So, did Marcion just make everything?

[Vanished]

I think you're wrong on 1 John: it was one of the 4 specifically mentioned by Papias along with Matthew, Mark and 1 Peter, and he was before Marcion by at least 30 years.

Marcion had his Luke and the Faulines, but I would not draw any other conclusions from him than that.

Statements like "1 John and Revelation, apparently, were works of Marcion" for which you offer no support will not generate much interest.

My apologies - I was in a bit of a rush when writing the original post as I was just about to drive, so I left out some (important) details.

I should clarify these aren't my personal views, but rather, views I've seen proposed quite a bit around this forum.
For my claim on Marcion authoring the Pauline letters, your posts on the Faulines, the Early Christian Ebionean Canon, The Paul Paradox and MarcionOrLater seemed to show a lot of members on the forum agreeing with that proposal. "Jesus' Words Only or Was Paul the Apostle Jesus Condemns in Revelation 22" by Douglas Del Tondo also brought up several very interesting points, and my own research brought more contradictions in the same vein, so while I'm not 100% sure I would say the letters are Marcionite in nature, there's certainly someting awry.

Regarding Marcion's authorship of the Gospels, I time and time again see discussion of *Ev (which I take to mean Marcion's gospel, the Evangelion, correct me if I'm wrong) as the solution to the synoptic problem, at least here on EarlyWritings. I'm unsure if that's because it's the general consensus here, because it's been gaining popularity as of recently, or because it's not as studied and well-known as other potential solutions (which thus don't warrant quite as much discussion, as they already have decades of discussion behind them). I don't have a solid personal standing on the synoptic problem, though it seems to me it was probably something like Original -> Mark or Matthew -> Mark/Matthew (whichever didn't come before) and Luke -> John and Marcion

As for Revelation and 1 John being authored by Marcion, I believe that argument was put forward by Joseph Turmel, though I may be mistaken on this. I don't believe this either - Marcion was the biggest proponent of the Pauline epistles and there's a good shot Jesus was referring to Paul negatively in Revelation (see the Douglas Del Tondo book mentioned above) - but I have seen the view here.

So again, to clarify - I'm aware that Marcion is not CONFIRMED to be behind the entire New Testament, but am I correct in assuming that there are theories that have gained significant traction for Marcion's authorship of much of the New Testament? And follow-up question - everything I can see suggests that all the early Church Fathers were vehemently anti-Marcion. If that's the case, then how did the epistles that originated with him (whether he authored them or not) and any other potential works/revisions/redactions of his end up making it into canon?

[StephenGoranson]

Vanished, above, in part:
"....am I correct in assuming that there are theories that have gained significant traction for Marcion's authorship of much of the New Testament?,,,,"

No.

[Secret Alias]

And that's part of the problem. Too many apologists and conservatives in religious studies. Of course Paul wrote the original gospel and that gospel was Mark. All roads lead there. Just protecting the inherited canon stands in the way. Like the anti-woke movement or whatever the neo-fascists call themselves today. Conservatives always want to save tradition. Less interested in the truth.

[MrMacSon]

I don't have a solid personal standing on the synoptic problem, though it seems to me it was probably something like Original -> Mark or Matthew -> Mark/Matthew (whichever didn't come before) and Luke -> John and Marcion

Prior to Joseph B Tyson (Marcion and Luke-acts: A Defining Struggle, 2005), Jason BeDuhn (The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, 2013), Markus Vinzent (Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, 2014) and Matthias Klinghardt (Klinghart, Matthias (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien, in German, Francke A. Verlag, 2015; in English: The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels. Peeters Publishers. 2021), Marcion hardly figured in considerations of the Synoptic Problem.

Since their publications (including articles and books in addition to those listed), various schema have been proposed (and discussed, especially on this forum). These include a proto-Mark and a Marcionite Gospeltext being equivalent to the 'Original' in your schema. Klinghardt proposes Luke used John (or a proto-John) as well as Marcion's text, of course, and a proto-Mark and a proto-Matthew.

So again, to clarify - I'm aware that Marcion is not CONFIRMED to be behind the entire New Testament, but am I correct in assuming that there are theories that have gained significant traction for Marcion's authorship of much of the New Testament?

The main new theory is that the Gospeltext that Marcion possessed (regardless of whether he acquired it or wrote it) preceded the Synoptic Gospels.

And follow-up question - everything I can see suggests that all the early Church Fathers were vehemently anti-Marcion. If that's the case, then how did the epistles that originated with him (whether he authored them or not) and any other potential works/revisions/redactions of his end up making it into canon?

The theory that Markus Vinzent, Jason BeDuhn and Mark Bilby are proposing (and they are currently publishing on) is that the Marcionite versions of the Pauline letters were edited and 'catholicized' [to form the canonical versions we know today (and which have predominated for ~1800 yrs)].

The other main proposal, as alluded to in this post, is that the Marcionite Gospeltext was used by the authors of Mark, Mathew and Luke [+/- the author of G.John] (and, essentially, that canonical gospel attributed to Luke is a redacted version of the Marcionite Gospeltext ie. the Marcionite Gospeltext is essentially a proto- or Ur- Luke)

[robert j]

The theory that Markus Vinzent, Jason BeDuhn and Mark Bilby are proposing (and they are currently publishing on) is that the Marcionite versions of the Pauline letters were edited and 'catholicized' [to form the canonical versions we know today (and which have predominated for ~1800 yrs)].

Where does BeDuhn say that?

[Peter Kirby]

I've been trying to research both the canonical and noncanonical books of the Bible to make my own hypothetical updated canon, and one person I keep running into is Marcion.

The Pauline epistles, apparently, originated with Marcion.

The gospels, apparently, were based off the Gospel of Marcion.

1 John and Revelation, apparently, were works of Marcion that were later catholicized into what we have now.

So... what didn't Marcion fabricate? Are Jude, James, 1+2Peter and 2+3John (all of which are apparently pseudepigraphical) the only non-Marcionite books in the NT canon? Is there something I'm missing? It really seems like the general consensus here is that Marcion was behind everything.

As a matter of hypothesis (and for now just as a matter of hypothesis), I would consider:

(a) Hebrews was written pre-65.
(b) Paul wrote pre-65, between seven and nine known letters.
(c) 1 Peter was written around 65-70. (A bit controversial but I've been exploring this possibility.)
(d) Mark was written around 70-75.
(e) Ephesians was written to form a ten letter collection in the late first century. (Controversial.)
(f) A travel diary by a companion of Paul was written in the late first century. (Controversial.)
(g) Deutero-Mark was written in the late first century. (Controversial.)
(h) Revelation was written around 90-95, near the end of Diocletian's reign.
(i) 1 Clement was written around 90-95, near the end of Diocletian's reign.
(j) John was written around 90-100, completed after a disciple died (John 21).
(k) 1 John was also written around 90-100.
(l) The Epistle of Barnabas was written around 95-110, during the Nerva-Trajan dynasty.
(m) Matthew, using Deutero-Mark, was written in the late first century or in the early second century.
(n) Marcion combined Deutero-Mark & a Galatians-first letter collection, introduced by the Antitheses that he wrote (around Hadrian's reign). Marcion's use of Deutero-Mark led him to consider the Gospel of Matthew to be falsifications by comparison. Marcion continued to be active until the time of Marcus Aurelius.
(o) Luke-Acts used many sources such as the Deutero-Mark, Matthew, John, and the travel diary to present (in Acts) an anti-Marcionite Paul in the mid-second century. (This puts Luke-Acts after Marcion, which is controversial.)

I don't really have time to argue about it, but I wanted to mention all this by way of contrast with the OP.

This is not a complete list of texts that Marcion wasn't behind, but it is enough to illustrate a hypothesis according to which plenty of literary material and Christian thought existed before Marcion. In this estimation, Marcion's literary output was not much, but he was very influential in spreading Christianity, presenting it in a way that was easily understood and adopted because it avoided some of the problems that other second century Christians got bogged down in (evident from the second century Christian apologists).

[ebion]

(b) Paul wrote pre-65, between seven and nine known letters.

Do you have any evidence for that, or is it just your opinion?

[davidmartin]

(b) Paul wrote pre-65, between seven and nine known letters.

Do you have any evidence for that, or is it just your opinion?

There isn't any!
Paul looks later than this because you have to argue for a 'disappearing' Paul otherwise
if he wrote in the 60's, why don't other early texts know him? the didache, justin, the shepherd of hermas, and the gospels themselves?
you have to have Paul 'disappear' and make a come-back later around the mid 2nd century

or the epistles simply emerged in the early-mid 2nd century (or late 1st if you want to connect with Revelation's traditional dating) and grew in popularity, then earlier gospels accounts were added to the collection

[schillingklaus]

Marcion did not make up everything, as the term `Christ` is the work of Judaizers, and Marcion is embarrassed by it and needs to explain it away.

For example, the feeding of the 5000 (as their are five books of the Torah), a Judaization of an originally gnostic feeding process reminding of prototypical eucharist reminding of Genesis 3, is present in EV Marcion according to Klingart or similar. The two big fish represent Leviathan and Behemoth from the Apocalypse of Baruch, making the mass feeding an anticipation of the eschatological meal to occur upon the appearance of the Messiah, who is supposed to repeat the miracle of the manna in exodus. Marcionists would never have invented such an event in harmony with Jewish apocalyptic fantasies.

But the atheological dualism is much older than Marcionism and Catholicism.

[ebion]

(b) Paul wrote pre-65, between seven and nine known letters.

Do you have any evidence for that, or is it just your opinion?

There isn't any!

Amen to that :-,)

..., then earlier gospels accounts were added to the collection

"added to the collection" yes, without implying that all the other things added were necessarily derived from each other. Jerome said Matthew was carefully curated in a library in Caesarea in Aramaic (and perhaps also a copy in Hebrew) even during his time (400+AD). Others wrote that that the library also contained a copy of Acts in Hebrew.