A Consistent Editorial Tendency In Marcion's Use of Luke?

[Peter Kirby]

I intend to show in this post, however, that BeDuhn’s claim is wrong and there is indeed one idea in Luke that Marcion consistently removed and that there is no passage attested to be present in the Evangelion that contradicts it. Further, this idea is found in the Pauline letters as well but Marcion has consistently removed it so that it does not appear in the Apostolikon. The idea is that Jesus was born on earth as a human being and had Jewish ancestors and family.

It's possible that the the author of *Ev is different from a Pauline letter redactor (if the publisher of the Apostolikon collection of the letters were one). Having one common, similar redactional interest doesn't quite show yet that they are the same person.

Also, even if the rest of the quote above is true, the highlighted part doesn't follow IMO. It could instead be true that that:

... there is indeed one idea in Mark that Marcion consistently removed and that there is no passage attested to be present in the Evangelion that contradicts it. Further, this idea is found in the Pauline letters as well but Marcion has consistently removed it so that it does not appear in the Apostolikon. The idea is that Jesus was born on earth as a human being and had Jewish ancestors and family.

So I'm not sure how much we've done to resolve the direction of literary dependence, even if we assume that (a) the author of *Ev and a redactor of Paul were the same person and (b) their purpose included removing references to Jesus being born and having family.

[Secret Alias]

If the source of information about Marcion is polemical how do we know that any information that comes from a polemic isn't hopelessly compromised. By analogy, does Mein Kampf tell us anything salvageable about Jews at the turn of the 20th century. Hitler wrote a text based on his negative experiences with the Jewish population of Germany and Austria. Irenaeus wrote a text about his negative experiences with the Marcionites and their canon. Irenaeus alleged that not only did Luke pre-date Marcion and the Marcionite text but that (as Tertullian preserves) Marcion (a) was a Catholic who (b) accepted the fourfold canon and (c) chose the Lukan text alone to falsify. No explanation is ever given for this chain of events but it occurs within a context where each of the four gospels is alleged to have been written or used by four different sects which Irenaeus happens to have opposed.

So if the origins of Marcion's relationship with Luke is questionable the underlying context of what Marcion believed through his gospel (which alleged to have been a corrupt version of Luke) is equally murky. From Eznik we get a very "mythic" Marcionite narrative where quite clearly "Jesus" is a supernatural being who, in a very close parallel to things preserved by Marcion's alleged contemporary Justin, decided to be crucified in order to liberate the dead souls who died before Moses gave the Law in the underworld. There is an accompanying "judgement" of the Judge (= the Jewish god) where an Origenist "repentance" is described of the Lawgiver.

If this was the original perspective of Marcionism, a semi-mythical, and fully "poetic" narrative about a god who appears before a people awaiting a fully human messiah (= the Jews) in order to destroy their false religion and redeem those who died before the Law, it is hard to use fragmentary references to this gospel and this theological perspective, and draw inferences from later orthodox writers regarding a whole different set of concerns (= a historical Jesus) which the Marcionites didn't consider care about.

[Ken Olson]

If the source of information about Marcion is polemical how do we know that any information that comes from a polemic isn't hopelessly compromised. By analogy, does Mein Kampf tell us anything salvageable about Jews at the turn of the 20th century.

Our Christian sources on Marcion are all to some degree polemical, particularly Tertullian's Against Marcion. We do not know for sure if they are hopelessly compromised or not.

But if they are hopelessly compromised, and do not provide us with anything salvageable about Marcion in the same way that Mein Kampf does not tell us anything salvageable about Jews at the turn of the 20th century, then we should stop including Marcion in our discussions of the synoptic problem. What we have on Marcion would be useless for determining the literary history of the gospels.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

I will try again because we posted at the same time.

If the source of information about Marcion is polemical how do we know that any information that comes from a polemic isn't hopelessly compromised. By analogy, does Mein Kampf tell us anything salvageable about Jews at the turn of the 20th century. Hitler wrote a text based on his negative experiences with the Jewish population of Germany and Austria. Irenaeus wrote a text about his negative experiences with the Marcionites and their canon. Irenaeus alleged that not only did Luke pre-date Marcion and the Marcionite text but that (as Tertullian preserves) Marcion (a) was a Catholic who (b) accepted the fourfold canon and (c) chose the Lukan text alone to falsify. No explanation is ever given for this chain of events but it occurs within a context where each of the four gospels is alleged to have been written or used by four different sects which Irenaeus happens to have opposed.

So if the origins of Marcion's relationship with Luke is questionable the underlying context of what Marcion believed through his gospel (which alleged to have been a corrupt version of Luke) is equally murky. From Eznik we get a very "mythic" Marcionite narrative where quite clearly "Jesus" is a supernatural being who, in a very close parallel to things preserved by Marcion's alleged contemporary Justin, decided to be crucified in order to liberate the dead souls who died before Moses gave the Law in the underworld. There is an accompanying "judgement" of the Judge (= the Jewish god) where an Origenist "repentance" is described of the Lawgiver.

If this was the original perspective of Marcionism, a semi-mythical, and fully "poetic" narrative about a god who appears before a people awaiting a fully human messiah (= the Jews) in order to destroy their false religion and redeem those who died before the Law, it is hard to use fragmentary references to this gospel and this theological perspective, and draw inferences from later orthodox writers regarding a whole different set of concerns (= a historical Jesus) which the Marcionites didn't consider care about.

[Secret Alias]

Let me add, if as I suspect the gospel was merely an invented narrative about the Jews having a false religion (= as Samaritan texts also consistently reflect as a point of reference) and that their messiah was a false messiah and a deviation from the "true religion" witnessed at Qumran where a redeeming heavenly figure was originally expected all the references to Jesus (a) having a mother (b) being a "son of David" (c) being expected to be the messiah (d) being predicted by false prophets (in the Samaritan sense) etc are really only meant to be seen through the lens of deviation from the "true religion." In other words THE JEWS expected (a) (b) (c) (d) etc and the gospel merely contrasted the Jewish expectation with what was the expectation of "the true religion." One can't use contextualized refutations about the error of the Jewish religion for proof of Jesus' existence i.e. for the properly expected "god" who was a stranger now to the blind Jewish rebels against the true religion. "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him."

[Secret Alias]

So some examples.

"many will come saying I am the Christ do not believe them" (or whatever it says). I remember this because it is in the Gospel of Barnabas. On the one hand you can say "oh this was written AFTER Jesus as the Christ was a core belief of the orthodox." But that's not necessarily so. It could arise from a conversation about expected redeemers.

Blind Bartimaeus. The Marcionite interpretation is that only after the beggar says "Lord" (contrasting it with "Son of David" did Jesus restore his sight. It might appear to again postulate the pre-existence of the cult of Jesus as son of David. But that's not necessarily so. Again the narrative might have been written as social commentary.

Peter identifying Jesus as the Christ in Matthew 16. It might infer that Peter was correct to identify Jesus as such but we don't know if there were alternative versions of this narrative or what version was used by the Marcionites (if at all).

"Your mother and brothers are standing outside." Is this proof that Jesus had mothers and brothers or was the later gospel "fact" that Jesus had material brothers and a mother developed from the Jews falsely claiming that? Let's look at it another way. Justin seemed to have believed in a virgin birth. While Jesus could have had younger brothers and been born to a virgin. The family seems to have moved from Egypt as a very small unit even in the early narratives. The claims that Jesus had a family could have simply developed from mockery. Your mom wasn't a virgin she was a whore (I remember dating a black stripper in Florida who had a single mother and 6 brothers and sisters all from different fathers). The image of a single mother with lots of kids seems to imply harlotry.

Some examples of scriptural development from the Gospel of Barnabas:

Then Jesus said: "And the Messenger of God when he shall come, of what lineage will he be?" The disciples answered:
"Of David." Whereupon Jesus said: "You deceive yourselves; for David in spirit calls him lord, saying thus: God said to my
lord, sit you on my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. God shall send forth your rod which shall have
lordship in the midst of your enemies. If the Messenger of God whom you call Messiah were son of David, how should
David call him lord? Believe me, for truly I say to you, that the promise was made in Ishmael, not in Isaac."

and again:

The woman answered: "We look for the Messiah; when he comes he will teach us." Jesus answered: "Know you, woman,
that the Messiah must come?" *She answered: "Yes, Lord." Then Jesus rejoiced, and said: "So far as I see, O woman,
you are faithful: know therefore that in the faith of the Messiah shall be saved every one that is elect of God; therefore it is
necessary that you know the coming of the Messiah;." The woman said: "O Lord, perhaps you are the Messiah." Jesus
answered: "I am indeed sent to the House of Israel as a prophet of salvation; but after me shall come the Messiah, sent of
God to all the world; for whom God has made the world.
And then through all the world will God be worshipped, and mercy received, insomuch that the year of jubilee, which now
comes every hundred years, shall by the Messiah be reduced to every year in every place." Then the woman left her
waterpot and ran to the city to announce all that she had heard from Jesus.

[Secret Alias]

Other signs that the gospel is based on social commentary rather than strict history.

The manner in which the "who is the messiah?" question dominates the text. Rather than being a straightforward "documentary" about Jesus's (alleged) messiah claim the gospel develops as a narrative about the question of who is the messiah and whether Jesus is the awaited messiah. Ignoring the fact that Jesus in at least some versions of this narrative NEVER confirms that he is the messiah everyone is expecting, the very fact that the gospel really develops as a commentary on pre-70 CE "questions" about who the messiah is and whether the expectations apply to Jesus make the idea that the original gospel text CONFIRMED that Jesus was the messiah unlikely. I would argue that the Marcionites saw the Jews "looking for the messiah" (for instance the question from John the Baptist). Jesus's response is likely, according to my reconstruction of what the Marcionites believed, to be "hey I am the angel referenced by the Pentateuch (and maybe the old testament)." So it is an oblique "no" not a direct "no." Why is it not more direct? I think that the idea is that the Marcionites and the original gospel writer knowing that these "questions about who the messiah is" are tied to the messianic unrest that leads ultimately to the "false religion" of Judaism. So Jesus doesn't destroy the Jews but he doesn't stop them destroying themselves.

So the question of "Jesus having a mother and brothers" is filtered through the same perspective:

1. Jesus hints that he is an angel
2. the crowd laughing that Jesus's mother and brothers are standing outside is proof that Jesus isn't an angel. Just as crucifying Jesus is supposed to be proof that he was a mortal man.

Surely the Marcionites believed that Jesus was crucified and that he was a god.

As such I think it's naive to suggest that the original gospel was written about a historical Jesus claiming to be the long awaited messiah. Why would such a text be developed by the author in such an enigmatic way if Jesus was in fact claiming to be the long awaited messiah. The only reason that "questions about the messiah" are featured so prominently in the text is that the closest Jesus ever gets to being the messiah is by Jews asking if he is this figure. Surely a historical Jesus claiming to be the historical messiah would have a narrative build around "how Jesus WAS the messiah" rather than just "the fact" that there were questions as to whether Jesus was the messiah.

[Secret Alias]

And remember when we move beyond the filter of Tertullian the Marcionite gospel had clear signs of a supernatural being at the heart of the narrative.

1. Jesus descends from heaven to the place of the Good Samaritan scene in Judea (likely because Adam was formed here or formed from the red earth found here hence the name "Adam").
2. Jesus goes to "Bethsaida" (whatever that means) enrages the crowd of Jews gathered there (probably on Yom Kippur) they come after him and he flies and passes through crowds likely causing the Jewish congregants who run after him trying to push him off a cliff to pass through (or underneath his body) and plunge to their death in the abyss beyond the precipice.

So Jesus is introduced to his audience as a supernatural being. All the things said in Tertullian not withstanding. The narrative itself proves Jesus to be a superhuman divinity of some sort. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584033. This is irrefutable. The Marcionite gospel HAD to have had Jesus flying.

On the flying Marcionite god cf. Carmen adversus Marcionitas

Terrible has bestowed, through Marcion-thanks

To Cerdo's mastership-on you; nor come'

180 The thought into your mind that, from Christ's name

Seduced, Marcion's name has carried you

To lowest depths.22 Say of His many acts

What one displeases you? or what hath God

Done which is not to be extolled with praise?

185 Is it that He permits you, all too long,

(Unworthy of His patience large,) to see

Sweet light? you, who read truths,23 and, docking them,

Teach these your falsehoods, and approve as past

Things which are yet to be?24 What hinders, else,

190 That we believe your God incredible?

Nor marvel is't if, practiced as he is,

He captived you unarmed, persuading you

There are two Fathers (being damned by One),

And all, whom he had erst seduced, are gods;

And after that dispread a pest, which ran

With multiplying wound, and cureless crime,

To many. Men unworthy to be named,

Full of all magic's madness, he induced

To call themselves "Virtue Supreme; "and feign

(With harlot comrade) fresh impiety;

To roam, to fly. (peragrare, volare) He is the insane god

Of Valentine, and to his Aeonage

Assigned heavens thirty, and Profundity

Their sire.28 He taught two baptisms, and led

205 The body through the flame. That there are gods

So many as the year hath days, he bade

A Basilides to believe, and worlds

As many. Marcus, shrewdly arguing

Through numbers, taught to violate chaste form

210 'Mid magic's arts; taught, too, that the Lord's cup

Is an oblation, and by prayers is turned

To blood.

Perhaps it can be argued that Simon is being referenced here. But still I think even Simon's flying goes back to the flying Jesus of the Marcionite gospel. The ἐνθύμησις of Christ, being divided from him when Christ returns to heaven before the crucifixion, leaves the resultant "ἐνθύμησις" unable to fly (implying a gospel narrative previously where the unified being could fly):

Yet she tried and perhaps would have seized it had not the same Horos who had so auspiciously come to her mother now so inopportunely encountered the daughter that he even cried out against her 'Iao'--as if saying 'furthermore, citizens' or 'by Caesar's faith.' From there 'Iao' is found in the scriptures. Thus repelled from proceeding further and not having the means to fly over the Cross, that is Horon, because there was no Catullus' Laureolus to be practiced, as deprived as she was entangled in that passion of hers, complex and perplexed, she began to be afflicted by every kind of it

One of the reasons I think that the Marcionite gospel began at Jerusalem is the reference to "mountaintop" in Ephrem, Bethsaida of Galilee cannot be a mountain let alone a mountain top:

And when they threw him down from the mountaintop,
he did not will that he should be harmed,
so he was not harmed.
When they threw him down, he flew
and showed them how bodies will be carried away in the end.
He made the air like his chariot, and his body like a driver.
For the air will be like a chariot: it will fly the righteous up to meet its Lord.
A chariot came down for Elijah; it ascended and descended without a driver.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UryjE ... 22&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=0eYRB ... da&f=false

Toledoth Yeshu https://books.google.com/books?id=81hHs ... 22&f=false