The Solution to the Problem of 'Paul'

[Peter Kirby]

Is there an on-line version of the reconstructed Marcionite Apostilikon?

It's virtually impossible to do. There are no manuscripts, and patristic citations of potential differences are more scant in the letters than they are in the gospel (of Luke/the Lord). The extent of the difference between Marcionite Paul and catholic Paul is not at all clear. Some believe there is precious little difference at all, with the patristic critics of Marcion primarily being desirous of accusing him of corrupting scripture.

A potted summary of the patristic references would seem to be more useful than an assumption-laden reconstruction.

[Ulan]

I'll speak for the heretical Paul tradition of antiquity. How much corruption do you suppose occurred to what was originally Marcionite scriptures? Some? None? A lot?

Here's the crux. How am I supposed to answer such a question with any kind of certainty? I think that it makes more sense that gLuke is a redaction of Marcion's gospel than the other way round, which means, quite a bit of redaction. In Paul's letters, I assume at least some. I'm not a friend of theories that work with drastic redactions of the letters, because that would have been an excellent opportunity to bring the theology much more in line with the ideas of the redactor. Or it would have been done under time pressure. Or the texts were too well-known, which only leaves the time-honored tradition of "oh, btw, we found another text of our beloved apostle/prophet/Moses/etc."

[Ulan]

"very human weaknesses" - whether written by Paul solely, or partially, the letters would have been written by a person or persons (in a scriptorium?) trying to come to terms with changing theologies. The Pastorals are considered to have been written by "others".

Yes, but they had very clear templates, which were filled with their own theology.

"four different characters for him" - I presume you mean the Canonical Gospels?

Indeed. Aside from childhood gospels, most other non-canonical gospels I know seem even less interested in giving the figure Jesus Christ a personality.

[Stephan Huller]

Here's the crux. How am I supposed to answer such a question with any kind of certainty? I think that it makes more sense that gLuke is a redaction of Marcion's gospel than the other way round, which means, quite a bit of redaction. In Paul's letters, I assume at least some. I'm not a friend of theories that work with drastic redactions of the letters, because that would have been an excellent opportunity to bring the theology much more in line with the ideas of the redactor. Or it would have been done under time pressure. Or the texts were too well-known, which only leaves the time-honored tradition of "oh, btw, we found another text of our beloved apostle/prophet/Moses/etc."

If there was drastic redaction in Paul's gospel there was drastic redaction in Paul's letters. The truth is that we have examples of ongoing drastic redactions from a much shorter source in the Ignatian epistles. If we start with the Syriac 'short' epistles just watch the text grow from 'long' Greek to 'longer' Greek:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/p/sho ... ho-is.html

But the bottom line for me is that we see that the heretics identified the apostle as saying that he was the Demiurge. The issue of massive redaction of the Pauline corpus goes hand and hand with this. As you said, the surviving letters contradict this notion of Paul. But then how did the heretics arrive at their assumptions? It stands to reason that the added material helped us and those before us accept what is now the normative 'Paul.'

It is not hard to see the hand of the redactor. Look at 2 Corinthians where he says the most bombastic things and then declares 'but I am talking as a fool' and the like. This is clearly a second hand. There are other examples in 2 Corinthians. Tertullian also provides an example of massive redaction in Romans (not with the long ending but when he says Marcion 'skips over a gap of several chapters' in the middle.

But perhaps most difficult of all is to understand Tertullian's acceptance of 1 Corinthians 3:10's 'wise architect' as a reference to the Demiurge. As I said in one of my posts. I don't think scholars actually sit down and mull this over. Even if Paul is saying 'I am the Demiurge' maybe that scores points for you if you want to prove that Paul 'liked' the Demiurge but it is still hard to get away from the implications of saying 'I am the Demiurge.' Normal people don't identify themselves as the Demiurge.

[bcedaifu]

This IMO is the clearest self-identification of the apostle as a 'supercharged' Demiurge, Yahweh who has been restored with his missing half Elohim (= Jesus), a 'spiritualized' being who created this world.

a. in orthodox Judaism, i.e. Torah, isn't Yahweh the offspring of Elohim?
b. In any brand of Christianity, isn't Jesus the offspring of Yahweh?
c. then, how can Jesus, f2 genetically, be synonymous with Elohim?

For both Hippocrates and Aristotle—and nearly all Western scholars through to the late 19th century—the inheritance of acquired characters was a supposedly well-established fact that any adequate theory of heredity had to explain. At the same time, individual species were taken to have a fixed essence; such inherited changes were merely superficial.

Does Tertullian explicitly argue that followers of Marcion considered Paul to be PHaul instead? If your primary information about Marcion comes from the Latin texts of the apostate Tertullian, shouldn't the etymological relationship between P and PH be explored from Latin roots, rather than Greek? I understand that the two phonemes are related neurologically, because they both rely on contraction of orbicularis oris, (CN VII) with glottic expulsion of air (CN X). The timing distinction, P requiring muscle contraction prior to expulsion of air (to augment the force), with PH demanding, contrarily, concurrent expulsion, resulting in a sound, relatively diminished in intensity, compared with P. PH in other words, would be more easily pronounced, by a non-native speaker, while P would be easier for a native speaker to comprehend, when spoken by a foreigner.

Is there evidence of influence of either Philo or Plato on Tertullian, if one asserts, as I think you have, that those two Greek authors influenced Tertullian's text, ostensibly representing Marcion's ideas? Since Philo was, himself, a Platonist, is it necessary to invoke the Alexandrian's influence on a Latin author living 1,600 miles and 200 years away? Does Tertullian explictly quote Philo? Is there some bit of Tertullian's Latin text that is clearly identified with Philo, but not Plato? Was Tertullian literate in Hebrew? Did he rely upon LXX? Had the LXX been translated into Latin by the time of Tertullian? Given the heretical disposition of Tertullian, is it not likely, that his extant writings have been redacted, edited, or interpolated? Do we have some ancient source of his texts buried during the political turmoil of the 4th century and beyond?

Is it not simpler to explain the confusion over elohim vs. yahweh, by referring to any version of Torah (LXX or Masoretic, or DSS), rather than Tertullian (whose writings you refer to as those of "Marcion"}?

[Ulan]

But perhaps most difficult of all is to understand Tertullian's acceptance of 1 Corinthians 3:10's 'wise architect' as a reference to the Demiurge. As I said in one of my posts. I don't think scholars actually sit down and mull this over. Even if Paul is saying 'I am the Demiurge' maybe that scores points for you if you want to prove that Paul 'liked' the Demiurge but it is still hard to get away from the implications of saying 'I am the Demiurge.' Normal people don't identify themselves as the Demiurge.

Hmm. Isn't this more a problem with Tertullian than with Paul? Tertullian seemed to have been easily swayed by new ideas and then fervently defended them until the next best idea showed up. We don't even know what texts his attacks against Marcion were based on, as you mentioned that he used some Diatesseron-like gospel version, because his quotes from "canonical" gospels can be found in both, gLuke and gMatthew.

[Stephan Huller]

Hmm. Isn't this more a problem with Tertullian than with Paul?

What's the problem with Tertullian? Basilides and presumably Marcion says the same thing only in reverse - i.e. Paul is saying 'I am the Demiurge.' How do you explain the reference? What do you think the apostle is 'building' in the passage if not a gospel and a new religion? The Demiurge gave the Ten Commandments. The gospel is its equivalent and the Marcionites say that the apostle wrote the original text from which all others are mere corruption. While the Samaritan envision Moses as literally being 'handed' (i.e. by a divine 'hand' in the cloud) the Ten Commandments in the fire at Sinai (Marqe says that when Moses stepped into the fire he communed with God) surely the original understanding is that Moses and God became one and then under 'inspiration' (i.e. with God within him) Moses wrote on the tablets. The apostle's gospel writing effort must have been similarly conceived. Again what are the alternatives to the heretical understanding of Paul declaring he is a 'wise architect'? Surely you acknowledge - as Origen notes - that the reference is allegorical or at least saying something else than Paul designed buildings? What do you imagine Paul was 'constructing' here if not 'the Church' and if so surely this included a written gospel. If not how did he construct 'the Church'?

Tertullian seemed to have been easily swayed by new ideas and then fervently defended them until the next best idea showed up.

I don't think so. I think the evidence suggests that Tertullian plagiarized Greek writings from the second century into Latin and then made personal additions to them. He was a plagiarist not a schizophrenic.

We don't even know what texts his attacks against Marcion were based on, as you mentioned that he used some Diatesseron-like gospel version, because his quotes from "canonical" gospels can be found in both, gLuke and gMatthew.

But this is a result of his plagiarism and so the transmission of the original material gets muddy. The real question comes down here to whether Tertullian's embrace of the heretical understanding of 1 Corinthians 3:10 was the result of him 'changing his mind' as you suggest or as I suggest merely an attempt to desperately demonstrate that Paul 'loved' the Demiurge because he identified himself as the Demiurge. The bottom line is still the same - everyone who ever comments on 1 Corinthians 3:10 acknowledges that Paul was saying 'I am the Demiurge.'

[Ulan]

The apostle's gospel writing effort must have been similarly conceived. Again what are the alternatives to the heretical understanding of Paul declaring he is a 'wise architect'? Surely you acknowledge - as Origen notes - that the reference is allegorical or at least saying something else than Paul designed buildings? What do you imagine Paul was 'constructing' here if not 'the Church' and if so surely this included a written gospel. If not how did he construct 'the Church'?

Hold on, your explanation here gets a bit mangled. Of course I agree that he means his gospel (1 Cor 15 comes to mind) and the church. Is this in any way different from conservative explanations? The question was about what exactly "I am the Demiurge" comprises. You think he thought he really was Yahweh?

[Stephan Huller]

Here is what I think it means:

1. According to the heretics stupid (= phaulos) Yahweh made stupid (= phaulos) Adam in his own stupid (= phaulos) image.
2. All of humanity was stupid because of Adam (= oi phauloi)
3. But the one 'not stupid' thing that the Yahweh accomplished was his creation of the world. But this was a one time act. In other words, stupid Yahweh was given the ability to create when his partner Elohim came inside of him and directed the creation. Otherwise he's just a stupid craftsman who can fix watches but doesn't understand what time is, or a stupid potter who knows how to make bowls but doesn't understand the shapes he is making come from the realm of ideas etc.
4. After the creation Yahweh is no longer the Demiurge. Creation has been made and continues to function without him. He acts in the capacity of judge.
5. Because he is stupid, he doesn't realize that there is another power besides him (a common gnostic theme). Jesus (= Elohim) only presents himself again to stupid Yahweh at the end of time (= the destruction of the temple 70 CE).
6. Here is where my thesis becomes controversial (you can ignore this part because it brings together my own idiosyncratic beliefs and suspicions) the revelation of Jesus to Yahweh which leads to his repentance and his turning away from the 603 commandments he inspired Moses to write which were traditionally used to judge Israel was understood as a historical event. In other words, it was took place within the soul of a historical human being who in his capacity as monarch was understood to represent the living embodiment of Yahweh to the people. In short, Marcus Julius Agrippa's conversion to Christianity and rejection of the Torah in the aftermath of the destruction of the temple was the 'arena' where the repentance of Yahweh played out 'historically.'

I think from here, the gospel was written (by 'Mark'), the various 'letters' were written to Jewish communities in his capacity as monarch (i.e. his standing as ethnarch of some sort) and the reports in the rabbinic literature that Israel was not judged according to the Torah (Sabbath 116b), that the rabbis were driven underground and had to swear against Christians etc. derive from this historical revelation. That the gospel at one time was the law by which Jews were governed (as Sabbath 116b) explicitly declares. At some point this situation was reversed (after the Bar Kochba revolt) and a new neo-conservative (faux conservatism) took hold again where paradoxically Jews pretended to fulfill 'all the laws' of Moses while 'forgetting' how to sacrifice like Hillel. But again the last point is my own belief or suspicion. It should be treated independently from 1 - 5.

[Ulan]

Okay, I have the feeling we are dancing somewhat in circles here. I understood points 1-5, with the new (to me) info in those 5 paragraphs being that Yahweh is no longer the demiurge. If Yahweh is not the Demiurge anymore, is it now Adam, and do you see the connection via 1Cor15 (first and last Adam)? Did Adam steal the creative power from Yahweh at Eden? As I see a distinct lack of Paul (aside from "phaulos" given as adjective to several different subjects) in your points 1-5.