I have copied Roger Parvus's recent comment here as a post in its own right. (Neil)
Couchoud’s books contain many valuable insights. He was rightly dissatisfied with the mainstream scenario of Christian origins, and he rearranged the pieces of the puzzle together in a new way that provides a fresh perspective on them. There is much that he says that I agree with. I would not be surprised, for instance, if he is right about the role played by Clement of Rome. But I am disappointed that Couchoud—like practically everyone else—still does not take seriously Marcion’s claim that the original author of the Gospel and Pauline letter collection was someone who professed allegiance to a God higher than the Creator of this world, to a God higher than the God of the Jews.
The automatic assumption on the part of confessional scholars
The automatic assumption on the part of confessional scholars is that Marcion must have been mistaken in his views regarding the origin of the Gospel and Pauline letters. I cannot recall ever having come across a single mainstream Christian book that even considered for a moment that Marcion may have been right. Their attitude is understandable since, if Marcion was right, it would mean that the original Gospel and the Pauline letters were written by someone who was basically a gnostic, by someone who sounds very much like Simon of Samaria or one of his followers. Perish the heretical thought! But even non-confessional admirers of Marcion like Couchoud seem likewise unable to take seriously Marcion’s claim. Instead they make Marcion himself the creator of the Gospel and say that he either created the Pauline letters or imposed his own religious ideas on letters that did not originally contain them. For some reason this solution is thought to be preferable to taking Marcion at his word. As far as we know Marcion never claimed to be the author of those writings. He claimed that when he came across them they were in a contaminated state. They had been interpolated by people who Judaized them, who turned their original author into someone who believed in a single highest God who was the God of the Old Testament and the Creator of the world. Is Marcion’s claim so unbelievable? Is it really out of the question that the original Gospel and Pauline letters were Simonian and that it was their opponents who Judaized those writings? (I say “Simonian” because the early record does not contain the name of any other first-century Christians who held the belief that the creators of this world were inferior to the supreme God, and that those creators tried to hold men in bondage by means of the Law.)
Too much trust in the writings of the heresy hunters?
I am aware that someone could object: “You’re trusting too much in the writings of the proto-orthodox heresy hunters. We should not believe their expositions of what Marcion taught.” But why not? Marcionites were apparently active in many of the same places as the proto-orthodox. And they competed for converts, each side looking to win over converts from the other. In such a situation, in competition with contemporary rivals who are rubbing shoulders with members of your flock, it wouldn’t have made sense to set up straw men. That would have made it too easy for the Marcionites. What sense would it make to set up straw men that the Marcionites could knock down in five seconds by saying: “That’s not what we believe.” Why waste time writing extensive refutations of arguments that your opponent can quickly dismiss with a simple: “They must be arguing against somebody else, because those aren’t our beliefs. Let me explain to you what we believe.” I am as suspicious as the next guy about many things in the proto-orthodox writings. But when it comes to what Marcion taught, I am inclined to trust that they actually engaged with his doctrine.
I am also inclined to believe that Tertullian was telling the truth when he said that Marcion initially held the same faith as the Roman church. He says that Marcion made his substantial monetary donation to that church “primo calore fidei” (“in the first flush of faith”). But if Marcion was a new convert, how on earth could he have ever gotten the idea that the Gospel and Letters had been interpolated? Was a practical-minded shipowner really that sharp-eyed? I doubt it. The extant record says he at some point made the acquaintance of the Simonian Cerdo. If anyone would have recognized what had been done to the Simonian writings it would have been the Simonians themselves. True, being a secretive bunch, their hands were tied to some extent. How do you expose the fraud without at the same time revealing your secret doctrines! But Marcion was not bound in the same way by secrecy. If he learned from Cerdo that the proto-orthodox Gospel and Pauline letters were contaminated, there was nothing to stop him from saying so and from trying to restore them as best he could.
To explain Paul’s zigzagging
To me, accepting at face value Marcion’s assessment of the Pauline letters is the best way to make sense of their contents. To explain Paul’s zigzagging we don’t have to resort to strained psychological or tactical explanations. Anyone who has read mainstream Pauline commentaries knows what I am talking about. They contain seemingly endless psychological reasons why Paul shifts back and forth on the contentious issues that separated the proto-orthodox from the early gnostics. If he speaks dismissively of the Law in one passage but praises it in another, it is because he was impulsive by nature. Or he was not a clear or systematic thinker. Or he was so passionate about his beliefs that he failed to notice the contradictions in what he wrote. He wrote things when he was angry that he surely later regretted. Etc… Etc. Or his reasons were tactical. Yes, it must be admitted that he used gnostic language and spoke like a gnostic. But as Schmithals, for instance, would explain it (away?), he was not really a gnostic. It was only a tactic he used because his opponents were gnostics: “Paul becomes a Gnostic to the Gnostics, in order to win the Gnostics” (Gnosticism in Corinth, p. 273). “… he (Paul) can have acquired the Gnostic elements of his theological set of concepts only during the fifteen-year stay in Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia…” (p. 71) But, Schmithals assures us, Paul’s knowledge of Gnosticism must have been very superficial, for “If Paul had known the actual meaning of his Gnostic terminology, he would not at all have been able to use this to express his own proclamation…” (p. 71.) Hmmm. Unfortunately, Schmithals convinced very few people that Paul’s Corinthian opponents were actually gnostics. So the nagging question remains: why then did Paul speak like a gnostic? My suspicion is because he was one, the first Christian one. And that his given name was Simon.
Instead of submitting the author of the Paulines to psychological or tactical analysis to explain his contradictions, I think consideration should be given first to the earliest explanation, that of Marcion: someone has tampered with the letters; they were originally gnostic but were subsequently Judaized. I know that playing the interpolation card looks like an “easy-out.” But surely it counts for something that from the first moment the Pauline collection of letters turns up in the early record a prominent Christian, Marcion, was already screaming: “Interpolated!”
A Paul by any other name
Now, as far as is known Marcion always used the name ‘Paul” for the original author of the Gospel and Letters, the Apostle who professed allegiance not to the Creator, the God of the Jews, but to a supreme God far above the Creator of this world. There is no clear indication in the extant record that Marcion viewed Paul as a nickname for Simon of Samaria. This is not as surprising as appears at first glance. The early record is clear that Simonians used many names and titles for Simon. And it seems that in time the name Simon became a kind of sacred name to the Simonians. According to Hippolytus, Simonians were okay with calling Simon ‘Zeus’ or “Lord,’ but accused anyone who used the name ‘Simon’ of being ignorant of the mysteries. So it may be that Cerdo did not reveal it to Marcion.
There is also a Nicene summary of Simonianism that seems to connect Simon’s name with the hymn in chapter 2 of Philippians. Simon claimed to be a new manifestation of the Son who suffered in Judaea, and Simonians claimed that Simon was given his name because he “heard/obeyed” the Father when he earlier descended to this world to redeem men. The etymological root of the name Simon means “heard, hearkened, obeyed,” so it actually makes better sense of the hymn in Philippians if the name given was ‘Simon’ and was only subsequently changed to ‘Jesus’ when the letter was Judaized. I think there is also double-meaning Simonian wordplay still present in Mark’s Gospel that involve Simon’s name. For instance, when the Father says at the Transfiguration: “This is my beloved Son—Hear Him” the words “Hear Him” are both a command and an identification i.e. This is my beloved Son whose name is “Hear Him” (Simon).
To finish up: Marcion never fully embraced Simonianism, but I think that from his acquaintance with Cerdo he learned that the Gospel and Pauline letters in use in Rome in the 130s had been interpolated. I think Marcion was correct in that basic contention. And I think he was right that the original versions of those writings were authored by someone who believed in a supreme God above the Creator God of the Jews. Those writings viewed this world including the flesh as inferior not because of some sin by man, but intrinsically by reason of its creation by the inferior world-creating angels. And they portrayed the future not as some millennial kingdom of God on this earth, but as escape of the souls of the redeemed from this world, back to the invisible, immaterial world of the highest God.
I part ways with Marcion, however, in his identification of who it was that Judaized the Gospel and Letters. He apparently, according to Tertullian, accused the false brethren mentioned in the letter to the Galatians. I suspect it was done by the proto-orthodox Roman church around 130 CE. And Marcion apparently thought the Gospel was written by Paul. I think the first Gospel that contained a life of Jesus was a Simonian allegory about Simon that may have been written as late as the 120s.
The proto-orthodox Judaization of the Simonian Gospel and Letters was ultimately successful, of course. They succeeded in co-opting Simonian Christianity.
Latest posts by Roger Parvus (see all)
- A Simonian Origin for Christianity? — A few more thoughts - 2023-03-08 00:03:04 GMT+0000
- Revising the Series “A Simonian Origin for Christianity”, Part 4 / Conclusion – Historical Jesus? - 2019-03-07 00:35:19 GMT+0000
- Revising the Series “A Simonian Origin for Christianity”, Part 3 - 2019-03-06 23:57:30 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
26 thoughts on “Was Marcion Right about Paul’s letters?”
Now “Simon” being as much a symbolic name as “Paul” I can understand. The Gospel of Mark’s treatment of “Simon” (in all its appearances) has always struck me as much symbol or pun as the name Jairus or Capernaum in the way it is used in the narrative — and even Jesus. I had never known what to do with the meaning of the name, though, or where it might fit as a symbolic name beyond Mark’s Gospel — till you posted this!
Neil can you comment more on how the Gospels were interpolated by people who Judaized them and who turned their original author into someone who believed in a single highest God who was the God of the Old Testament and the creator of the world? Where can I find specific evidence that would substantiate this claim?
I’m not the one to ask, sorry. The best I can do is to point you to posts by Roger Parvus here — see the Roger Parvus tag link just above this post.
I still think that Marcion was right about Paul’s letters being interpolated. I now think, however, that he misidentified the interpolators. As I see it, the first interpolators of Paul’s letters were Simonians (adepts of Simon of Samaria). Their additions made Paul look like a preacher of a Simonized Jesus, that is, a Jesus having a divine preexistence. And their additions foisted onto Paul a new Vision of Isaiah gospel featuring a demigod Jesus who descended through the heavens unrecognized on his way to this world.
[By the way, in the early 20th century Wilhelm Bousset (1865-1920), in his book Kyrios Christos, proposed that Hellenists from Syria were responsible for the early radical change in belief regarding Jesus. Bousset argued that Hellenist converts who had previously belonged to a Kyrios cult took their Kyrios beliefs with them and applied them to Jesus. Bousset, however, thought that this belief contamination had already occurred before Paul came on the scene. And this left him open to criticism like the following from Albert Schweitzer:
“The importation of paganisms of this kind into the faith would certainly have brought them into conflict with the primitive Church in Jerusalem. But we know nothing of any such controversy”. (p. 31, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, The Seabury Press, 1968).
Schweitzer was right. But once we recognize the interpolated nature of Paul’s letters, another solution becomes available: the belief contamination occurred after the primitive Jerusalem church had ceased to exist. And it occurred by means of interpolations made to Paul’s letters sometime between CE 70 and 135. It is within that time period that we can find the conflict Schweitzer was looking for, reflected in the 7 letters to churches in chapters 2 and 3 of the book of Revelation.
Schweitzer also claimed that the sacramentalism in the Pauline letters is different from that in the Hellenistic mystery-religions:
“Baptism is for him (Paul) a being buried and rising again… How soberly realistic is this sacramental view compared with that of the Greek mystery-religions. In these everything is founded upon the symbolic ceremony.” (p. 19)
But again, perhaps Schweitzer was looking in the wrong place. Among the few things we know about the teaching of the Simonian Menander was that he apparently held a quite realistic view of baptism: “His disciples received resurrection through baptism into him, and they can no longer die, but remain without growing old, immortal.” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 23, 5). The proto-orthodox mocked that belief, taking it to refer to the body. But given what we know about the Simonians, it likely had the resurrection and immortality of the soul in view. And if so, how is it different or any less realistic that what the interpolated Pauline letters say about baptism?
Another of Schweitzer’s objections concerned predestination:
“Another profound difference is the fact that Hellenism, unlike Paul’s teaching, does not postulate any connection between predestination and mysticism. … In Paul, on the contrary, the idea is, that by a predestined necessity some share the fate of the world while others, through Christ, become participants of the future glory” (p. 16).
But again, was Schweitzer looking in the wrong place? For Simonians apparently believed in some kind of predestination. According to Irenaeus, the Simoninan Saturnilus of Antioch “was the first to say that two kinds of men had been moulded by the angels, the one wicked, the other good.” (Against Heresies, 1, 24, 2).
So, in short, we can find in the interpolated Pauline letters a pre-existent Simon-like Jesus together with beliefs about realistic sacraments and predestination that mesh quite well with what we know about Simonianism. Bousset’s Kyrios cult may well have been Simonianism. Simon, according to Hippolytus, was worshipped by his adepts under the title of Kyrios. And they believed that he was the Son who suffered in Judaea. It may be that some of them tried to buttress those beliefs by interpolating them into Paul’s letters sometime between CE 70 and 135.]
But what does your model leave Paul as saying about Jesus? Or are you believing, as some apparently believe, that the original letters by Paul were not about Jesus at all, but were writings to gentile “God-fearers” who admired Judaism but did not want to follow its laws?
I wonder if these original letters by a pre-Simonian figure “Paul” were used by Hypsistarians (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07611a.htm), and Paul was the Hypsistarian religious authority figure under whose name doctrine was stored. Marcion himself could have been a Hypsistarian, the geography is right.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “The existence of these Hypsistarians must have been partially responsible for the astounding swiftness of the spread of Christianity in Asia Minor…”
I was so sure I had posted something about the cult of Theos Hypsistos way back but finally tracked down a half-finished post lost in my drafts from 2010. Thanks for the reminder. I must get back to it!
In the fluid Jewish Christian spectrum of competing syncretisms at the time the Quran was collated I wonder if this was an element. Rather than a new religion whoever was just calling people to follow an earlier covenant in this sort of manner: https://themaydan.com/2017/07/hanifs-theosebes-god-fearers-common-link-judaism-christianity-islam-historical-quranic-context/
http://www.ricerchefilosofiche.it/files/God-Fearers.pdf [a pain to read with the plethora of footnotes making up more than half of it all at the end]
The Shia fixation with an epithet Ali has something to do with these Hypsistarians who Goethe felt an affinity for: http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2013/01/goethe-and-hypsistarians-of-asia-minor.html
Al-‘Ali (The High) Al-A’la (The Most High) and how does it correlate with Hypsistarians the monotheistic worshippers of the Hypsistos, i.e. of the “Most High” God?
“To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth, and He is al-’Ali (the High), al-Adhim (the Exalted)” (Surah ash-Shura:4) “Glorify the name of your Lord, al-A’la (the Most High)” (Surah al-A’la:1)
I am looking forward to serious discussion of the Hypsistarians, thank you, and I hope that Mark reposts his post below. While the genesis of Islam is complicated and difficult to understand (not least because of the necessary languages) it does seem that Eastern Christianities had a crucial role.
It does seem to me that the term “God-fearer” has two different meanings in the Christian literature that are never treated separately, but should be: 1) an ethno-religion of an ethnic group in north-central Turkey (the Hypsistarians), a group to which I suspect Marcion and the first “Paul” figure belonged; 2) semi-proselytes of Gentile background who attended synagogues of the Jdueans, mainly in the East, and could be from any ethnic background. The first was an ethnic group that had their own synagogues and their own history; the second were individuals.
I think the real Paul believed in a Jesus who had been crucified by the Romans and who was about to come with God’s angels to establish the reign of God on earth. This belief would have been no different from that of the Jerusalem Christians. But where Paul was distinctive was in his claim that Gentile God-fearers, through faith in Jesus, could also be part of the coming kingdom. Circumcision was not necessary for them.
For years I had a big problem with the silence of Paul’s letters regarding the teachings and doings of a historical Jesus. But if the letters were massively interpolated by Simonians that problem no longer exists for me. The tampering made the letters convey beliefs about a pre-existent Simon-like Jesus and brought in material that likely originated in the Simonians own religious gatherings. In those circumstances I would not expect the letters to display any interest in the real and very different Jesus.
Eventually the Simonians did get around to dealing with the historical Jesus. I think gMark is for the most part a Simonian inflation and manipulation of some barebones information about him. Later, no doubt, the proto-orthodox themselves added some further touch-ups before letting their own people read it.
Why do you believe this? It is not mentioned in the earliest surviving Christian literature (the epistles).
What was this information, and why do you believe it to have been true information about Jesus rather than, for example, reasoning based upon scripture, revelation, and/or the need of a work of allegory?
I am not criticizing your conclusions, but I am interested in learning more about the reasoning that led you from mythicism towards this very strange historicism.
For me it all comes down to reaching a satisfying explanation for the zigzagging in the Pauline letters, some of which are thought to be the earliest components of the New Testament. In doing this I also consider the earliest accounts we have about the Christians who were later tagged heretical. Marcion was the earliest to call attention to the unevenness and to cry “Interpolation!”. I still think that is the correct explanation, but whereas Marcion saw basically two steps in the process (1. An original gnostic Paul whose letters were 2. interpolated by Judaizing Christians), I now think there were three (1. The original Paul, a Jew with apocalyptic beliefs, whose letters were 2. massively interpolated by Simonians sometime between CE 70 and 135, and then 3. further touched-up by the proto-orthodox Christians sometime between CE 135 and 170). By “massively interpolated” I mean that as much as 80% of the seven so-called authentic Pauline letters were actually the work of Simonians.
Of the many interpolation theories that have been proposed over the years, I find myself most in agreement with that of Alfred Loisy (“Les Origines du Nouveau Testament”, 1936, English translation in 1962 by L.P. Jacks, “The Origins of the New Testament”.) The evolution of my own thought on this issue is pretty much laid out in my series of Vridar posts “A Simonian Origin for Christianity” and “Second Thoughts: Revising the Simonian Origin for Christianity hypothesis.”
“In such a situation, in competition with contemporary rivals who are rubbing shoulders with members of your flock, it wouldn’t have made sense to set up straw men.”
You actually think a long-winded and convoluted work like Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem was written for a flock? It clearly was not written to convince Marcionites, since it has way too much ad hominem. It obviously wasn’t written for common churchgoers, since its way too long for them to afford and way too convoluted. It was clearly written only for clergy — professionals. As such, it makes perfect sense to set up a straw man. There is no need for honesty since it is purely for polemical purposes and purely for an audience that will never give the heretics a fair hearing or ever even talk to them. This isn’t for the man in the street whom might work with a Marcionite. This is for the cloistered priest whose closest contact with the outside world is molesting boys in the rectory.
I agree that Tertullian wrote his Adversus Marcionem for the leaders of his church (presbyters and bishops). But as is still the case today, when common churchgoers are being pestered by proselytizers from outsider their church they usually first turn to their own leaders for answers. A Catholic, for instance, will check with Father so-and-so about how to respond to the troubling assertions made by the Jehovah Witness who lives next door. If he not satisfied with the answers Father gives him, it may be only a matter of time before there is an ex-Catholic attending services at the Kingdom Hall.
But we live in modern times with the Internet and in a land that doesn’t allow us to persecute people. Back then they didn’t need to make sure they were accurate because if all else failed they could just kill you.
“I think there is also double-meaning Simonian wordplay still present in Mark’s Gospel that involve Simon’s name…the words ‘Hear Him’ are both a command and an identification…(Simon).”
In what, Aramaic??
I do not know Hebrew, but my understanding is that the origin of the name Simon is the Hebrew Shim’on, which is in turn from the Hebrew word Shama.
“Simon” could not also be “Simeon” of “Simeon bar Cleophas”, Jesus’, and James’, and Judas Thomas’ other brother (Eisenman)? All were mystic Masters, and martyrs (Judas as per Gospel of Judas, Simon as per other gnostic books as fictional “Peter”, James as chosen successor to Christ — the “Matthias” stand-in of Acts 1, and “Stephen” stand-in of Acts 7, per Eisenman). Matthias’ defeated candidate is Joseph barsabbas Justus — son of the Father (of Jesus and James): James the JUST (Eisenman).
What does it mean when Paul says to the Colossians that “For it pleased the Father that in him (Christ) should all the pleroma dwell”. Is this not the same pleroma as was mentioned later when he said, “the pleroma of the Deity dwells in him bodily”? But, this is not a Jewish idea nor is it a Catholic one either. If Paul just spoke this way to win over the Gnostic Colossians then what about Matthew’s Gospel written to the Jews? Is Jesus really Son of David? Is he really the Messiah? Does his ancestry really go back to Abraham (given Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus)? Is Jesus really of Nazereth and of the tribe of Judah? Was he really born in Bethlehem? Are the scriptures of Isaiah really fulfilled?
Or, did Matthew just say those things to win over the Jews?
If Paul’s Chrestos is required to be a second Adam (Romans 5), then how can he be a Jewish Messiah?… (a doctrine which Paul never taught). Paul has Jesus “born of a woman”. The intention is clear… it relates back to the seed of the woman (promised to Eve). Paul needs Jesus to be born of a woman in order to be a second Adam, central to Paul’s teaching. But, Paul could have accomplished more by saying “born of the virgin Mary” or “born of the seed of David”. Which, is the clever addition that the Catholic “Bishops” use in their false Pauline letter they entitled “I Timothy” to extricate the “Universal Church” from the influence of the Asia Churches of whom Paul was responsible. Notice too how the writers of I Timothy conveniently have all of Paul’s fellow Ministers from the Churches in Asia as deserters and defectors of Paul and the Apostles ministry. Of course, they claim that their “Bishop Timothy” presides over the Church at Ephesus (sure, now he does). So, even as Judaizers swarmed in on the Galatians so did the Catholic (or what would become Catholic) branch begin to bully the Churches in Asia Minor.
Eusebius tells us “Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6)”
Notice, it is ‘recorded’ data that Eusebius alludes to. But, Eusebius does not reveal the source. Yet, the recorded data sounds very Catholic… “was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish”. This does not sound like early Church language and no doubt does not equate to the first Minister or Servant of the Church at Ephesus.
Ironically, both Origen and Clement of Alexandria both independently claim that the only known verifiable succession of St. Paul was that of Theudas (a follower of Paul) who then taught Valentinus, who taught Ptolemy, who taught Heracleon. It’s interesting that Heracleon complained that in his own day… they (the followers of Valentinus) were the only ones left still teaching St. Paul.
I do personally believe that Jesus is the Messiah and also the embodiment of all the pleroma of the Deity. I just want to know why the Church so willingly excepts the Jewish attachments but not the Gnostic ones.
Because the gnostic attachments were just that, attachments made by eastern mystics and pagans
who resisted the need to switch their views into something in-line with what the Israelites believed. The sublime mysteries were confused and exploited by political and philosophical dispositions of host peoples as The Way spread geographically and influentially. Constantly orthodoxy had to defend itself and keep the deposit of the faith pure and unfettered by these gnostic cosmologies which predate Christ.
Simon or Paul name is Simon magnus that was not Yeshua the son of God in the catholic encyclopedia he is known to be Simon magnus the magician in the book of Luke . The Jews believe that Simon or Paul was a fake prophet. In the book of the Homilies Simon was he other name he was Simon shaul magnus the magician I read that in the homilies and the catholic encyclopedia
What Paul says doesn’t seem inconsistent to me because what I believe is consistent with every letter of it. They all fit the biases I had before even starting to form my Christian theology. Everything I struggle with as a Christian comes form other NT writers.
Those Gnostic key you speak were simply Greek Translations of Hebrew words used in Greek translations of The Hebrew Bible long before Gnostics started using them.
Paul taught a literal physical Resurrection of the Dead, that is the foundation of his Doctrine. And no where contradicts that. For that reason he can’t be a Gnostic. Their denial of a Physical Resurrection is far more central then the vilification of the Old Testament God. You can be Gnostic while revering YHWH, that’s why Augustine and Origen were.
Please consult the comment rules, especially #4. Simply disagreeing and preaching your own preferred doctrine instead is not welcome here. http://vridar.org/about/comments-and-moderation/
My post was presenting a counter argument.
Counter arguments are only acceptable if they engage with the argument presented in the post. It is evident you have little interest in the approach to critical and historical inquiry that I try to follow on this blog. Or perhaps you simply lack the ability to comprehend #4. I’ve placed any future comments of yours on moderation.