In another thread, PaulSceptic wrote:
"All the Calvinists books in the world can't save the one 'born out of due' season from the fact that he has nothing upon which to claim an apostleship but a vision of a light and a voice, and yet he calls the inner circle of the twelve (Peter, James, and John) nobodies who only 'seemed to be something' (Gal 2:6,9) and then takes another jab at them saying 'if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.' (Gal 6:3) Ok, so who is the nobody deceiving himself into thinking he is somebody? Paul who saw a light and heard a voice he didn't even recognize as Jesus' voice and had to ask 'Who are you Lord?' or Peter, James, and John, the inner circle of the twelve who alone got to see Jesus's glory on the mount of transfiguration (Mat 17:1-2), and see him raise Jairus' daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37), and who alone he took closest to him in Gethsemane the night in which he was betrayed (Mark 14:33)? Who's the nobody deceiving himself (not to mention his followers)? It ain't Peter. It ain't James. And sure ain't John. There's only one name left."
He assumes, without argument, that men like Peter and John are in view in Galatians 6:3. And he ignores the many places where Paul speaks positively of such men. He ignores the other evidence we have for Paul's apostleship.
Regarding the common claim that the apostles or the early Christians in general were significantly more disunited than Christians have traditionally believed, see here.
Not to mention:
ReplyDelete---
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
---
Seems that Peter thought Paul was writing Scripture, and Paul kind of mentions that he's an apostle in those very letters that Peter endorsed.
My position is that the "Paul" of Galatians is not the real Paul (the apostle of the church of Antioch from Acts) but that Galatians is written by Marcion. The claim that Peter, James, and John are Judaizers (as found in Galatians) is not only false, but also is being put in Paul's mouth by Marcrion as part of his attempt to transform Paul from an apostle of men (ie the church of Antioch) to an apostle of Christ and to the one and only apostle. When the proto-Catholics absorbed Marcion's canon, they also added the refernce to the Pauline epistles as Scripture to 2nd Peter.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't ignore anything or leave it without argument as you can see on my blog. As to Gal 6:3 being a jab at PJJ compare with Gal 2:6 and 2:9.
ReplyDeletePAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete"My position is that the 'Paul' of Galatians is not the real Paul."
My position is that Paulsceptic is not a real person, but just a virtual character in a malfunctioning video game.
PAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete"My position is that the 'Paul' of Galatians is not the real Paul."
My position is that ScepticPaul is actually SepticPaul.
It looks like Paulsceptic is parroting the position of Robert Price, who is parroting the position of the radical Dutch critics.
ReplyDeleteActually came to this conclusion independently, but thanks for the names to further my research. And thanks for showing that you have nothing substantial to say against my conclusions. I incorrectly assumed that Calvinists might be able to at least attempt a defence of their apostle. Boy was I wrong!
ReplyDeletePAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete"And thanks for showing that you have nothing substantial to say against my conclusions."
Since all you have are conclusions, there is nothing to refute. Claiming that Marcion wrote Galatians is not an argument. If you claim that Tina Fey wrote Galatians, is the burden of proof on me to disprove your claim?
This might come as a shock to you, but the idea that Paul is an apostle isn't specific to Calvinism. Arminians and even Catholics and Orthodox believe that Paul is an apostle. So the fact that you keep targeting Calvinists shows just how much homework you need to do.
ReplyDeleteI'd add that even very liberal scholars think that Paul wrote Galatians.
ReplyDeletePAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete"My position is that the 'Paul' of Galatians is not the real Paul (the apostle of the church of Antioch from Acts) but that Galatians is written by Marcion."
My position is that the "Marcion" of "Hippolytus" is not the real Marcion (the heretic from Sinope in Pontus) but that the Syntagma of "Hippolytus" was written by Paul.
BTW, one obvious problem (among many) with attributed Galatians to Marcion is that Galatians has a high view of OT history.
ReplyDeletePaulSceptic said...
ReplyDelete"When the proto-Catholics absorbed Marcion's canon, they also added the refernce to the Pauline epistles as Scripture to 2nd Peter."
Nobody added to Marcion's canon. To the contrary, Marcion subtracted from the preexisting canon.
My personal theory is that Galatians was written by an apostate Jewish butcher (real name: Wiener Würstchen) who wanted to set up a hotdog stand in downtown Jerusalem. He had to attack the kosher laws before he could sell hot dogs to hungry Pharisees. Herr Prof. Frankfurter Würstel, of the Universität Tübingen, was the first scholar to propose this groundbreaking theory of authorship, back in the 19C.
ReplyDeleteThat seems plausible.
ReplyDeletePaulSceptic wrote:
ReplyDelete"My position is that the 'Paul' of Galatians is not the real Paul (the apostle of the church of Antioch from Acts) but that Galatians is written by Marcion."
Not only did you not say that in your previous comments, but your comments above also contradict what you said earlier. You wrote:
"All the Calvinists books in the world can't save the one 'born out of due' season from the fact that he has nothing upon which to claim an apostleship but a vision of a light and a voice, and yet he calls the inner circle of the twelve (Peter, James, and John) nobodies who only 'seemed to be something' (Gal 2:6,9) and then takes another jab at them saying 'if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.' (Gal 6:3) Ok, so who is the nobody deceiving himself into thinking he is somebody? Paul who saw a light and heard a voice he didn't even recognize as Jesus' voice and had to ask 'Who are you Lord?' or Peter, James, and John, the inner circle of the twelve who alone got to see Jesus's glory on the mount of transfiguration (Mat 17:1-2), and see him raise Jairus' daughter from the dead (Mark 5:37), and who alone he took closest to him in Gethsemane the night in which he was betrayed (Mark 14:33)? Who's the nobody deceiving himself (not to mention his followers)? It ain't Peter. It ain't James. And sure ain't John. There's only one name left."
You're taking a phrase from 1 Corinthians ("born out of due season") and facts about Paul described in Acts and combining them with what we find in Galatians. You're referring to the man in question as "Paul", and you're identifying him as the man of 1 Corinthians and Acts. But now you tell us that you think Marcion is the man of Galatians, whereas the Paul of Acts is historical. Since your comments above name and refer to the apostle Paul, and you say nothing of Marcion, how were we supposed to conclude that Marcion or a Paul other than the apostle was who you had in mind when you referred to the "only name left"? If you previously meant to say what you're saying now, then you're a poor communicator.
And your argument is still problematic. Galatians 2:6 and 2:9 don't refer to James, Peter, and John as "nobodies". Paul's comment that those men didn't contribute anything to him in the context he's addressing isn't equivalent to calling those three men "nobodies" in a sense that would justify your argument. Similarly, saying that those men were reputed as pillars of the church isn't equivalent to calling them "nobodies". If you want us to believe otherwise, then argue for your conclusion rather than just asserting it. Paul refers to James and Peter as apostles (Galatians 1:18-19), he wants to work in fellowship with them (Galatians 2:2, 2:9-10), he acknowledges that Peter was given a ministry to the Jews similar to his (Paul's) ministry to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-8), etc. You want us to believe that Paul considered such men "nobodies" because of his comments in Galatians 2:6, 2:9, and 6:3? That doesn't make sense. He doesn't refer to them as "nobodies" in those passages, and he speaks highly of them elsewhere in Galatians. He also speaks highly of them in other letters.
Your interpretation of Galatians 6:3 remains unjustified. Galatians 2:6 refers to "contributing nothing". Galatians 6:3 refers to "being nothing". The two aren't the same. And even if they were, the same terminology can be applied to different individuals in different contexts. The fact that such terminology is used in two passages wouldn't prove that the same individuals must be in view.
You write:
"The claim that Peter, James, and John are Judaizers (as found in Galatians) is not only false, but also is being put in Paul's mouth by Marcrion as part of his attempt to transform Paul from an apostle of men (ie the church of Antioch) to an apostle of Christ and to the one and only apostle."
Where does Galatians refer to James, Peter, and John as Judaizers? It doesn't. And if Galatians is meant to portray Paul as "the one and only apostle", why does Galatians 1:18-19 refer to James and Peter as apostles? Why does Galatians 2:8 refer to Peter as an apostle? Why does Paul seek the cooperation of John, along with James and Peter, in Galatians 2, thereby suggesting that John is an apostle as well?
Earlier, you referred to the accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts as if you accepted them. If you do accept them, how can you conclude that Paul is only an "apostle of men"? Acts portrays Paul as having received a commission from Christ.
Just how many New Testament documents do you reject as forgeries or as deceptions of some other sort? How do you determine which portions of Acts to accept and which to reject?
You write:
"When the proto-Catholics absorbed Marcion's canon, they also added the refernce to the Pauline epistles as Scripture to 2nd Peter."
Paul's letters are cited by multiple second-century sources who opposed Marcion. Why would they "absorb" the canon of their enemy? And why are the early enemies of Christianity ignorant of a series of apostolic forgeries that don't appear until nearly a century after their purported author had died? I've read a large amount of the patristic literature, including many hundreds of pages of early Christian interaction with opponents of the religion. Your theory is unknown to the early Christians and unknown to their opponents. On the early non-Christian sources, see here. On the early Christian sources, see here.
If you think that 2 Peter is genuine aside from the passage about Paul, as your language above suggests (though maybe you're communicating poorly again), then where's the manuscript or other evidence for an edition of 2 Peter that doesn't include that passage? If the document was circulating without that passage for nearly a century, it's not likely that all traces of the original version would be absent from the historical record. Where's your evidence that the passage was added later?
And how do you address the evidence cited in the article I linked in my original post above? Why would disciples of other apostles, such as Clement of Rome and Polycarp, speak so highly of Paul, referring to him as an apostle at the level of men like Peter, not just as somebody who was an "apostle of men"?
If the letters of Paul that are referred to by men like Clement and Polycarp were genuine letters later replaced by Marcion's fabrications, then I would raise the same issues I raised above with regard to 2 Peter. Where's your manuscript evidence, for example? Or are the documents attributed to men like Clement and Polycarp unreliable as well? If so, where's your evidence for that conclusion? Again, just how many documents do you dismiss as forgeries or as altered in some significant way? How many people would have to have been involved in such a scenario? Where's the historical evidence?
At your blog, you claim:
"Does it [Acts 9:3-7] say he [Paul] saw Jesus? No. And obviously, he did not, because if he had seen a man with nail scars in his hands, he would not have needed to ask the voice 'Who are You, Lord?' He would have recognized the man as Jesus! So, he only saw a light, and no Jesus. Did he recognize the voice as Jesus' voice? Obviously not. Why would he say 'Who are You, Lord?' if he recognized the voice? So, he didn't see Jesus, but only a light. And he heard a voice—one that he couldn't even recognize as Jesus' voice."
You're making some unreasonable assumptions and ignoring some of the evidence. You don't have to look at somebody for a long time in order to have seen the person. You can see a person without having the time to think about whether you should be looking for "nail scars". How would you even know whether the clothing covered the scars? Paul wasn't expecting to see Jesus, so why would he be looking for nail scars? And why is he supposed to recognize the voice? Even if he had heard Jesus' voice during His earthly ministry, why should we think that Jesus' voice after His glorification would be the same, and why should we think that Paul wouldn't ask who He is for the sake of confirmation, even if he suspected that the person was Christ?
And why limit ourselves to Acts 9:3-7? Acts 9:17 refers to how Jesus appeared to Paul. In Acts 22:14, Paul reports that Ananias referred to how he (Paul) had seen Jesus. Acts 26:16 has Jesus saying that He appeared to Paul.
I haven't read the entirety of your blog, but I've read enough of it to see that your position seems to be highly problematic. Maybe your position makes more sense than it seems to. Maybe you're a remarkably poor communicator who keeps writing in such a manner as to suggest that he believes things other than what he actually believes. Maybe you're miscommunicating over and over again, in context after context. But I think it's more likely that there are some problems with your reasoning, not just your communication of that reasoning.
In closing, I would suggest that readers review the earlier thread where PaulSceptic posted. Notice how irrational he was there. Notice how he ignored so many of the criticisms of his reasoning. Yet, he now tells us that we've been "showing that we have nothing substantial to say against his conclusions".
"BTW, one obvious problem (among many) with attributed Galatians to Marcion is that Galatians has a high view of OT history."
ReplyDeleteYou've clearly never read Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion. Galatians was the first letter in Marcion's canon and Romans was the 4th. Obviously the OT material was not there, however.
Why is it that Justin Marty doesn't quote Paul? Because Paul's epistles were written by Marcion in 140 AD. Then a few decades later, all of the sudden he is accepted by Catholics like Irenaeus and Tertullian who begin accusing Marcion of mutilating Paul's epistles. Why is nobody quoting Paul in the decades between Marcion and Irenaus? Because they're too busy interpolating Marcion's epistles and getting them ready for Catholic consumption.
Why are docetic phrases still left in Paul's epistles? Jesus coming in the likeness of flesh? being found in appearance as man?
Why are Marcionite practices like baptism for the dead referenced?
Why does the Paul of Galatians hate Peter, James and John?
Why does the Paul of Galatians claim to have received his gospel from a direct revelation when he clearly received it from the mouths of the men that he persecuted?
The answer is obvious. And yes, of course Catholics accept Paul too, as do many other Protestants besides Calvinists, but Calvinists are the ones ramming an overly literal misinterpretation of two chapters of his down everyone's throats, so they are the ones who bear the real burden of proof. But they'll boil in dung in Gehenna with Macrion soon enough.
PaulSceptic wrote:
ReplyDelete"Why is it that Justin Marty doesn't quote Paul? Because Paul's epistles were written by Marcion in 140 AD."
Even if Justin hadn't quoted Paul, your conclusion wouldn't follow. People can use or not use a particular source, such as Paul, for a variety of reasons. There are many New Testament documents that Justin doesn't use much or at all. He doesn't use the gospel of John nearly as much as he uses the other three gospels, for example. He could use Paul's letters less than other documents without an implication that "Paul's epistles were written by Marcion in 140".
Quotations of Paul's letters aren't the only issue that's relevant here. Allusions would be relevant as well. See, for example, the scripture index in Michael Slusser's edition of Justin's Dialogue With Trypho (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2003). Oskar Skarsaune writes:
"There is no reason to doubt that Justin made extensive use of Paul's letters, especially Romans and Galatians....Justin can be shown to have borrowed many of Paul's quotations directly from him, as well as some of Paul's expositions." (in Sara Parvis and Paul Foster, edd., Justin Martyr And His Worlds [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2007]. p. 74)
See, also, the notes for Skarsaune's comments on that page, which give examples and further documentation.
Justin refers to "the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them" (Dialogue With Trypho, 103). Notice the plural: "apostles" and "those who followed them". The use of the plural matches our four gospels: apostles (Matthew, John) and those who followed them (Mark, Luke). Justin doesn't cite the number four anywhere, but his comments are consistent with the collection of four gospels that sources living just after Justin's time refer to. Luke was a disciple of Paul, so Justin seems to be referring to Paul as an apostle. And he doesn't distinguish between some higher apostleship of Matthew, Peter (associated with Mark's gospel), and John and a lower apostleship of Paul. It doesn't seem that Justin agreed with your view of Paul's apostleship.
You write:
"Why is nobody quoting Paul in the decades between Marcion and Irenaus?"
Paul and his writings are discussed in ways that are problematic for your argument long before the time when Irenaeus wrote. I've already cited examples: Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc. For more examples of the widespread use of Paul's letters early on, see Bruce Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) and Clayton Jefford's The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006).
And there wasn't much time between the year 140 and when Irenaeus wrote. How many extant writings do we have for that period? The ones we do have don't have to quote Paul in order to be relevant to your argument in some manner. Again, why only look for quotations when quotations aren't the only relevant data? See the discussions of The Martyrdom Of Polycarp and other relevant documents from this time period in Bruce Metzger's book cited above, for example. Even in the narrow timeframe you're focusing on, we find evidence of widespread use of Paul's letters.
Irenaeus' comments suggest that the letters were already widely accepted, studied, and cited by the time he wrote. One of his arguments in Against Heresies is that the apostolic faith is found in churches around the world and was delivered publicly, unlike the private traditions of the Gnostics. Why would Irenaeus use such an argument if the Pauline documents, which he frequently cites as scripture and as written by the historical Paul, had just come into existence recently? Not only does Irenaeus refer to the orthodox churches' possession of Paul's letters, but he also refers to the use of those letters by heretics (Against Heresies 1:3:1, 1:3:4). How could Pauline forgeries composed around a century after Paul's death have been so widely accepted as genuine Pauline documents and in so short a period of time?
You write:
"Why are docetic phrases still left in Paul's epistles? Jesus coming in the likeness of flesh? being found in appearance as man? Why are Marcionite practices like baptism for the dead referenced? Why does the Paul of Galatians hate Peter, James and John? Why does the Paul of Galatians claim to have received his gospel from a direct revelation when he clearly received it from the mouths of the men that he persecuted?"
Why don't you interact with what traditional Christian scholarship has argued on such issues? It's not as if you're bringing up subjects that haven't been addressed before. You're using dubious, highly speculative interpretations of some passages in Paul to overturn the far weightier evidence against your position.
PAULSCEPTIC SAID:
ReplyDelete“You've clearly never read Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion. Galatians was the first letter in Marcion's canon and Romans was the 4th. Obviously the OT material was not there, however.”
I’m disappointed by your naïveté. Surely you don’t think there was a real Tertullian writing against a real Marcion. “Tertullian’s book is “obviously” pseudonymous.
And the stuff about Marcion in “Tertullian’s” book was “obviously” interpolated by a later scribe. How can you be so credulous in your naïve appeal to church fathers like Tertullian? Didn’t you know that all the patristic literature is pseudepigraphal?
Marcion never existed. He’s a fictitious character, invented by Lorenzo Valla, to dupe gullible people like you.
PaulSceptic said...
ReplyDelete“You've clearly never read Tertullian's Five Books Against Marcion. Galatians was the first letter in Marcion's canon and Romans was the 4th. Obviously the OT material was not there, however.”
It’s very convenient for you to selectively appeal to the evidence, then, when the evidence doesn’t fit your theory, arbitrarily attribute any counterevidence to a later interpolation.
I’m tempted to respond, but I don’t think you’re the real PaulSceptic. I suspect that you’re a sockpuppet impersonating the real PaulSceptic. Your comment is obviously an interpolation by the Pseudo-PaulSceptic.