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: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:05:25 -0400


Dear Fabrizio,

>>Your letters offer me many linguistic problems!!<<

Perhaps I am being a little too colloquial with my phrasing. Sorry! I
should be breaking the sentences down into smaller units, rather than
incorporate sub-clauses so often. But, that *is* the Pauline way! <g>
I tip my hat to you (darn, another colloquialism!) for being able to
carry on a conversation in a language other than your native one.

>>(And above all what does "IMO" mean?)<<

"IMO" is a shorthand way of saying "In my opinion." These kinds
shorthand abbreviations are commonly used in internet messages. The
same with the tag "<g>" which means "I am grinning when I say that, so
don't take it too seriously." The others that you commonly see
(besides the "emoticons" such as ;-), meaning "I am winking when I say
that, so don't take it too seriously") are IMHO (in my humble opinion)
and FWIW (for what it is worth).

>>What is the problem if Marcion created the passage? ... Perhaps the
fact that the orthodox redacted passage seems not redacted in a
orthodox sense? In this case I suggest that the redactor is not a
modern NT scholar, he could well not perfectly understand the passage
(like me with your letter!), or could not be able to make his point
through interpolations.<<

My understanding of Marcion's version of Christianity is that he was
sympathetic with the high Christology of the Pauline epistles. He was
especially interested in the idea that Jesus was a savior figure and
that he came from a higher plane of existence than that represented by
the material world. To Marcion, the God of the Jews was the God that
created the world, who was stern and just, but that a different kind
of God existed, a God of love and compassion, who had sent Jesus as a
savior to mankind. Faith in Jesus could rescue people from the
clutches of the creator God.

The problems and advantages of the three approaches to the origins of
the Pauline letters are these:

1) Authentic letters of Paul: Seems to be the simplest solution at
first appearance, but makes it extremely hard to explain the many
aporias and contradictory ideas they contain. Acts is a later
composition that smoothed over some rough edges and offers a
reconstruction of Paul's career that may, or may not, accurately
reflect his real-life career. Whether the high Christology contained
in the Pauline epistles was original to Paul (i.e., the orthodox
position, even among modern critics) or added by an editor/editors (an
extreme minority position, which I someday hope to change), Marcion
fell in love with it. However, Marcion felt obligated to remove
passages that were too favorable to the God of the Jews so that Jesus
could be interpreted as the representative of the good God rather than
the creator God.

2) Orthodox fabrications of 2nd century: A bit more complex than (1)
above, but not extremely so, yet will question the motivations and
strategies of early Christian leaders in a way that displeases many
modern Christians and critics. Acts may then represent an earlier,
maybe even more accurate, reconstruction of Paul's career. It is at
least internally consistent. Since Jesus, conceived as a divine savior
figure, is at the very heart of 2nd century Christianity, Marcion
would have already been in sympathy with the literature produced by an
orthodox author. Consequently, his elimination of passages too
sympathetic with the God of the Jews would reflect his program of
redefining Jesus' role to be that of an emissary of the good God,
rather than that of the creator God.

In scenarios 1 & 2 above, the letters already existed in some form or
another, and Marcion employed them for his own purposes. It is not
really important to define whether or not the Pauline letters (along
with Luke) were already considered sacred scripture by the orthodox by
the time Marcion adopted/adapted them, other than to help understand
why he chose them to be "his" sacred scriptures to replace the
orthodox sacred scriptures (see below).

3) Marcion's fabrications of 2nd century: This would assume that the
letters were created in harmony with Marcion's theology, either to
further his reform efforts or to serve as sacred scripture for his new
churches after the reform effort was rejected by the orthodox. In any
event, his "canon" was intended to replace the sacred scripture of the
orthodox churches (the Septuagint = Christian "Old Testament"). Then
the definition of the orthodox "canon" could be seen as an orthodox
reaction to Marcion, clarifying what books outside of the Lxx they
would consider authoritative. The orthodox continued to accept the Lxx
as sacred scripture, but added newer books as equally authoritative.
The orthodox, then, would have adopted Marcion's canon (at least as
far as the Pauline letters are concerned), and adapted it to reflect
their theology that Jesus was an emissary of the creator God, and that
the creator God was *also* the God of love and compassion. This
adaptation process would have involved adding material for sure, and
possibly deleting some of Marcion's material.

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.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page