Jerusalem as a metaphor for Rome

[Geoff]

In a post written on Vridar in 2014, Neil Godfrey wrote that some scholars consider Paul’s reference in Galatians to visiting the church leaders in Jerusalem to be a metaphor for Rome. I have asked Neil about the scholarship behind this thought but he is unable to recall the specifics, although we can see that there is a Marcion dimension. I would be grateful if anyone on this site could enlarge on the details behind this theory.

[Giuseppe]

Stuart may give you the answer.

[Stuart]

I should ignore this, as the real answer requires a lot of build up and dependencies. So I'll give the short answer, and follow with a really stripped down background explanation. The answer is possibly, but we have to consider context.

The context you likely are thinking of are the stories about Marcion visiting Rome and pitching his Gospel to the leaders of the Christian Church. The parallels to Paul's visit to Jerusalem as depicted in Galatians are striking. Also strikingly parallel are the stories of Marcion gifting a large sum to the church in Rome, implicitly to smooth his being named bishop there, with Paul's collection for Jerusalem. The suggestion of some is that Paul might have been the alter ego of Marcion in the ten letter collection, or at least in Galatians. This theory relies at least in part on Tertullian's observation/commentary that Marcion "found" Galatians, implying that it was unknown before Marcion and he was under suspicion as being it's author. There are more details and more examples of parallels put forth by scholars supporting this theory, but essentially it boils down at it's core to the above evidence.

But lets step back a bit and think about the symbolism of both Rome and Jerusalem before we jump to any conclusions.

Jerusalem represents source of authority for Apostles/Patron Saints. Consider the geography of the Patron Saints and the locales of the letters and place mentions. Nearly every location is in Greece, or today Greece and Turkey, Asia Minor especially. [1] The Acts of the various saints also center largely around this region. It is my view that this is where Christianity really broke out, where all or nearly all the activity occurred. Patron saints such as Paul, Peter (Cephas), John, Marcion (Mark?), Andrew and Philip all have legend anchored in this region. I would extend that to Aquila and Apollos (Apelles?). But Christianity made no bones about being a religion that saw Judea, Galilee and perhaps Samaria as the lands where they claim providence.

Elaborate back stories were developed for the patron saints of churches and sects. And not all compatible. This led to some fine tuned splitting, for example the John legend split into three: the Baptist, the Apostle, and the Evangelist. The point is the problem that the life and activities of the legendary patron saint(s) were located in a radius in and around Asia Minor, but the claim to direct contact with Jesus requires a physical placement in Palestine, and specifically Jerusalem as the source of Authority. This resulted in both physical and temporal displacement of the saints.

A parallel to this are the stories of Heretics (Cerdon, Valentinus and Marcion among others) coming to Rome and one by one being rejected. In this case the association with Rome, stories which emerge in the 2nd century, are at their core about political ecclesiastical authority. The proto-orthodoxy in these stories is claiming it. The whole story of Peter in Rome, absent in Acts of the Apostles, seems to have been an invention to replace Paul as the patron saint, which seems a political maneuver to say the least.

To circle back to Galatians 2, we have to ask what authority is being appealed to: is it theological authority of the patron saint or ecclesiastical authority of the sect leader, or could it perhaps be both?

If you agree with Robert Price that Chapters 3-6 [2] was the earlier or original letter --(and with reservations and qualifications I do agree)-- then we are dealing with later hands in chapters 1 and 2. Thus if Chapter 3 is Mark/Marcion's hand, then chapters 1 and 2 (Marcionite form) are from a later disciple. He seems to be countering ideas we find in Acts of the Apostles about Paul, meaning the source of Acts was in circulation and the story of Paul's submission to authority of James was being promoted by rivals. The author of chapter expanded the audience to include the rival patron saints to Paul in Asia, John and Cephas (Peter), dubbing them the pillars, who also head the gospel apostle lists. It is a retelling of the scene in Acts 15 or rather from the source of that passage in Acts. But Paul is instead arguing about his gospel which he presents, paralleling the legend of Marcion in Rome, presenting his gospel and mission. The idea is that Paul does as Marcion did, and hence Paul in Jerusalem is a stand in for Marcion in Rome.

But it's very likely Rome did not have a church of significance even late in the 2nd century, and it's unlikely Mark/Marcion or whomever the sect's ancestral patron saint and founder was ever set foot in Rome on any mission. The story seems to me a fiction, more about the failure of the Marcionite sect's leadership to assert authority over the church, a struggle that was personified in a story. Mark/Marcion is given credit as the founder, but he is probably a name given to vague figure in the distant past, or an amalgam of characters personified as one. Paul, John and Cephas/Peter are likely the same, "William Tell" legends of their corresponding cults.

So Paul in Jerusalem is a fictional story, and so also Marcion in Rome is a fictional story. Thus Paul's Jerusalem visit would be seen by the author as analogous to Marcion in Rome, which he must think is true, thus from the distant past. But it could just as easily be straight forward, a countering of the rumor of Paul's submission, and the supplanting of the Gospel with one more favorable to the Jacobian, Petrine and Johannine sects as opposed to the Pauline (Marcionite) sect. This view would not require the legend of Marcion in Rome to be extant at the time chapter1 and 2 (first version) were written.

So while I think it's possible the 'Marcion in Rome' story is in view, my hunch is that the Marcion story was cooked up later, and not the concern of the author of these two chapters in Galatians.

Notes:
[1] 8 of the 9 city addressed Pauline letters are addressed to Greek cities and arguably all, as it is thought Romans had only acquired the address later, the same omission that Ephesians has, meaning the letters were likely encyclical, the recipient inserted their own church/town.
[2] Certainly chapter 3 has an opening that seems like the start of an exhortation, and there is no dependence in this part of the letter onward on chapters 1 or 2. I do think however that the Marcionite text likely represents an earlier form in circulation from a time before the Marcionites broke with the main church, and in that form chapter 4 certainly was different and shorter, and there is considerable evidence of later hands (yes plural) in chapter 6.

[Secret Alias]

Jerusalem is not a metaphor for Rome. Complete nonsense. Like saying Moscow is a metaphor for Washington.

[perseusomega9]

Like Babylon wasn't a metaphor for Rome? Or so the story goes.

Trobisch is correct, most 2nd century christian writings sound like reactions to various published texts within the wider movement. You two should collaborate, you're both saying the same thing more than you realize.

[davidmartin]

But it's very likely Rome did not have a church of significance even late in the 2nd century, and it's unlikely Mark/Marcion or whomever the sect's ancestral patron saint and founder was ever set foot in Rome on any mission

an early presence in Rome is suggested by some quite disparate sources though

the Paul/Marcion connection is certainly intriguing but what to make of it?
if it's being implied Marcion wrote the Pauline corpus then that would change a whole lot of assumptions re: the history of the movement
right now i'm doubtful of this. that he publicised Paul's writings is far more likely and quite possibly these writings were not generally known before this
I'll skip by the possibility of editing taking place (maybe he did, but what we have might not be that). More likely he might have written Ephesians or Colossians though.. those seem a little more 'Marcionite' theologically in their treatment of the law for example?

If this is right it would have to date Marcion well prior to Acts because by the time of Acts Paul is accepted as they key apostle. If Marcion did publicise a neglected Paul then Acts must come a few decades later and Marcion's impact must have been large. Either Acts was written mid 2nd century for a 130's Marcion or Marcion's time was earlier

The reason I like this theory is it explains why certain early documents are distinctly non-Pauline (The Shepard the prime example, also Revelation maybe, the gospels in numerous ways) because there was a time his theology wasn't nearly so prominent that's slightly out of view to us (late 1st/early 2nd century). That's the only way i can make sense of it, but of course a Marcion who writes Paul's letters also solves that problem but it introduces others.

[neilgodfrey]

I should ignore this, as the real answer requires a lot of build up and dependencies. So I'll give the short answer, and follow with a really stripped down background explanation. The answer is possibly, but we have to consider context.

The context you likely are thinking of are the stories about Marcion visiting Rome and pitching his Gospel to the leaders of the Christian Church. The parallels to Paul's visit to Jerusalem as depicted in Galatians are striking. Also strikingly parallel are the stories of Marcion gifting a large sum to the church in Rome, implicitly to smooth his being named bishop there, with Paul's collection for Jerusalem. The suggestion of some is that Paul might have been the alter ego of Marcion in the ten letter collection, or at least in Galatians. This theory relies at least in part on Tertullian's observation/commentary that Marcion "found" Galatians, implying that it was unknown before Marcion and he was under suspicion as being it's author. There are more details and more examples of parallels put forth by scholars supporting this theory, but essentially it boils down at it's core to the above evidence.

Appreciate this detailed coverage, Stuart. Can you further tell us who were some of the researchers who first arrived at these ideas? From the circle of Dutch Radicals? I see passing references in some of the very few Deterin and Van Manen articles available to me -- presumably there are more from these or other authors.

Thanks again
N