Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Marcion

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT home.com>
  • To: Mike Conley <Mike.Conley AT t-online.de>
  • Cc: <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Marcion
  • Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 20:45:31 -0500


Dear Mike,
Thank you for the off-list attachment (Marcion's Place in Early
Christianity: A Political Power Play). As you wish for my comments to be
made on C-P, I offer the following criticisms. I hope they are helpful and
not harsh.

I have scanned the article you wrote. It is interesting, but the problems
begin for me in setting up the case, and in the way historical method is
conducted at many critical points.

On the matter of historical method, consider this example (which occurs
early and effects much that follows): "Let us be quite clear on this point:
our would-be Luke knew nothing about the letters presumably written by
`Paul.' The author of Acts systematically suppressed any mention of any of
them or the phrases occurring in them."

I do not think that this is a good way to argue. What we know is that our
manuscripts of Luke-Acts do not mention Paul writing letters. On this point
we can be "quite clear." But what we do not know is why. We have to
hypothesize this, and remain humble with whatever we decide to pursue,
especially if critical to other arguments. The possible reasons "why" are of
course too many to list, but let me list a few that come to mind at this
moment.

1. Perhaps the manuscripts we have do not reflect the earliest version/s.
If so, then why not?

2. Perhaps Luke (or the writer/s or editor/s) did not know about Paul's
letters.

3. Perhaps Luke (or the writer/s or editor/s) did not think that this
information was pertinent to the case he/she/they wished to make. Along the
same line, perhaps he/she/they did, but forgot to include this element! (if
you have published, you will likely have had this experience; at least I
have).

4. Perhaps there was a good reason to avoid mentioning this element, such as
concern with the hands it might fall into. Perhaps he/she/they reasoned:
What if Roman censures of this movement got a hold of it and learned of
letters by which their suspicions, which this document seeks to avert, might
be confirmed, etc.?

Now I will quote from your introductory argument to mention a few other
matters.

You write:
"Let us be quite clear on this point: our would-be Luke knew nothing about
the letters presumably written by `Paul.' The author of Acts systematically
suppressed any mention of any of them or the phrases occurring in them. More
specifically, the author was quite unacquainted with the dogma, `sola
fide'(!), a matter of central importance in the Reformation of Martin Luther
which finally split the Christian movement asunder! Why this silence? Was it
because `Luke' knew that the letters and the doctrine of `by faith alone'
were products of a hostile, competing group or was it that the letters did
not yet bear the name of Paul and were thought to be non-authentic?

But behind this quandry of identification, stood forces much more easily
identified with clearly delineated, vested interests in the success of the
one or the other of the opposing lines of argument contained in the
respective documents. Paulus became the engine of the episcopacy of
Marcion...."

I will quote again lines from the above and comment.

You state:
"More specifically, the author was quite unacquainted with the dogma, `sola
fide'(!), a matter of central importance in the Reformation of Martin Luther
which finally split the Christian movement asunder!"

So? I am also unacquainted with this dogma when I read the letters of Paul.
Luther found it where I do not believe it exists in the documents we have
ascribed to Paul in the NT. So you are setting up a case against the
Reformation Paul, but not the NT Paul. Everything that follows strikes me as
anachronistic.

And you follow with:
"Why this silence? Was it because `Luke' knew that the letters and the
doctrine of `by faith alone' were products of a hostile, competing group or
was it that the letters did not yet bear the name of Paul and were thought
to be non-authentic?"

I have already noted the problem of knowing why, and of hanging too much
else upon it, especially if it your hypothesized "why" is not even tested
first. And I do not know of any historical parties who fought for "faith
alone" in the sense of Luther; before Luther, that is. I do not think the
two options you pose represent the many that should be considered, and they
do not strike me as the most plausible options. Some of the letters we have
do express an authorial concern for authenticity, and this is common in
letters of this period. In the manuscript form we have such signatures, the
authorial hand cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed. In the case of
Galatians, I find the seam between the letter until 6:10 and vv. 11ff.,
where the authorial hand is introduced, quite convincing. There is a shift
in style of argument, vocabulary choices, and it is a very terse and
vitriolic summary of the letter-body's message.

Then you write:
"But behind this quandry of identification, stood forces much more easily
identified with clearly delineated, vested interests in the success of the
one or the other of the opposing lines of argument contained in the
respective documents."

I do not see where you have made that case that the documents of Paul and of
Acts contain opposing lines of argument (I assume that this is to what you
refer), except in Reformation era concerns between two parties that did not
exist at the time of Paul, or Marcion. I find much agreement between these
two document groups, since I do not read Paul through reformation-ground
spectacles.

Then you write:
"Paulus became the engine of the episcopacy of Marcion...."

Wow. How did you get here so quickly? I do not follow the logic.

One other matter that struck me oddly as I read was the suspicion that Acts
represents the kind of Paul the Roman church of later years (as you
characterize it) would like to have portrayed. I think this is curious.
Would they (as characterized, anti-Marcionite) want a Paul who goes to the
Jewish temple to take a Nazarite vow, which involves a burnt-offering? Would
they not want Paul The Christian doing good Christian things, even if not
the Marcionite version of what Christian things are good?

Thanks again for the information. It is an approach of which I wish to be
apprised.

Respectfully,
Mark

--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT home.com





  • Marcion, Mark D. Nanos, 08/05/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page