Even Joseph Turmel concluded that Matthew had falsified *Ev

[StephenGoranson]

"Marcion _hated_ the material world."
Evidence?

[Secret Alias]

I agree with Stephen here. The information from the Church Fathers is not reliable. You can hate a lot of things. Reality ain't one of the things you can successfully "hate on." Gravity. The law of thermodynamics. Aristotle's dictum that two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time is another.

[Giuseppe]

1 Corinthians 15:50

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption

[GakuseiDon]

But how is that possible? The argument is as follows:

1. Marcion knew the fourfold gospel (i.e. a set of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)
2. Marcion for some reason (it is never explained) "chose Luke to falsify"

I don't even think this is a serious suggestion. Surely a motive has to be given to accuse someone of something?

Surely because of Luke's (traditional or assumed) connection to Paul?

It seems that quite a few of the heretical cults adopted one written Gospel as authoritative. The proto-orthodox cult seems to be the odd one out by adopting four authoritative Gospels, despite the apparent contradictions between them.

It seems to me that a Greek philosophy-influenced Marcion decided that 'Judaizers' had corrupted the letters of Paul and the Gospels, and like many scholars, especially over the last couple of hundred years, decided to 'recreate the originals' to his own philosophical leanings.

[Secret Alias]

But Marcion lived before Irenaeus.

[GakuseiDon]

Just thinking through this:

1. Marcion claims to have the original Gospel preached by Paul. Creator God of Judaism is not the true God. No attribution to the Gospel other than perhaps 'Paul'.
2. Proto-orthodox then take that Gospel, assign attribution to Luke, a follower of Paul, and then add 'Judaizing' elements whereby the Creator God is the Jewish one.

Why use that Gospel at all? And then add three more variations of authoritative Gospels that seem to derive from that Gospel to the list?

Or:

1. Marcion claims to have the original Gospel preached by Paul. Creator God of Judaism is not the true God. Attributes it to Luke, a follower of Paul.
2. Proto-orthodox then take that Gospel, leave the attribution to Luke, a follower of Paul, and then add 'Judaizing' elements whereby the Creator God is the Jewish one.

Why leave the attribution to Luke? And then add three more variations of authoritative Gospels that seem to derive from that Gospel to the list?

It seems to me that various cults were creating various versions of written Gospels and were considering that one version as the 'true' one. The proto-orthodox was a compromise group that -- against the grain -- decided on four authoritative versions.

I just don't see any way for Marcion's Gospel to be an original, and then have other Gospels created as variations. There are so many examples of people creating their own versions that it seems the most likely solution that Marcion did the same after encountering the views of Cerinthus, Valentinus and other Gentile-influenced Christians who had decided that the Jewish God was just one more daemon like all the Roman gods. The Creator of the world of corruptible matter was a daemon or daemons. That seems to have been a belief that came AFTER Jewish Christianity, not before.

[Secret Alias]

Why use that Gospel at all?

Why not?

[Peter Kirby]

There are so many examples of people creating their own versions that it seems the most likely solution that Marcion did the same after encountering the views of Cerinthus, Valentinus and other Gentile-influenced Christians who had decided that the Jewish God was just one more daemon like all the Roman gods. The Creator of the world of corruptible matter was a daemon or daemons. That seems to have been a belief that came AFTER Jewish Christianity, not before.

If these views pre-existed Marcion, then perhaps the gospel now associated with Marcion pre-existed him too.

IMO gospel text development is complicated, and I prefer a suspension of judgment that allows a more detailed look.

[MrMacSon]

Just thinking through this:

1. Marcion claims to have the original Gospel preached by Paul. Creator God of Judaism is not the true God. No attribution to the Gospel other than perhaps 'Paul'.
2. Proto-orthodox then take that Gospel, assign attribution to Luke, a follower of Paul,¹ and then add 'Judaizing' elements whereby the Creator God² is the Jewish one.

1 Luke being 'a follower' of Paul in what sense? Colossians 4.14?^a Acts?

• I think that that trope is likely to be a post-Marcionite trope (perpetuated in and by Acts)
  
  a A Luke is also mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:11 ("Only Luke is with me") and Philemon 1:24

2 I presume you mean "whereby the [Supreme, Father] God is [thought to be or was portrayed as] the Jewish [and Christian] One.

Or:

1. Marcion claims to have the original Gospel preached by Paul. Creator God of Judaism is not the true God. Attributes it to Luke,³ a follower of Paul.see 1 above; very unlikely
2. Proto-orthodox then take that Gospel, leave the attribution to Luke, a follower of Paul, and then add 'Judaizing' elements whereby the Creator God is the Jewish one.

Why leave the attribution to Luke? And then add three more variations of authoritative Gospels that seem to derive from that Gospel to the list?

3 So unlikely to have happened that one can say it didn't

It seems to me that various cults were creating various versions of written Gospels⁴ and were considering that one version as the 'true' one. The proto-orthodox was a compromise group that -- against the grain -- decided on four authoritative versions.

4 The three synoptic gospels may not have been created in "various cults": they may well have been developed by the sorts of educated slave writers Candida Moss has proposed in her latest book; or by people, eg. students, in a philosophical school; ie. they may have been created in a single 'community' or group.

I just don't see any way for Marcion's Gospel to be an original, and then have other Gospels created as variations.

Various scholars have proposed and argued that some or all of the canonical Gospels post-date Marcion (but are not just simple variations on the Marcionite gospeltext, aka the Euangelion aka *Ev): John Knox (and several before him) and, more recently, Joseph B Tyson, Jason BeDuhn, Markus Vinzent, and Matthias Klinghardt.

There are so many examples of people creating their own versions that it seems the most likely solution that Marcion did the same after encountering the views of Cerinthus, Valentinus and other Gentile-influenced Christians⁵ who had decided that the Jewish God was just one more daemon like all the Roman gods. The Creator of the world of corruptible matter was a daemon or daemons.⁶ That seems to have been a belief that came AFTER Jewish Christianity,⁷ not before.

5 I'm not sure that "Gentile-influenced" Christians would be an appropriate term here (or anywhere)

6 There's likely to have been various philosophers who considered whether '"the Creator of the world of corruptible matter" was a daemon or daemons' [or a Platonic demiurge], eg. the Middle Platonists, c. 70 BCE onwards.

7 Likely unrelated to "Jewish Christianity" (if that was ever much of a thing before, say, 170-180 CE).

[GakuseiDon]

Why use that Gospel at all?

Why not?

It depends on the starting point, of course. Marcion's Gospel was about a Jewish man (by appearance) who walked around Galilee and Judea, interacted with Jews, cheesed off the Jewish religious leadership and was crucified by the Romans. His Jesus didn't preach about the Jewish God, but rather a stranger God. Marcion arguably believed that the Gospel derived from Paul's letters and what Paul actually preached.

Was Marcion's Jesus and Higher God anything to do with Judaism? No. So why would Judaizers adopt that Gospel at all? Why would they take Marcion's original Gospel and add Judaising features to it? Why not just leave it alone?

If there were already beliefs about that Jesus -- Jewish man by appearance, who cheesed of Jewish leaders and was crucified by the Romans -- already floating around (just to be clear, I'm not claiming this to be an argument for a historical Jesus), then it might make sense to adopt parts of Marcion's Gospel. But that means Marcion's Gospel writer was building from a pre-existing tradition, whether that be oral or written sources.

I see it more likely that the proto-orthodox cult already believed in a version of a Jewish God's Christ and so objected to Marcion's, rather than Jewish or God Fearers picking up Marcion's non-Jewish God beliefs and deciding that Marcion's Gospel did, in fact, reflect the Jewish Christ.