On the Authority of 'Paul'

I got an interesting comment from a reader asking me essentially why I am not content simply to advance Hippolytus' reference to the Marcion = Mark formulation. The answer of course is that I find it no more helpful than simply leaving Mark as Mark. The real question is of course how Mark, Marcion or Paul were perceived to have the AUTHORITY to write a gospel or advance the notion that the Cross was the new testimony of God.

I don't think this gets discussed enough ANYWHERE.

The issue of someone needing to have AUTHORITY to proclaim the new Law of the Gospel is present in the Gospel. The Pharisees repeated say to Jesus 'who the ---- are you to say these things.' Jesus answers with vague responses. At one point he speaks of the 'sign of John' or the 'sign of the dove' (the Aramaic would be identical). So we should take seriously the whole question of authority.

Now let me confess that when I started studying the whole issue of Christian theology I couldn't help be amazed at the problem of authority of Paul. Even if we don't subscribe to the Marcionite position, the Catholic tradition depends on 'Paul' to develop the central understanding of the Cross as new testimony of God.

Yet who the ---- was 'Paul'?

Even if you believe in the story in Acts about him being a Jewish bounty hunter the way he subordinates himself in the rest of the story causes problems for his authority. Only someone like Moses [Deut 18:18] - in short the messiah - could have the authority to completely revamp Judaism in favor of a religion of the Cross.

So that's why I have difficulties in seeing the value of merely saying that Mark was Marcion or that Paul was Marcion (I happen to accept both positions). In order for this Mark/Marcion/Paul figure to have made the radical claims he did he had to have been a messianic figure. Indeed the Marcionite community in Harran (Acts of Archelaus) makes this exact formulation as do the Marcionite Origen runs into.

The point then is that we are not just looking for a shell game substituting one meaningless name used by the Church Fathers for another. We have to search for a historical figure named Mark who was known to be held by his contemporaries to have put forward Marcionite ideas. Enter the rabbinic portrait of Marcus Agrippa.

Moreover the Catholics suggest a completely supernatural explanation for the whole theological system introduced by the Apostle. It succeeded because God wanted it to succeed.

With Marcus Agrippa we have another SCIENTIFIC explanation - it succeeded because the inventor of the theology of the Cross was the ruler of Palestine who happened to be recognized by the Jews as the awaited messiah.

BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?