcion' and 'Pau'l did operate in the same time slot or overlapped in time ...

.

[Michael BG]

I agree it is reasonable to propose and argue that a lot of stuff has been back-dated.

Lena Einhorn presented a good argument for a block of Josephus narratives about people and events in the mid 1st century having been back-dated into the Christian narratives -

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn, PhD

(Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, Nov.17-20, 2012)

see Figures 3 & 4

And if Josephus's War and Antiquities are late 1st century, then such wholesale backdating would have had to take place late 1st century or later.

The article by Lena Einhorn is interesting, but leaves lots of loose ends. She dates the time of Jesus with the time of the Egyptian which she dates between 52-59 CE. She places Jesus during the time of the two co-reigning high priests 48-54 CE. She also seems to like the idea that Jesus was not crucified or even was killed because Josephus does not record the death of the Egyptian. She dates Jesus’ ministry 45-53 and Paul’s to 53-60 CE. She also suggests that Peter is Menahem of Josephus who is active at the beginning of the Jewish revolt.

So according to Einhorn Jesus was not crucified and the Christians make Menahem into Peter and Theudas into John the Baptist. It is here that she is at her weakest. She accepts that John the Baptist has to be included in the gospel accounts because he was too well known in Christian circles to be left out and then says he has a different name! Another weakness is the idea that in Galatians “after fourteen years” in 2:1 is an interpolation! It is not likely that Paul if he was converted in 53 CE would 17 years later go to Jerusalem to discuss issues with Peter and James as Jerusalem would have been under siege by the Romans by then. Also she doesn’t address the problem of the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus’ ministry ended in 53 but without his death why did Paul believe he was crucified and he had seen him afterwards?

[outhouse]

However, it would seem that it is possible that 'Marcion' and 'Pau'l did operate in the same time slot or overlapped in time ...

.

No.

Your took two people that refuse the credible education on the topic and are trying a personal hybrid version of WRONG.

Paul is 100 years earlier by all credible accounts. And its usually those with limited educations that make these oddball hypothesis.

[outhouse]

Lena Einhorn, PhD

.

She is not a scholar

Thats why her work is laughable

[Peter Kirby]

Lena Einhorn, PhD

.

She is not a scholar

Thats why her work is laughable

Don't you mean that it's "laughable" just because it's laughable?

Or does simply being sainted with the right piece of paper make everything okay and non-laughable, with nobody else able to open their mouths without ensuing laughter?

How ever did the old lights of learning manage without such a simple, straightforward system for identifying good work! They must have been like gods back then, actually able to tell right from wrong on their own. How wonderful it must have been!

[MrMacSon]

Lena Einhorn, PhD
.

She is not a scholar

That's why her work is laughable

lol Your ad hominem is noted, as is her PhD, and the fact she presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, Nov.17-20, 2012.

Also note I am referring to her significant point that events and people portrayed in Josephus in 45-60 AD/CE is represented in the NT texts in a different time period: 20-40 AD/CE (or vice versa)

[Michael BG]

Lena Einhorn, PhD

Thats why her work is laughable

Wouldn’t it be better if instead of a sweeping statement you had pointed out why her work is laughable? (I don’t think she has a PhD in theology but she is a medical doctor with a PhD in Virology and Tumor Biology.)

I remember reading S G F Brandon and finding his argument that there is evidence that Jesus was a Zealot quite convincing.

Also note I am referring to her significant point that events and people portrayed in Josephus in 45-60 AD/CE is represented in the NT texts in a different time period: 20-40 AD/CE (or vice versa)

She makes a very strong case here, but some of her other claims are weak. She sees Matthew’s claim that Jesus came to Palestine after spending some time in Egypt as historical rather than being part of Matthew’s theological point that as Jesus was a second Moses of course he had to come out of Egypt. She also sees Luke’s account that the governor of Judea sent Jesus to be “tried” by someone called Herod as historical and not part of Luke adding more details to the narrative so it complied with another Biblical reference. I well remember appealing to the gospel of John for historical facts and being taken to task for not first discussing if what I saw as “historical facts” were in fact part of John’s theological reworking of the Jesus stories he inherited from the synoptic gospels. And Lena Einhorn does the same.

It appears that she has also written a book – The Jesus Mystery: Astonishing Clues to the True Identities of Jesus and Paul (reviewed by Robert M Price http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... teries.htm), where Paul is the same person as Jesus, but Jesus is him before he is crucified and Paul is him afterwards. I suppose that it would be in this book that she deals with the issues I raised regarding Paul earlier. However it will take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that Paul and Jesus were the same person, even if I like the Jewish story that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier.

The basic idea that Jesus was crucified later than the gospels say has merit and I would like to see the argument against her evidence. Also I wonder how strong a case could be made for Jesus having been crucified between 44 and 49 CE, which would still give Paul his 17 years afterwards before going to Jerusalem. Is Tiberius Julius Alexander just as good a candidate for being the Roman procurator who crucified Jesus along with the sons of Judas of Galilee as Marcus Antonius Felix? He even has connections to the Herodian royal family. Her dating of the joint High Priesthood can be questioned. She names them as Jonathan, son of Annas and Ananias, son of Nebedaios. However Jonathan, son of Ananus appears to have been High Priest 36-37, 44 and 58, which might be who she is referring to. If this is the case and in fact Jonathan was High Priest from 36 to 58 then there would be two High Priests when Alexander was procurator – 46-48 CE.