14 Nov 2013 
#73 Two arguments in favour 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)? 

And there is another case showing the Pauline epistles were modified by Marcion, as known by Tertullian's 'Against Marcion' and dealing with Galatians 4:24-25:
Book V, Chapter IV "But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has left untouched, ... "For  that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized"; "for these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions, as we have found the word interpreted," the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation to the synagogue of the Jewsaccording to the law, "which gendereth to bondage"--"the other gendereth" above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."
First, let's look at the canonical version of Galatians 4:22-26 & 31:

"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

"So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."
Note: the addition by Marcion of "above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come," replacing the mention of the heavenly Jerusalem, is drawn from Ephesians 1:31.
Let's notice the replacement of "Jerusalem which now is" by Marcion's "the synagogue of the Jews"
But why would Marcion do that? the explanation would be:
Since Jerusalem, as mount Sinai, personifies the Law, then a destroyed Jerusalem (as it was by Marcion's times) would render its correspondence with the Law (still followed among many Jews, therefore undestroyed) totally absurd.

a) When Paul was making the statement, Jerusalem (as the center of Judaism & the Law) was still existing.
b) The word 'synagogue(s)' is never used in the Pauline epistles.

So the switch to "the synagogue of the Jew".
That shows that 'Galatians' was written earlier (when Jerusalem was still standing) and Marcion made some change later in order to avoid the Law being associated with a destroyed & empty city, when still many Jews then were under the (not destroyed) Law.
And with the evidence from 'Romans' (see link above), we can ascertain Marcion's Pauline epistles came later than the corresponding ones written (or dictated) in the first century by Paul.
And for the gospels (Marcion's & Luke's), it is the same, as I demonstrated on that post:
#53 Three arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel 

Cordially, Bernard

Tags: {dating} {Galatians} {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.