Implications of Marcion for early Christianity?

[RandyHelzerman]

There was already a "balance" in Christianity before Acts was written. Paul says the pillars (James, Peter and John) approved of his Gentile mission in Gal. 2:7-9:

Acts was written by a later generation than Paul. There are echos of the fierce debates which Paul had with his opponents. But its obvious the issue just isn't as pressing as it was before. Probably because after 70ad and 130ad Jews had other things to worry about, and gentiles probably wanted to distance themselves from the rebels.

7... they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.

From the beginning of Galatians. Yeah, he says that, but you can hardly call the opening of Galatians an ecumenical tract Case in point:

James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars [......I don't give a flying flip about that...]

There are still open wounds from the controversies. By time Acts was written, Paul and his generation were long dead.

he was wiling to be Torah observant around Jews in 1 Cor. 9:20 ("To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- to win those under the law). And that's what we see Paul doing in Acts.

I like how Jason BeDuhn puts it. Paul wasn't advocating for a new religion--because he *couldnt*. The whole concept of a religion hadn't been invented yet. Everybody just as a matter of course followed their ethnic traditions, as part of belonging to that ethnic group, and a feature of those traditions was which gods you worshiped.

There's a very interesting lecture by him about this on youtube.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OP4F5aPn-g

Paul says in a full-throated voice that he is Jew, a Phrasee. He did not see himself as having *converted* from one religion to another--he literally could not have even framed that thought.

Paul and other Christians are also called Nazarenes in Acts, so for me, Acts is a Nazarene writing, since it calls Christians Nazarenes and espouses Nazarene doctrines (pro-Torah observance for Jews and Paul-friendliness).

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220, Against Marcion, 4:8 ) records that the Jews called Christians "Nazarenes" from Jesus being a man of Nazareth, not because of any particular doctrine or ethnic or religious practice. Other than being students of a rabbi from Nazareth.

As for Marcion, I don't see any "balancing" in Acts,

And the redactor of the NT is looking down on you with benevolent pride. "Mission Accomplished" he says to himself

--//--

I really don't understand, John, why its so important for you to try to come up with one, true, coherent picture out of the myriad of sources and histories we have. Or even why you would try to extract one of them which is true. I mean, I speak like I am a Marcionite sometimes, but that's just following your suit---you are speaking like an observer of the Torah.

*Especially* because you don't believe this stuff is word-for-word literally true, and that there is no afterlife, etc etc. I mean, you are defending your position here like somebody who is afraid they will go to hell if they get it wrong

What are your motivations? Religious? Philosophical? Tell me a bit about your headspace.

[John2]

There was already a "balance" in Christianity before Acts was written. Paul says the pillars (James, Peter and John) approved of his Gentile mission in Gal. 2:7-9:

Acts was written by a later generation than Paul. There are echos of the fierce debates which Paul had with his opponents. But its obvious the issue just isn't as pressing as it was before. Probably because after 70ad and 130ad Jews had other things to worry about, and gentiles probably wanted to distance themselves from the rebels.

I actually think (as a non-believer) that Acts was written by one of Paul's follower's (since we're invited to speculate here). I can't prove it, but all things considered, that's my guess. And the person I have in mind would have written Acts by c. 95 CE (before Marcion was active). And I see more than an "echo" of the debate about Jewish Torah observance in Acts. It addresses it quite frankly in 21:

Then they said to Paul, “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21But they are under the impression that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe our customs. 22What then should we do? They will certainly hear that you have come.

23Therefore do what we advise you. There are four men with us who have taken a vow. 24Take these men, purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is no truth to these rumors about you, but that you also live in obedience to the law.

I know we've gone over this before, but what more could you want here? This acknowledges what we know from Paul's letters, that Paul had a Torah-free dream for everyone, but James (like he does in his letter) keeps Paul in line.

The letter of James is diplomatic (and protective) by not naming Paul outright and hopes that he could be brought back in line on the issue of Jewish Torah observance, and the same thing happens in Acts 21, where James protects him from the mob and keeps him in line on Torah observance.

7... they saw that I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship to the Gentiles.

From the beginning of Galatians. Yeah, he says that, but you can hardly call the opening of Galatians an ecumenical tract Case in point:

James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars [......I don't give a flying flip about that...]

There are still open wounds from the controversies. By time Acts was written, Paul and his generation were long dead.

Plenty of people who were alive since the 30's CE were alive in the 90's CE (like Josephus and Flavius Clemens), and I think the person who wrote Acts was one of them.

So Paul wasn't big on ranking. But he at least had the approval of the pillars and he wanted people to know that. And he shows more deference to them in 1 Cor. 15:9 ("For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God"). He was a complicated guy. But at the end of the day, despite his Torah-free dream for everyone, he was willing to be Torah observant, and James made sure of that.

he was wiling to be Torah observant around Jews in 1 Cor. 9:20 ("To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law -though I myself am not under the law- to win those under the law). And that's what we see Paul doing in Acts.

I like how Jason BeDuhn puts it. Paul wasn't advocating for a new religion--because he *couldnt*. The whole concept of a religion hadn't been invented yet. Everybody just as a matter of course followed their ethnic traditions, as part of belonging to that ethnic group, and a feature of those traditions was which gods you worshiped.

There's a very interesting lecture by him about this on youtube.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OP4F5aPn-g

Paul says in a full-throated voice that he is Jew, a Phrasee. He did not see himself as having *converted* from one religion to another--he literally could not have even framed that thought.

Paul wasn't the only Pharisee Christian (Acts 15:5; "some believers from the party of the Pharisees"). Most Jews followed Pharisaic practices then, so that was the largest pool to draw converts from. It was also an aspect of Fourth Philosophic Judaism, which I see Christianity as being a faction of. As Josephus puts it, in addition to their fervent messianism and alterations of the oral Torah, Fourth Philosophers "agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions." And Paul emphasizes this commonality in Acts 23:

“Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. It is because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.”

7As soon as he had said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is neither a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

9A great clamor arose, and some scribes from the party of the Pharisees got up and contended sharply, “We find nothing wrong with this man."

And the Pharisee leader Gamaliel defends Christians in Acts 5:

But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a short time.

35“Men of Israel,” he said, “consider carefully what you are about to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men joined him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and drew away people after him. He too perished, and all his followers were scattered.

38So in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone. Let them go! For if their purpose or endeavor is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop them. You may even find yourselves fighting against God.”

40At this, they yielded to Gamaliel.

And Josephus is another Pharisee who went over to the Fourth Philosophy. He (and Christians and others who converted to the Fourth Philosophy) were still Jewish and practicing Judaism, but it was a new kind of Judaism, "which we were before unacquainted withal," as Josephus puts it (cf. Mk. 1:27: "The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, 'What is this? A new teaching—and with authority!'").

Yes, Jesus rejects a lot (but not all) of the oral Torah, just like other Fourth Philosophers ("the customs of our fathers were altered ... by this system of philosophy"/"So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: 'Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?'"). But otherwise Jesus (and other Christians and Fourth Philosophers) agreed with "the Pharisaic notions," like resurrection of the dead, angelology and tefillin.

I'll need to address your other comments in another post.

[John2]

Paul and other Christians are also called Nazarenes in Acts, so for me, Acts is a Nazarene writing, since it calls Christians Nazarenes and espouses Nazarene doctrines (pro-Torah observance for Jews and Paul-friendliness).

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220, Against Marcion, 4:8 ) records that the Jews called Christians "Nazarenes" from Jesus being a man of Nazareth, not because of any particular doctrine or ethnic or religious practice. Other than being students of a rabbi from Nazareth.

It looks to me like Tertullian says Jews called Christians Nazarenes because of prophecies in the OT. Spin has convinced me that Matthew's "He shall be called a Nazarene" is based on Nazirite references like Judges 13:3-5:

... you will conceive and give birth to a son. 4Now please be careful not to drink wine or strong drink, and not to eat anything unclean. 5For behold, you will conceive and give birth to a son. And no razor shall come over his head, because the boy will be a Nazirite to God from the womb, and he will begin the deliverance of Israel ...

Tertullian appears to support this idea in AM 8:

The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, Her Nazarites were whiter than snow [Lam. 4:7]; even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance.

But in any event, Acts espouses doctrines that are attributed solely to Nazarenes, Jewish Torah observance and approval of Paul, and it calls Christians Nazarenes, so to me it looks like a Nazarene writing. Note also that James has Paul help Christians make Nazirite offerings in Acts 21.

I really don't understand, John, why its so important for you to try to come up with one, true, coherent picture out of the myriad of sources and histories we have. Or even why you would try to extract one of them which is true. I mean, I speak like I am a Marcionite sometimes, but that's just following your suit---you are speaking like an observer of the Torah.

*Especially* because you don't believe this stuff is word-for-word literally true, and that there is no afterlife, etc etc. I mean, you are defending your position here like somebody who is afraid they will go to hell if they get it wrong

What are your motivations? Religious? Philosophical? Tell me a bit about your headspace.

For me this field like doing crossword puzzles. It's no more "important" to me than that. It keeps my mind active and I have the same level of satisfaction in solving puzzles in this field as I do crossword puzzles, and when I can't entirely solve a puzzle,then that's that and it's on to the next one.

As for trying to "come up with one, true, coherent picture out of the myriad of sources and histories we have," there simply appears to be a coherent picture in the NT to me, is all. And Nazarenes are said to have used the NT, so they had no issue with it. and it fits what Hegesippus says in EH 4.22.4:

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

[RandyHelzerman]

It looks to me like Tertullian says Jews called Christians Nazarenes because of prophecies in the OT.

Jews did not believe that Jesus was foretold in the OT. I don't know what Tertullian was talking about in that section, what he says makes no sense. I wish I could read latin, perhaps the translation is bad.

The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene

Sure, Tertullian believed that. Marcion didn't.

according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him.

This makes no sense. The Jews didn't consider Jesus to be the fulfillment of any prophecy.

For we are they of whom it is written, Her Nazarites were whiter than snow [Lam. 4:7]; even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance.[/quote]

But in any event, Acts espouses doctrines that are attributed solely to Nazarenes, Jewish Torah observance and approval of Paul, and it calls Christians Nazarenes, so to me it looks like a Nazarene writing. Note also that James has Paul help Christians make Nazirite offerings in Acts 21.

Ah, here is perhaps a clue The is supposedly a quote from Tertullian, eh? How did Tertullian know that what he was quoting from acts came from chapter 21 Busted. The translator is obviously ad libbing here.

For me this field like doing crossword puzzles. It's no more "important" to me than that. It keeps my mind active and I have the same level of satisfaction in solving puzzles in this field as I do crossword puzzles, and when I can't entirely solve a puzzle,then that's that and it's on to the next one.

But crossword puzzles actually have a solution. This doen't---no matter how you put the pieces together, some pieces are going to stack up really bad next to other ones.

As for trying to "come up with one, true, coherent picture out of the myriad of sources and histories we have," there simply appears to be a coherent picture in the NT to me, is all. And Nazarenes are said to have used the NT, so they had no issue with it. and it fits what Hegesippus says in EH 4.22.4:

I think there is a coherence to the NT as well---but it is the coherence the redactor of the final recension put in there

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

*chuckle* I'm sure Peter would have something to say about which rock the church was built on

[John2]

It looks to me like Tertullian says Jews called Christians Nazarenes because of prophecies in the OT.

Jews did not believe that Jesus was foretold in the OT. I don't know what Tertullian was talking about in that section, what he says makes no sense.

I take Tertullian to be saying that Jews called Jesus a Nazarene because he was a Nazirite in accordance with naziritism in the OT. It has nothing to do with belief in anything. It's just a matter of fact. If Jews had called him Jesus the Carpenter, I suppose Tertullian would have said it was in accordance with "carpenter" prophecies in the OT.

But in any event, Acts espouses doctrines that are attributed solely to Nazarenes, Jewish Torah observance and approval of Paul, and it calls Christians Nazarenes, so to me it looks like a Nazarene writing. Note also that James has Paul help Christians make Nazirite offerings in Acts 21.

Ah, here is perhaps a clue The is supposedly a quote from Tertullian, eh? How did Tertullian know that what he was quoting from acts came from chapter 21 Busted. The translator is obviously ad libbing here.

I'm not following you. Tertullian only quotes Lamentations. I brought up Acts 21 because it fits with Christians being called Nazarenes because of naziritism.

For me this field like doing crossword puzzles. It's no more "important" to me than that. It keeps my mind active and I have the same level of satisfaction in solving puzzles in this field as I do crossword puzzles, and when I can't entirely solve a puzzle,then that's that and it's on to the next one.

But crossword puzzles actually have a solution. This doen't---no matter how you put the pieces together, some pieces are going to stack up really bad next to other ones.

You do as much of each puzzle as you can. You don't solve all of them (or even any of them) entirely.

And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

*chuckle* I'm sure Peter would have something to say about which rock the church was built on

Peter followed Jesus before James did. Peter was Jesus' right hand man (however "imperfectly"). Who else during Jesus' lifetime would Jesus say this about?

And Peter was a rock of the Church. "Rock" doesn't mean "bishop." It's just a play on Peter's name signifying his importance to Jesus. And according to Paul, Peter was the first to see the resurrected Jesus. And he is the only disciple mentioned by name regarding seeing the resurrected Jesus in Mk. 16:7 ("tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you'"). And he went on to serve the Church in the capacity of a pillar. And as Paul says in Gal. 2:7-8:

7... I had been entrusted to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8For the One who was at work in Peter’s apostleship to the circumcised was also at work in my apostleship ...

James and Symeon were made bishops and ran the show from Jerusalem, but they weren't running around the world preaching about Jesus. That was Peter's job, as the "rock" of the Church.

[GakuseiDon]

I take Tertullian to be saying that Jews called Jesus a Nazarene because he was a Nazirite in accordance with naziritism the OT. It has nothing to do with belief in anything. It's just a matter of fact. If Jews had called him Jesus the Carpenter, I suppose Tertullian would have said it was in accordance with "carpenter" prophecies in the OT.

Celsus actually makes a similar point when criticising Christian ideas:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... en166.html

[Celsus continues:] "And in all their writings (is mention made) of the tree of life, and a resurrection of the flesh by means of the 'tree,' because, I imagine, their teacher was nailed to a cross, and was a carpenter by craft; so that if he had chanced to have been cast from a precipice, or thrust into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, or had been a leather-cutter, or stone-cutter, or worker in iron, there would have been (invented) a precipice of life beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred leather! Now what old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a whisper, even when making stories to lull an infant to sleep?"

"An iron of love"!