Flaw with Marcion priority theory?

[dabber]

Hi all, I'm following debates on Marcion and his *ev which is a popular subject here.

However think there's a flaw. Please can you evaluate.

Marcion theory has first gospel c. 140 CE when Marcion put together his *ev.

However gMark has an *imminent* end of world in his little apocalypse chapter 13. Also Mk 9:1 some of those standing there, ie. disciples will be alive when the end times happen.

So 2nd C too late. gMark must be 1st C. Date 60-80 seems plausible to me, completes after 70 ce as knows about fall of Jerusalem. Needless to say, the end of the world didn't happen 70-80 ce.

Another flaw, Paul's gospel c. 50 CE is a mythological Christ Jesus moving through the heavens. His sources are revelation and scriptures. This earliest "gospel" which we know of is Paul's. He doesnt have any of the Marcion stuff, except Paul's Lord's supper which Paul received from the Lord. Paul's gospel was a great mystery [religion] hidden for the eons finally revealed to Paul.

How can the Marcion theory square with this? Many thanks

[Secret Alias]

Using the information provided by the ancient Church Fathers is as risky as taking Donald Trump at his word. Sometimes the former president speaks accurately about the facts. Much of the time he doesn't. Hard to find the facts in the Patristic literature about Marcion. Modern reconstructions develop from a period where the Church Fathers were taken at the word. As there isn't much to say about early Christianity without appealing to the Church Fathers modern scholars have to go along with the bad information. Sort of like the situation which arises from overreliance on Josephus. Hard for people to keep their mouths shut when they are getting paid to be experts on things where expertise really isn't possible UNLESS you accept the bad evidence.

[GakuseiDon]

Marcion theory has first gospel c. 140 CE when Marcion put together his *ev.

I don't think that's correct. Marcion appears to be claiming that his Gospel was first, and it is the proto-orthodox Christians who updated things.

According to Tertullian:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an124.html

In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, the mystery of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had its own authentic materials, by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their company from respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself "became all things to all men," that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from what he taught...

I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is...

With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,) that portion of it which we alone receive is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them.

So, if we can believe Tertullian, it seems that Marcion thought that the Gospel he had was from a period predating the Gospel of Luke. I'd guess Marcion thought that Mark and Matthew wrote their Gospels based on false information from 'false apostles'. The problem is we don't have Marcion's own words.

[Ken Olson]

With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,) that portion of it which we alone receive is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them.[/box]

So, if we can believe Tertullian, it seems that Marcion thought that the Gospel he had was from a period predating the Gospel of Luke. I'd guess Marcion thought that Mark and Matthew wrote their Gospels based on false information from 'false apostles'. The problem is we don't have Marcion's own words.

Yes. A major problem problem in interpreting the data is: how much do we trust Tertullian and our other patristic witnesses to the text of Marcion's Evangelion and Antitheses, notably Epiphanius Panarion and the Adamantius Dialogue? We really can't trust them completely, they were definitely biased against Marcion and the Marcionites, but if we distrust them completely, we don't really have enough data to say much of anything about Marcion or the Evangelion or the Antitheses (we have one inscription).

Tertullian does not say that Marcion received the Evangelion, but that he corrupted Luke to form it, partly by removing what he perceived to be interpolations by Judaizers. IIRC none of our sources claim to quote Marcion directly on this point (which, as Peter Kirby has pointed out, they almost certainly would if they could). It is likely that neither the orthodox writers (who accepted the four gospel canon), nor the later Marcionites really knew where the Evangelion came from.

Best,

Ken

[MrMacSon]

Marcion theory has first gospel c. 140 CE when Marcion put together his *ev.

I'm not sure we can be sure of that date.
And we can't be sure Marcion wrote the *ev (though I think Markus Vinzent's reasons for thinking he did are cogent).

I don't think we can be sure when gMark was written, either.

I think it's likely that the author of gMark knew and indeed 'used' some or many of the Pauline epistles.

Yet our first knowledge of Paul is aligned with Marcion.

So many discrepancies and gaps in associations of these and other seemingly key early Christian texts.

[Joseph D. L.]

A problem I see with these reconstructed timelines and priority lists is they are thinking too linearly; too two dimensionally. That is not to dismiss them off hand or say that they are not interesting (and who knows? Maybe they are right? Mark really was first and was first century), but it is a really shallow assessment of the textual evolution of Christian scripture.

There is a center. That much is self evident. What was that center? Was Mark? Marcion? Paul? Or something else? We are only able to know the circumference, not of a circle but a sphere. That makes it exponentially more difficult to get anywhere.

Maybe there wasn't even a center at all? and these texts were just naturally selected and evolved without a proper origin.

[MrMacSon]

I agree with Jospeh D. L. Moreover, a discernible center as I see it is, as some others, such as April Deconick,* have seen it, is the key mid-to-late 2nd century church fathers as they're traditionally portrayed, mainly Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, and early 3rd century texts of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and the author of the Refutation of All Heresies (aka the Philosophumena.

What we try to discern about Marcion is from three+ generations after him, ie., from Tertullian, and later.

And, yes, it has been and still is all too two dimensional.

* Comparing Christianities: An Introduction to Early Christianity, Wiley-Blackwell, August 2023.

[Joseph D. L.]

Cheers MrMacSon

To give an example of what I am driving at, we can look to Mark and its longer ending. For an unknown length of time Mark circulated with the narrative terminating at the women fleeing the empty tomb, telling no one of the resurrection, implied to include the disciples themselves. Those who were reading this, believing it, living by it, indeed influencing others with it, contributing to the development of Christianity's own cultural evolution on a psychological order. Then, for reasons unknown, a longer, more explicit ending was appended to it. Strangely enough, no one seems to have bat an eye to this despite the hubbub around Marcion, but now for all intents and purposes the text as it is now exerts its own influence on us.

So even for the mainstream consensus timeline there is a quantum feature in it:

short Mark - Matthew|Luke - John - long Mark

Here we see the transdimensional nature of Christian scripture. The evolution is not at all linear, but includes cross pollination between texts (I suspect Matthew and John were in a sort of tug-of-war for years with one another) and even time travel as texts are anachronistically displaced before they could have been written and others long after they were written.

If our understanding is gravity then these texts would be astro bodies contributing a dilation like affect that is influencing our minds of these texts. The trick is to realize that and see through.

Or this all could be me writing Christian sci-fi. lol

[Charles Wilson]

However gMark has an *imminent* end of world in his little apocalypse chapter 13.

This, in my opinion, is a literary creation written around Alexander Jannaeus.
Mark 13:

[14] "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains;
[15] let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away;
[16] and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle.
[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

This Anchor Verse is reflected from Josephus, Antiquities, 13, 14, 1 and 2, in part:

:1. SO Demetrius [Eucerus] came with an army, and took those that invited him, and pitched his camp near the city Shechem [Note: Shechem is near the Temple at Gerizim] ; upon which Alexander, with his six thousand two hundred mercenaries, and about twenty thousand Jews, who were of his party, went against Demetrius, who had three thousand horsemen, and forty thousand footmen. Now there were great endeavors used on both sides, - Demetrius trying to bring off the mercenaries that were with Alexander, because they were Greeks, and Alexander trying to bring off the Jews that were with Demetrius. However, when neither of them could persuade them so to do, they came to a battle, and Demetrius was the conqueror; in which all Alexander's mercenaries were killed, when they had given demonstration of their fidelity and courage. A great number of Demetrius's soldiers were slain also.

2. Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country; after which the Jews fought against Alexander, and being beaten, were slain in great numbers in the several battles which they had; and when he had shut up the most powerful of them in the city Bethome, he besieged them therein; and when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes

Mark is not writing History here. YMMV.

CW

[Joseph D. L.]

I take issue with dabber's characterization of Marcion's priority. Of course if consensus' dating of the synoptics and Paul are correct then Marcion's priority would not be feasible. But consider: if the consensus is correct it doesn't explain why Marcion would feel compelled to do what he is accused of doing, or what greater motivation would he have to co-opt Luke and Paul, a charge unique to Marcion and not Cerinthus and Valentinus who also are said to used heretic versions of canonical scripture; if consensus is correct it also doesn't explain the decades wide gap between when it dates these texts and when Marcion came to prominence why there is seemingly no information known of them, that not even Pliny the younger had access.

It simply does not track. The inertia that consensus requires for its dating of these texts and thus its agenda to work is simply not possible with what is actually known about the history of the church. It says that Christianity was slow to spread (despite Acts saying the contrary), that Paul was definitely pre-Temple destruction and Mark was roughly contemporaneous of it, then they just leave the question of how a mariner in Sinope a thousand miles away from Jerusalem who was hostile to Judaism latched onto Christianity, hijacked it as it were, and began his own sectarian version, open. Consensus needs to stop taking things as granted and start asking the how and why things are the way they are. It is frightening how very much like the church fathers the consensus treats Christianity. They just shrug their shoulders, blow their cheeks out and just accept it like it's just an ontological fact of reality.