Are some of the Pauline Epistles Gnostic forgeries?

[rick357]

My beliefs are irrelevant to the conversation. I am simply citing an historicaly verifiable fact within the parameters of the original post. (sans editorializing)

Hope you read my second posting...you did ...but one with out any knowledge of marcion may have taken your statement as something else.

 

[Meta Tron]

Hope you read my second posting...you did ...but one with out any knowledge of marcion may have taken your statement as something else.

I trust that anyone who takes the time to read my posts in the order that I posted them is competent to appropriately assess for themselves the historicity of their content.

Granted, It might have been better had I chosen to re-post the link from my original statement in my subsequent follow-up. Where it clearly pronounces Marcion to be a Gnostic heretic.

The potential of a connection between early Gnosticism and Pauls epistles being the subject of the thread, this clearly demonstrates that there was a profound affinity for Pauls epistles among (some) early and well known Gnostic groups.

Ergo....

The Canon of Marcion the heretic

Valentinus, another of the major early Gnostics claimed to posses secret knowledge passed down to him from Paul through Theudas.

Valentinus was born in Phrebonis in upper Egypt about 100 AD and educated in nearby Alexandria. There he became a disciple of the Christian teacher Theudas who had been a disciple of Saint Paul. He claimed that Theudas taught him secret wisdom that Paul had taught privately to his inner circle.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Valentinus.htmhttp://www.christianforums.com/Valentinus

 

[Meta Tron]

Marcion excised the pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus) and removed several excerpts from Luke and the remaining epistles that he felt to be forgeries or passages grafted on to previous text.

The irony, in view of the question posed by this thread, would be in that many of the early Gnostics, those who embraced Pauls epistles, regarded the bulk of those works to be Gnostic in origin.

 

[rick357]

Marcion excised the pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus) and removed several excerpts from Luke and the remaining epistles that he felt to be forgeries or passages grafted on to previous text.

The irony, in view of the question posed by this thread, would be in that many of the early Gnostics, those who embraced Pauls epistles, regarded the bulk of those works to be Gnostic in origin.

Pauls gnosis is differant than most who claim that belief....his mysteries are in the scripture(OT) but recognized by few....while most others use outher sources or come to conclusions that violate other parts of scripture.

 

[Meta Tron]

Pauls gnosis is differant than most who claim that belief....his mysteries are in the scripture(OT) but recognized by few....while most others use outher sources or come to conclusions that violate other parts of scripture.

I try to stay in the realm of historical evidence when responding to historical questions.

 

[Petruchio]

Irrespective of subjective pedestrian commentary, it was (historically speaking) Marcion (who was refuted as a Gnostic heretic), that introduced Pauls Epistles to the first cannon.

This seems deceptive, as it was already demonstrated, such as with Ignatius and Polycarp, that Paul was already in use by the early Christians. Marcion only represents a person who formally produced a list, of which Christians, up to that point, did not appear to need, as they were already calling these books "scripture," even without any list being discovered of them. It does not mean that Marcion introduced the use of Paul's writings to the Christian church. They were already using them.

The irony, in view of the question posed by this thread, would be in that many of the early Gnostics, those who embraced Pauls epistles, regarded the bulk of those works to be Gnostic in origin.

Yet it follows that they believed them to have been corrupted by Christians, as Marcion had to remove certain epistles, and make changes to the scriptural text.

Joseph Smith did the same thing, though he never completed his "retranslation" of the Bible. It does not mean that Smith had a legitimate historical claim.

 

[Meta Tron]

​

Irrespective of subjective pedestrian commentary, it was (historically speaking) Marcion (who was refuted as a Gnostic heretic), that introduced Pauls Epistles to the first cannon.

This seems deceptive, as it was already demonstrated, such as with Ignatius and Polycarp, that Paul was already in use by the early Christians. Marcion only represents a person who formally produced a list, of which Christians, up to that point, did not appear to need, as they were already calling these books "scripture," even without any list being discovered of them. It does not mean that Marcion introduced the use of Paul's writings to the Christian church. They were already using them.

Deceptive? I would hardly characterize your transpositions of the terms "cannon" for the term "Christian church" or "scripture" to be ..... ummmm..... "deceptive".

Please feel free to assume the definition of "cannon" where I use the word "cannon".

Yet it follows that they believed them to have been corrupted by Christians, as Marcion had to remove certain epistles, and make changes to the scriptural text.

I think I adequately articulated that in the very post that you are quoting and in other posts above.

Marcion excised the pastorals (1 Tim, 2 Tim and Titus) and removed several excerpts from Luke and the remaining epistles that he felt to be forgeries or passages grafted on to previous text.

I fail to see what you are taking issue with here.

Joseph Smith did the same thing, though he never completed his "retranslation" of the Bible. It does not mean that Smith had a legitimate historical claim.

Utterly non sequitur and off topic.

Not certain whether that was intended as an attempt at Mormon baiting or Mormon bashing.

If it was the former, I'm not Mormon, don't waste your time.

If it was the latter, there are ample opportunities for those who wish to indulge in ...that sort of thing... elsewhere on the forum, please don't waste my time.

 

[Petruchio]

Deceptive? I would hardly characterize your transpositions of the terms "cannon" for the term "Christian church" or "scripture" to be ..... ummmm..... "deceptive".

I said "seems" deceptive, as I wasn't sure the exact point you were trying to make. If you agree that Marcion did not somehow invent Paul or some such thing, then we have no problems. I also was not transposing any meanings. I was trying to make sure that you weren't, actually. The other problem is, your icon says "Other Church," and with LDS, Armstrongites, Russellites, Universalists, all crawling about, and not always with the correct icons, it is hard to interpret from what direction you may be coming from.

If I offended you, I apologize, but you take offense too easily. This is the second time you've gotten on me for something I meant far more innocently. Maybe part of the problem was my wording, but you should wait before you bite.

 

[Meta Tron]

I said "seems" deceptive, as I wasn't sure the exact point you were trying to make. If you agree that Marcion did not somehow invent Paul or some such thing, then we have no problems. I also was not transposing any meanings. I was trying to make sure that you weren't, actually. The other problem is, your icon says "Other Church," and with LDS, Armstrongites, Russellites, Universalists, all crawling about, and not always with the correct icons, it is hard to interpret from what direction you may be coming from.

If I offended you, I apologize, but you take offense too easily. This is the second time you've gotten on me for something I meant far more innocently. Maybe part of the problem was my wording, but you should wait before you bite.

No harm no foul. Please in the future simply ask for clarification without the precursor. The nuances that are implied are crucial to deciphering the emphasis derived from the balance of the comment.

(now to salvage the relevance of this post to the OP)

Later Church historians were able to use Marcions list of specific passages that he excised from the Pauline works to verify that they were existent prior to Marcions cannon.

 

[Anto9us]

Cannon fire cannonballs. It is a word like "deer" -- singular and plural the same. One or more weapons that fire projectiles at an enemy -- that is the meaning of "cannon" spelled with 2 N's...

Canon is a term used to refer to a list of books accepted as biblical. Originally it comes from a term like a "measuring reed" - a rule accepted as a standard.

The fact that Marcion was a Gnostic and he wanted to set up a rule of a "Canon" that only included some of Paul's epistles and nothing else -- in no way proves Paul was indeed Gnostic -- that's silly.

The fact that Elaine Pagels thought Paul was Gnostic has to be balanced with the realization that she was one of the first to study Nag Hammadi documents and henceforth saw Gnosticism everywhere.

 

[Meta Tron]

Cannon fire cannonballs. It is a word like "deer" -- singular and plural the same. One or more weapons that fire projectiles at an enemy -- that is the meaning of "cannon" spelled with 2 N's...
Canon is a term used to refer to a list of books accepted as biblical. Originally it comes from a term like a "measuring reed" - a rule accepted as a standard.

I stand corrected (TYVM ) the point remains.

The fact that Marcion was a Gnostic and he wanted to set up a rule of a "Canon" that only included some of Paul's epistles and nothing else -- in no way proves Paul was indeed Gnostic -- that's silly.

The fact that Elaine Pagels thought Paul was Gnostic has to be balanced with the realization that she was one of the first to study Nag Hammadi documents and henceforth saw Gnosticism everywhere.

Nobody is asserting that Paul was Gnostic. Only that Marcion regarded Paul and his epistles to be quintessentially Gnostic. That's evident in primary sources.

Pagels and the NHL have nothing to do with it.

The OP asks the question "Are some of the Pauline Epistles Gnostic forgeries?"

The historical evidence from early Church sources clearly indicate a strong connection to Pauline Epistles by the early Gnostics, but I find no indication that any of the Pauline works we have are "Gnostic forgeries".

 

[DennisTate]

The authenticity of some of them is debated, but none of them sound like gnostic productions.

The ones whose authenticity are questioned are: Ephesians, sometimes Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus.

Questioned by nobody are: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians.

It is not difficult to find conservative scholars to defend the authenticity of all of them, if that is what you want.

Is it also possible that Paul was a near death experiencer who during the early part of his ministry...… such as II Corinthians 12....... was unwilling to deal with some of the subject matter that had been shown to him while he was in the out of the body state.... but later in his ministry....(Romans 11)… he is willing to tackle those difficult topics?

Many near death experiencers state that it takes them about ten years to get to the place where they will write or speak about what they saw during their brush with death.


http://www.christianforums.com/t7848564/

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

 

[Anto9us]

I wonder if "forgeries" is too strong a word in any case.

Pseudopigraphals might be more indicative of what some scholars think of the "pastoral epistles" and more

This is not limited to Paul -- some scholars think 2 Peter was pseudopigraphal