Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Fabrizio Palestini" <fabrizio.palestini AT tin.it>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 17:31:49 +0200


Dear David

Thank you very much for the precious hints (about IMO etc)!

Everything seems clearer to me now!

I like very much your approach to the problems of the Pauline Epistles, and
I have little to say about your arguments.

The Pauline Epistles may be the product of the internal/external debate of
Marcion and his pupils. Their background may be seen as the contrast with
other ideas (judaizers, orthodox, gnostic libertines).
The typical compositive methodology is the pseudonimous writing (Marcion
appeal to a mythological predecessor, Paul, making him say what Marcion want
to say, or what Marcion think it should have said; the same behaviour of the
evangelists with Jesus, isn't it?)

The entire debate (as a written debate) is originated by the publication of
Acts, in which an orthodox writer offer an orthodox view of what Paul was.
Yes, he is an important missionair, but he is a Jew, his name is Saul (and
this OT binding allows Tertullian to accept the apostle of the eretics!), he
is not the starter of the gentile mission, he write no letters, his theology
is not peculiar, he have nothing radical to say.

But Luke hasn't invented the Pauline mythology, probably it circulated in
Early Christianity in other forms (see Acts of Paul).
Moreover, in antiquity the ability to understand the pseudoepigraphicity of
a literary work was not so developed as today (or not? ;-)).

We have infact, among the Apostolic Fathers, a wide range of behaviour
regarding Paul: Justine doesn't seem to know him or his Epistles (perhaps he
considered Paul simply as a marcionite creation, or he knew the so-called
Epistles only as eretic tractates), Tertullian is not totally satisfied with
Paul, but finally accept his apostolic status etc.

This is exactly the kind of evidences we could expect in reaction to a
pseudonimuos work.
Gradually the orthodox (=winning) church, through heavy redactions, came to
accept the domesticated Paul, and to reject as heretics the part of
Christianity who accuse Paul of apostasy.

Even Marcion (or one of his student), is not fully able to contrast the
lukan sketch of Paul, accepting part of his reconstruction (see Galatians).
This is, in my view, perfectly understandable for second century men.


I don't know if Marcion's first idea was to compose a "canon", perhaps not.

> It just seems more likely to me that Marcion, as a reformer, would
> have adopted and adapted orthodox literature, rather than the
> orthodox, reacting to a reformer turned heretic, would adopt and adapt
> his recently created literature.

I understand your position, but I hope to offer you convincing evidences in
the future.

Best regards

Fabrizio Palestini





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page