When Paul was a heretic

The Westar Institute, associated with the Jesus Seminar, hosts Jason Beduhn's "The Contested Authority of Paul" from Forum 8.2 (Fall 2019), 109-32. (UPDATE 3/10/22: PDF of pp. 74-167 used to be at www.westarinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Forum-82.pdf but not now.)

Westar being Westar, a skeptical view of all first- and second-century literature is adopted throughout. For Ignatius, Beduhn follows 19th century Cureton in restricting his canon to Romans, Polycarp, and Ephesians. (Thus eliminating my favourite, Smyrnaeans 1-7.) 1 Clement is left to the second century, as is James. And of course there is no question of accepting the Pastorals or 2 Peter at face value.

However we would date these, Beduhn is at his best explaining how each text depends upon Paul. 1 Clement cites 1 Corinthians (and Romans) to... Corinth. Likewise - Beduhn says - Ignatius writing to Ephesus, although not citing Paul's own "Ephesians", does refer to Paul's other letters. This is done to please the locals who care about Paul even where others don't. Apostolic Fathers, the Acts of Paul, 2 Peter, and the Pastorals don't engage Paul's theology; they just raise him up as a saint, like how our Christians promote Jefferson and Madison as Bible-thumpers. UPDATE 3/10/22: Well: so Beduhn. Acts of Paul might actually engage 1 Timothy in light of Paul's sexual egalitarianism. At issue is 1 Timothy which, in its own turn, revives the gender-roles of Corinth; exactly against Paul (and against Marcion; unsure where's Montanus here).

Beduhn is also correct to suspect "Pauline" language as common property. Paul may have seeded the community with such language, now cant; but equally he could have been so seeded earlier. What to make of "inherit the kingdom of God", for instance. That is a Psalm 37 adaptation which any post-Crucifixion Torah-reader could have stumbled upon by himself. The freakin' Koran adapted this.

We do know one early Christian who approved Paul: Marcion.

That's the point where early Christians start noticing Paul for his own sake. The Pseudo Clementine literature is notorious. But also James' letter is antiPauline. Beduhn reckons much antiPauline literature, including James, as reaction to Marcion. (Beduhn further cites Luedemann, "Opposition to Paul", 155–68 for Hegesippus overturning 1 Corinthians 2:9 although Hegesippus is more likely a Pastoral Pauline attacking misuse of the logion.) And much antiMarcionite literature has simply disappeared over the centuries. Probably because it too scoffed at Paul.

I think, though, that Ignatius takes Paul's theology more seriously than Beduhn lets on. Ignatius inherited Paul's view of martyrdom as imitatio christi, and on church unity as a Divine gift. Ignatius also adapted Paul's distinction between flesh and spirit: for Ignatius, they are at odds, and salvation involves overcoming that distinction. See here Richard I Pervo, The Making of Paul, 137-8.

(And now I'm wondering what Papias made of the man.)

If Paul's letters before Ignatius circulated in a minority sect of Christendom, that would at least explain how the Colossians-"Ephesians" group acquired its monopoly over the official collection. The Pastorals had more trouble entering that canon, like Paul's Acts. Marcion's own edition of that collection (he calls "Ephesians", "Laodicaeans") sports prologues which nearly became canon themselves, and still survive.

BACKDATE 4/18