Were Marcionites keepers of the original Christian faith?

[rgprice]

I think Paul's genuine epistles were the first Christian writings

except the genuine epistles constantly claim and confirm (affirm) they are not the first or original membership of the group in question
how can you say they are genuine and not also accept their claim that they are not the start of it?
how can they be the first Christian writings when they say that they are not the first Christians?

that is the elephant in the room with the the idea the epistles represent the first Christian writings when they admit they are not part of the original grouping of Christians and present a new revelation that wasn't known before the author revealed it
so, on what basis does one accept the claim of the epistles in regard to what they are saying one should believe and on the other ignore what they are saying as regard to their origins?

it's funny how the first Christian writings admit they are not in fact the original Christians and yet people seem ok with assuming they are the first Christian writings

They are the earliest "Christian" writings we have. They could be the earliest "Christian" writings of any kind. However, I would say that the Pauline letters are not actually Christian at all. I think that what the earliest version of the Pauline letters described is not at all similar to what became "Christianity".

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?

(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?

If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?

(2) Was the Gospel they used the first written text with an extended story about Jesus?

If so, would the author of the original Pauline epistles have agreed with it?

(3) Was the original belief that there was no messianic prophecy about Jesus?

If so, then was any material considered to be messianic prophecy used to write the first Gospel?

(4) Was the original belief that there was another higher, good God above the creator god of the law?

If so, then do you believe that this was explained clearly in Paul and in the Gospel? If not, why not?

(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?

If so, why would this be so offensive to every other Christian, so that they rejected it and suppressed the story?

1) I doubt it. Anyone who used any Gospel wasn't original I suspect.
2) I doubt it, unless that Gospel was actually more like the Gospel of Mark than is generally recognized.
3) Probably. Rather, I think that originally there was just no idea about Jesus having fulfilled prophecy. I doubt that there was a stated claim that he didn't, just that prophecy had nothing to do with it. Prophecy came in with the Gospels.
4) That's the $64,000 question. I suspect that originally this was a mystery cult in which this was intentionally nebulous. It is pretty clear that there are three primary actors in the Pauline letters: God the Father, his Son Jesus, and the "Lord of this world".
God the Father's Son was given as a ransom to pay to free the souls of all mankind from the "Lord of this world." So the question is, who was the "Lord of this world"? I suspect that in the mystery religion the beliefs were flexible enough for different members to conceive of these figures differently. Some may have thought that Satan was the Lord of this world, some may have thought that the God of Abraham was the Lord of this world, some may even have thought that Jupiter was the Lord of this world, all within the same cult.
5) Not sure. We don't seem to have enough information. I'm not sure that there was originally any particular belief about exactly how or where the Son of God was handed over to the Lord of this world as a ransom.

It is my contention that most or all of what we call Christianity arose in reaction to reading of the Gospel(s). The big split is between pre-Gospel and post-Gospel worship of Jesus, and I suspect that there is almost no relationship between pre-Gospel Jesus worship and post-Gospel Christianity.

Its clear that orthodox Christianity comes entirely from the reading of the Gospels. In fact they railed against everyone who held beliefs that didn't come from the Gospels. But the Gospels are late. The mystery cult must have been first. And the first Gospel was only one allegorical interpretation of that person's understanding of Paul's teachings and the mystery cult. But that first story then set the template for everything else and once that first "Gospel" was produced that's the real thing that created "Christianity". Orthodox Christians only knew or worshiped the Jesus of the Gospels.

But this is what you're getting at. There seems to have been a pre-Gospel cult that worshiped God the Father and his Son Jesus, who was sacrificed to pay the price to free the souls of humanity from the Lord of this world. Yet, there seems to be effectively no knowledge of this pre-Gospel cult. The founders of orthodoxy effectively deny that any such cult existed, because for them, the Gospels are the foundation of their beliefs.

[Peter Kirby]

No the Odes are just not having it.

Originally it was the Spirit that came down out of heaven (ding ding, that's what happens in the gospel right?) to humans including Jesus who seem to have been chosen by it, or some such. The Marcionites had a problem to solve and went for the "came down from heaven" option. The Spirit still comes down from heaven though that bit never got changed

Good points. Thanks!

[Peter Kirby]

4) That's the $64,000 question. I suspect that originally this was a mystery cult in which these was intentionally nebulous. It is pretty clear that there are three primary actors in the Pauline letters: God the Father, his Son Jesus, and the "Lord of this world".
God the Father's Son was given as a ransom to pay to free the souls of all mankind from the "Lord of this world." So the question is, who was the "Lord of this world"? I suspect that in the mystery religion the beliefs were flexible enough for different members to conceive of these figures differently. Some may have thought that Satan was the Lord of this world, some may have thought that the God of Abraham was the Lord of this world, some may even have thought that Jupiter was the Lord of this world, all within the same cult.

I can see that. There could have been biblical demiurgist ideas floating around already at the time of the Pauline letters, even if it was based on a misunderstanding or something spoken when claiming to be given a gift of prophecy. It had to be a creative period.

[Peter Kirby]

I think earliest belief was a mythological Jesus per Paul's original letters, as explained by Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space.

Seems to be the general tenor of the responses.

A sign of the times that Marcionites-first is rejected not because of mainstream scholarship, but because it isn't quite mythicist!

[MrMacSon]

Not necessarily: if the Marcionite gospeltext post-dates the Pauline letters, +/- its author used them, the way the Markan author/s is/are thought to have used them, then the issue of which 'gospel' came first would be still in play.

[davidmartin]

I think earliest belief was a mythological Jesus per Paul's original letters, as explained by Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space.

Seems to be the general tenor of the responses.

A sign of the times that Marcionites-first is rejected not because of mainstream scholarship, but because it isn't quite mythicist!

except Paul's original letters clearly document there was a former group existing prior to that of the epistles
this is what mythicists ignore as down that road lies a historical Jesus which, lets be honest, is pretty likely (and here lies the gospel sources too predating the epistles)
how unlikely is it for a man to have once existed?
so "an earliest belief was a mythological Jesus" I would agree with but not "the earliest belief"
to me, Pauls letters have the opposite effect. They convince me there was a historical Jesus that the author wishes to be viewed in exalted and heavenly form and the epistles are in conflict with the original members of the group... this is what MLinssen proposes calling them Chrestians. I think this is the view that will emerge as the consensus and mythicism will pass away. The big question in future will be what the Chrestians were like

[Joseph D. L.]

Were the Marcionites the keepers of the original Christian faith?

(1) Was their faith represented by the original Pauline epistles?

If so, where did the author of the original Pauline epistles get his ideas from?

Kind of a leading question in my opinion, for what are the "original" Pauline epistles?

I will say, for me, the Marcionites adopted the texts from someone, whether that someone be Marcion himself, a man named Paul, or some other named figure. That is what I am thinking.

(2) Was the Gospel they used the first written text with an extended story about Jesus?

If so, would the author of the original Pauline epistles have agreed with it?

I'm becoming more and more of the idea that the Marcionites adopted and modified a pre-existent text that was not necessarily a "gospel" like extended story. It just doesn't make sense why they would need such a text early on given how their theology operated, but when it came time to establishing canonical authority for themselves later on it would definitely be a requisite.

(3) Was the original belief that there was no messianic prophecy about Jesus?

If so, then was any material considered to be messianic prophecy used to write the first Gospel?

I think--and this is just speculation on my end--that instead of a focus on prophecy there was an interest in signs, which far be it for me to be pedantic about it would infer a difference in theological perspective, something like "lo, this Temple shall fall" versus "oh shit! The Temple just fell!"

(4) Was the original belief that there was another higher, good God above the creator god of the law?

If so, then do you believe that this was explained clearly in Paul and in the Gospel? If not, why not?

That's the thing that hangs me up, because from my reading of Marcion's Evangelium and Apostolikon such distinctions don't come up. Instead the issue is whether Torah is still relevant and if not, why not? That this question is left vague leaves me to deduce that Marcion did not himself write the Evangelium, for if he did why leave it up for posterity?

(5) Was the original belief that Jesus came down out of heaven to Palestine?

If so, why would this be so offensive to every other Christian, so that they rejected it and suppressed the story?

For me, no. If the Pauline layer is first, and the Marcionite recension is the truest version, then the structure of the belief is Paul being translated up to Heaven to be reborn out of the jurisdiction of the law, and he becomes an envoy for this new covenant, the gospel of Jesus. Paul then becomes the embodiment of Jesus on earth.

All of this can be entirely mistaken so please disregard it.

[Joseph D. L.]

... the structure of the belief is Paul being translated up to Heaven to be reborn out of the jurisdiction of the law, and he becomes an envoy for this new covenant, the gospel of Jesus.

I think this is something that needs to be stressed a little more. Paul is not suggesting that Torah is now null and void for all time and for all peoples, but that it is not applicable to those who partake in the sacrifice of Jesus, are baptized and take communion, because they have ritualistically been reborn and out of its purview. Thusly, Jews can still be Jews because Torah still applies to them and hence the big trouble in little Antioch. Does one first need to convert to Judaism before converting to Christianity? and is Christianity a gentile version of Judaism? For Paul, the answer is probably closer to utilitarianism, and a "if it works for you" sort of response, but once accepted into the commune of Christ any lapse back to Torah observation would render the whole theology pointless. But for Marcion, this is very much a big deal, and probably why he pushed Galatians hard on his students. His theology was a ladder, and gentile or Jew, once you step up on a higher rung you do not step back off.

So for Paul, Torah law was still in play for Jews; but for Marcion Torah was out, the gospel was in.

This probably addresses the seemingly anti-Torah elements in the canonicals, like the curtain ripping in Matthew and Jesus's proclamation of "It is finished" in John.

Again, disregard.

[rgprice]

I think earliest belief was a mythological Jesus per Paul's original letters, as explained by Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space.

Seems to be the general tenor of the responses.

A sign of the times that Marcionites-first is rejected not because of mainstream scholarship, but because it isn't quite mythicist!

except Paul's original letters clearly document there was a former group existing prior to that of the epistles
this is what mythicists ignore as down that road lies a historical Jesus which, lets be honest, is pretty likely (and here lies the gospel sources too predating the epistles)
how unlikely is it for a man to have once existed?
so "an earliest belief was a mythological Jesus" I would agree with but not "the earliest belief"
to me, Pauls letters have the opposite effect. They convince me there was a historical Jesus that the author wishes to be viewed in exalted and heavenly form and the epistles are in conflict with the original members of the group... this is what MLinssen proposes calling them Chrestians. I think this is the view that will emerge as the consensus and mythicism will pass away. The big question in future will be what the Chrestians were like

Nah. The Pauline letters talk about the coming of Jesus as a future event, never as a past event. Yes, there some pre-existing cult. In fact, it appears to have been a group significant enough for Paul to have initially opposed it. It would appear that the cult Paul opposed was considered non-Jewish or a corruption of Judaism by Paul, which is why he said that his opposition to the cult was a product of his zealousness for Judaism. This leads me to conclude that the initial cult was affiliated with the Romans or Hellenism. It would seem to have been some sort of Hellenized interpretation of the Judaism. Which, I think generally aligns with what may be identified as "Gnosticism".

There is no indication in the letters that Paul was talking about the worship of a real person. The Jesus of the Pauline letters is clearly a deity.

[davidmartin]

There is no indication in the letters that Paul was talking about the worship of a real person. The Jesus of the Pauline letters is clearly a deity.

yes, but the Jesus of the gospels is a prophet, a spirit possessed human. so it's a short jump to say the spirit is Jesus by Paul rather than seeing them as separate. With Jesus being a prophet there's more of a pathway for Paul to speak of him as a deity since a prophet contains the deity for a while. plenty of scope for confusion. Paul of course, not interested in the prophet but that's explicable if he's not part of the original movement who show up as his opponents. I mean if there were 'a prophet' and Paul was a member of the original movement it would be ludicrous he never talks about him, but the Paul we see is very much not part of it so this ludicrous scenario doesn't happen. So that's how i see it making sense.