Some More Speculation About the Early Canons

So now I am moving beyond my theory about 'to the Corinthians' really being 'to the Alexandrians' in the original Marcionite canon.

The fact that the Marcionite canon and the Muratorian canon essentially agree on the order of the Pauline Epistles should not be surprising to anyone. The Marcionites were a threat to the emerging orthodoxy because there were signs and hints EVEN IN THE ROMAN TRADITION ITSELF that the Marcionites were right.

How do you explain the celibate priesthood of the Roman Church, their use of unleavened bread, their Papacy if it wasn't all borrowed from an earlier 'Marcionite' tradition that they were once the second-most powerful center (after Alexandria)?

Of course the original canon seems to show something different - Alexandrians, GALATIANS then Romans. How does this get explained (the Muratorian canon just shifted Romans to the end of the list to grant it as close to 'equal billing' as possible without supplanting the material of Corinthians from its traditional spot (the way movie credits often give the second star 'and so-and-so' at the end of the list of actors).

Yet before we can begin to understand Romans we have to come to grips with what on earth 'Galatia' - A ROMAN PROVINCE - is doing in a list of letters? I mean who on earth writes a correspondence to 'Washingtonians' or 'Floridians' besides a governor or some government official?

It always struck me as weird.

We see that the Apostle's letter is addressed "to the churches in Galatia" (Galatians 1:2), but the reality is that the location of these churches is a matter of debate. A minority of scholars have argued that the "Galatia" is an ethnic reference to a Celtic people living in northern Asia Minor, but most agree that it is a geographical reference to the Roman province in central Asia Minor, which had been settled by immigrant Celts in the 270s BC and retained Gaulish features of culture and language in Paul's day.

I think this is ridiculous. If it wasn't for the fact that everyone has always taken for granted this lunacy no one would believe it.

There couldn't possibly have been enough Jews in Galatia to warrant the discussion in the letter. As such I will put forward another theory - which I am sure will raise many eyebrows - but makes perfect sense if we are to imagine an address to a group that which sounded like 'Galatians' sandwiched between the two urban powerhouses of Alexandria and Rome.

I think it is deliberate corruption of גלות or galut which means 'exile' and galuta which means 'exiles.' I asked my friend Professor Ruairidh Boid - an expert on Semitic languages - if it was possible and he said yes. One could envision someone taking an original Aramaic epistle entitled 'to the Exiles' and deliberately (or even mistakenly) get to the identification of 'to the Galatians' in Greek.

The Galut is a fundamental Jewish concept. The 'Greek dominion' is galut yavan. The 'Roman dominion' galut edom. The reish galuta was the 'head of the exiles' in Babylonia.

The messiah's role would be to redeem Israel from exile.

So for those of you with discernment it should be obvious why גלות would changed to 'Galatians.' The implications of the Apostle coming and addressing those of the Galut LONG AFTER Jesus had been crucified. In other words it confirms the well attested understanding of the Marcionites that the Apostle was the 'Paraclete' (itself a messianic title in Judaism).

Just look at what the originally Marcionite Acts of Archelaus repeats over and over again:

And our Lord IC XC, making no tarrying, in the space of one year restored multitudes of the sick to health, and gave back the dead to the light of life; and He did indeed embrace all things in the power of His own word. And wherein, forsooth, did He make any tarrying, so that we should have to believe Him to have waited so long, even to these days, before He actually sent the Paraclete? Nay, rather, as has been already said above, He gave proof of His presence with us forthwith, and did most abundantly impart Himself to Paul, whose testimony we also believe when he says, “Unto me only is this grace given.” [Eph. iii.8]

The Acts of Archelaus were translated from Syriac into a barbarous Latin a long time ago. But look at how 'Galatians' is employed within the tradition.

First Archelaus seems to recount our familiar understanding of the 'Galatians' as just another church within the fold:

And when the Galatians are minded to turn away from the Gospel, he says to them: I marvel that you are so soon removed from Him that called you unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would turn you away from the Gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which has been delivered to you, let him be accursed. And again he says: To me, who am the least of all the apostles, is this grace given; and, I fill up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh. And once more, in another place, he declares of himself that he was a minister of Christ more than all others, as though after him none other was to be looked for at all; for he enjoins that not even an angel from heaven is thus to be received. And how, then, shall we credit the professions of this Manes, who comes from Persis, and declares himself to be the Paraclete? By this very thing, indeed, I rather recognise in him one of those men who transform themselves, and of whom the Apostle Paul, that elect vessel, has given us very clear indication

There can be no doubt that Mani's claim to be the 'Paraclete' is rejected because the community already held that the Apostle was the true Paraclete - viz the messiah. As we have noted several times before the Marcionite held that Jesus was wholly angelic or divine, and hence without birth mother.

To this end Archelaus the head of the Marcionite tradition says to Mani the false Paraclete:

None of your party O Manes, will you make a Galatian; neither will you in this fashion divert us from the faith of Christ. Yea, even although you were to work signs and wonders, although you were to raise the dead, although you were to present to us the very image of Paul himself, you would remain accursed still. For we have been instructed beforehand with regard to you: we have been both warned and armed against you by the Holy Scriptures.

As such there can be no doubt that 'Galatian' is something other than a geographical place name. It is a category of people who were historically 'redeemed' by the Apostle at his appearance. In my mind there can be no doubt that they were 'exiles' and 'Galatian' represents a deliberate corruption of the original Aramaic term.

Now let's remember one other thing. The Old Syriac canon of Ephrem had the letter to the Galatians. They had some deep connection with the epistle granting it first place in their canon.

Yet what would otherwise be overlooked is that in Osroene the Marcionites had laid already laid claim to the term 'Christian' so the Catholics were forced to identify themselves as 'Palutians' supposedly from an early bishop named 'Palut.'

The form palut (with t.et not tav) is not attested, but it is regular in formation, and would mean the same as palet (only used in the plural peletim) and palit (only used in the singular), which means “refugee”. These two forms are often paired with nimlat “escapee”. Is the reference to Christians that first fled to Pella and then moved further on?

Often paired with palit and nimlat is sarid (in Biblical Hebrew with SIN, but with SAMECH later on) meaning 'refugee' or 'survivor.'

With regards to the 'bishop called Palut' who was the founder of 'the Palutians' (and who held a canon with 'to the Galutians' as the Epistle of the first order) we should remember that names of groups and sects are often wrongly explained as deriving from the name of some fictitious individual. If however there was such an individual, it is worth bearing in mind that there is a strong connotation in the use of this word, if the context favours it, of the individual that is the last survivor of a bloodline or a line of tradition or a line of initiation and who becomes the saviour of the line and the ancestor (real or metaphorical) of all that come after. This kind of usage is so common that the name on its own could have had this connotation in this case.

There is something in all of this which might be useful to develop a theory that the original connotation of 'to Galatians' was 'to the exiles' and that the Apostle himself - rather than Jesus - was the redeemer.

More later have to go to bed ...