14 Nov 2013 
#73 Two arguments in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical" ones

To Blog Entry Page / To Tags Complete List / To My Website
Emphasis mine
In order to use the Tags function, please copy selected {tag_name} (c/w brackets), then go to the Blog Entry Page and paste it in the FIND box of your browser.

On my post #60, I wrote, towards the end:

"What to conclude from all that? Early on (before Marcion), 'Romans', with chapters 15 & 16 missing, was used to make copies. Those co-existed with copies of the full version, for some time.

Furthermore, because:
a) 'Romans' could not end abruptly at 14:23, with no general conclusion, no greetings & no doxology.
b) Chapters 15 & 16 (except the doxology) are typically Pauline & fit well at the end of the letter. Furthermore '1 Clement' surmises Paul went to the extremities of the West, as Paul planned to do in ch. 15 (going to Spain).
The complete letter (but without 16:25-27) had to be written first, before, for unknown reason, copies were made without the two last chapters (with later the doxology being added at the end of ch. 14 in order to provide a badly needed conclusion).
Therefore 'Romans' had to exist in its entirety (up to 16:23) before Marcion's version was written."
For details on how I came to that conclusion, please refer to the post in question:
#60 Did Marcion originate the Pauline epistle 'Romans' (with chapters 15 & 16 not yet written)? 

I am glad Peter Kirby agreed with me for the most part. From a posting on Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com I quote extracts here:
"Restating these to make some of the logic a little more explicit, if that's okay:

A) Romans, as an actual letter, could not end at 14:23. However, neither could it have ended at 14:23 plus the doxology. First, the doxology is not typically Pauline. Second, according to Origen, the Apostolikon did not have the doxology; therefore, the doxology was added later, after the chopping event, to make for a more salubrious ending. On the other hand, partly because the absence of 15-16 is attested in non-Marcionite editions, partly because it might not be terribly offensive to Marcion, it need not be a Marcionite edit. It could be an accidental edit picked up by Marcion ("for unknown reason, copies were made without the two last chapters" and "Early on (before Marcion), 'Romans', with chapters 15 & 16 missing, was used to make copies. And after Marcion's time, among orthodox Christians, for some time, those co-existed with copies of the full versions.") It would be corrected in the dominant stream of tradition, albeit with some lingering confusion over the placement of the doxology (confirming that its origin is as an addendum to chapter 14, although not original to Paul).

B) Chapters 15 & 16 (except the doxology) are typically Pauline & fit well at the end of the letter. And there is no reason to doubt they are original (so the argument goes), so they are original.

C) Furthermore '1 Clement' surmises Paul went to the extremities of the West, as Paul planned to do in ch. 15 (going to Spain). Since 1 Clement is relying on Romans 15 at a very early date (mid-80s on your dating, 1st century in any case according to general consensus), this should confirm the originality of Romans 15...

Paul's claim, for example, to be "a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles" and Paul's request for prayers "that I may be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea" certainly don't seem like the stuff of anti-Marcionite propaganda, nor the kind of thing that a hypothesized zealous carver would want to leave on the cutting room floor. I agree with your conclusion that we should not assume that the reasons for the omission in some manuscripts was ideological...

Yet it does appear that there was an omission of the last two chapters. It's possible that they quite literally just fell off, separated and/or tattered by use, resulting in a still-useful epistle that lacked the last two chapters. This is a known phenomenon in the transmission of texts. This apparently influenced the text used by some church fathers and some of the old Latin manuscripts, as well as the positioning and even the existence of the doxology..."

With that evidence from 'Romans', we can ascertain Marcion's Pauline epistles came later than the corresponding ones written (or dictated) in the first century by Paul.
I have one more argument in favor of the above conclusion:
1) According to my studies, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Philippians are, for each, three letters combined into one.
I am not the only one to think some Pauline epistles were combined:

"... the letters we call 1 and 2 Corinthians formed part of a larger collection that originally consisted of several letters... We are left with the impression that the extant letters reflect an editing and combining of writings, compiled as the community processed and integrated the words of the apostle"
The Catholic study bible, second edition, page 450
My evidence is here:
for 1 Corinthians
for 2 Corinthians

2) Tertullian and Epiphanius of Salamis were witnesses Marcion worked on these combinations.
But did Marcion combine himself these epistles? In that case Irenaeus & Tertullian would have stated, as they did for the truncations in the epistles, Marcion combined them. However Irenaeus & Tertullian did not.

Marcion had his Pauline Corpus not based on Paul's original ones, but from their later combination. That shows the Pauline epistles came first, ahead of Marcion's versions.
And for the gospels (Marcion's & Luke's), it is the same, as I demonstrated on that post:
#53 Arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel 

Cordially, Bernard

Tags: {dating} {Marcion} {Paul} {Paul's epistles} {Romans}
Your comment: please copy "post #73" (to be pasted in your reply) and then click on "New Comment".

Comment from: George Hall

What's problematic about all this is Marcion was still first. Sure, it's very easy for another group a few decades later to claim THEY were first and even manufacture supposed evidence that they were supposedly first...but by their own testimony, they were still going on about the fact they were a minority. A minority so small their own material wasn't even truly accepted by most Christians often for another two centuries. And then only forced through with the help of a Roman emperor.

What enables me to be more sure proto-Orthodoxy wasn't what it claimed was the fact that in the literary record we find in Josephus, we have a heap of data on the ONLY real Galilean rabbi starting an entire new stream of Judaism in the first century...Judas the Galilean, founder of the zealots.

Of course, the Gnostic and heretical side of things was a whole side-issue in its own thinking...but seems a reasonable progression from that OTHER group that wasn't mentioned in the NT, the Essenes.

Whether it's the Gnostics first and proto-Orthodox second, which it really looks to be...neither of them really wanted to relate what they were on about to the zealots.

Perhaps the Gnostics were the more honest at least knowing their version was purely allegory. The proto-Orthodox, on the other hand, had to invent a whole back-story. And it's clear they had to read up on Josephus for part of that.

Comment from: George Hall

There's also what was happening in Rabbinical Judaism between 70A.D. and the 135A.D. period to consider.

The only thing even remotely close over in that just before Hadrian curtailed the Bar Kochba revolt is something called the "Two Powers in Heaven" controversy. In real terms, closer to the idea promulgated by the Gnostics of the God of the Israelites/Jews and another God. Perhaps this was the last remaining bit of sectarianism remaining out of groups like the Essenes.

It's interesting that some groups in first century Judea WERE foreign influenced and bringing in ideas from Alexandria, Greece and even further east...ideas of a God posited by Plato, for instance.

Plato's idea of God, Logos, even the Cosmic Cross, would clearly come across to rabbis as "two powers in Heaven."

They fought it, obviously.

But "two powers in Heaven" really looks more the Gnostic idea of two Gods. The Demiurge God of the Jews and the "higher" God of Plato et al.

Generally it loooks like early Rabbinical Judaism was first up against Gnosticism before it was ever up against proto-Orthodox/pro-Catholic Christians.