Implications of Marcion for early Christianity?

[Peter Kirby]

In the spirit of speculative ideas:

Marcion wasn't the evangelist Mark. Marcion didn't write a Gospel. And Marcion also wasn't his real name.

Whatever his original name was, he adopted the name "Marcion" (little Mark) as an homage to the Mark who wrote the Gospel.

[Giuseppe]

In my view:
Marcion was merely the top of the iceberg of the phenomenon called anti-demiurgism, the idea that YHWH is an evil deity, unable to make good even when considered "just".

The fact that *Ev precedes Luke, Matthew and even Mark means that the label of Jewish-Christian doesn't deserve to be attributed to the authors of Luke, Matthew and Mark, i.e. they aren't more close than Marcion to the Origins.

In very cruel terms: once a virgin has been raped by an alien, she doesn't deserve more to be called virgin.

This doesn't mean that the Origins aren't Jewish. This means that the Origins are, at worst, in Diaspora's Jews. As Ellegard said, in "international Essenism".

Ultimately I am re-valuing Ellegard, given the fact that StephenGoranson means to make a very intriguing case I are very curious to read.

[GakuseiDon]

As Peter noted, the thread isn't about trying to prove one theory or another, but rather what is people's best guess about how Marcion fits into early Christianity? I'm interested in reading the range of views people have developed based on their intuition, and not challenging anyone to 'prove' that point of view. There is a lack of clear-cut evidence anyway so any view is going to be speculative.

[Peter Kirby]

There was nothing in Marcion's Gospel AFAIK that would have been of concern to other Christian groups until orthodoxy gained power. But his view about another Creator God definitely was, since IMHO most early Christian groups were dependent on magical invocations of Jesus and God in order to attract converts. The first step in doing that is making sure you had the right gods to worship.

Origen, Homily on Psalms 77, homily 1:

If you were to hear what the Apostle has said, what the Gospel has said, know that those statements they are using are like stolen goods.

And, sure, Origen can tell when it is heretics ("bandits") that are using them.

But he knows that the people being read the homily might not perceive it:

“A thief,” then, “will come in to him, and a bandit robbing on his road.” Do not be in the bandit’s road! There is no bandit on your road: “I am the road and the truth and the life.” Travel on this, and no bandit molests you. “Three things are impossible for me to perceive, the roads of a snake on a rock.” The road of a snake on a rock cannot be perceived: the road of the snake who is an adverse power on Christ, the rock, “For the rock was Christ,” for it is the road of a snake on a rock that cannot be perceived.

And what are the things not necessarily being perceived as spiritual error?

By this imagined Christ they rob Christ, but it is not really Christ, for they offer an Antichrist, robbing Christ from you. Is it not an Antichrist, being called by Christ’s name, but without the truth about Christ? But the truth is about Christ: he was born of a virgin. Antichrist: he was not born at all. The truth is about Christ: he had a body just like ours, so that he might save us. Antichrist: his body was spiritual. Christ was prophesied by the prophets. Antichrist, never. Furthermore, our Lord Jesus, proclaimed ahead of time by the prophets, is the Christ Jesus of the Creator of heaven and earth, but not of some higher and good god. A thief then accosts him, a robbing bandit. Therefore, pay attention, so that a thief may not rob you.

So, sure, the texts of the Gospel and the Apostle weren't necessarily so very different. They could be quoted and would be familiar to other Christians. But would the doctrines taught be considered strange by the great majority of "other" (non-demiurgist, at first) Christians? No. Not necessarily, that's why they were so successful for so long. Neither the texts nor the ideas were considered very strange by most Christians.

Origen (c. 185 – c. 253) speaks of how "the heresies were flourishing" with "many gathered in them" when he was young:

And we know this from personal experience, for when we were young the heresies were flourishing, and there seemed to be many gathered in them. So many were starving for Christ’s lessons, not being supplied with enough teachers in the Church, that on account of the famine they imitated those who eat human flesh during a famine; separating from the sound logos, they paid attention to any logoi whatsoever, and their teaching was cobbled together. But when the grace of God brought to light more teaching, the heresies were daily demolished, and things they considered unspeakable were made into an example and shown to be blasphemies and irreverent and godless logoi.

If Origen is correct about the timeline, then the literary efforts of Justin and Irenaeus didn't topple the heresies. The complaint that it may have devalued the Jewish scriptures didn't topple the heresies. It started a war of words. It defined opposing positions.

The demiurgist idea wasn't inherently offensive to most. It was indeed popular. It had the stamp of approval from Greek philosophy. And something about it was intuitive and appealing to many Christians. As Jesus said in John 8:19 (something quoted in these controversies), they didn't know God the Father, who is revealed by Jesus in the Gospel:

“You do not know Me or My Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well.”

Around the early third century, something that would undermine the popularity of demiurgist ideas was Monarchianism, "the extreme monotheistic view," the belief in only one God. In one popular form, called the Modalistic or Sabellian by theologians, it affirmed that the Father and the Son were the same person.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monarchianism

Monarchianism, in Christianity, a Christological position that opposed the doctrine of an independent, personal subsistence of the Logos and affirmed the sole deity of God the Father. Thus, it represented the extreme monotheistic view.

Though it regarded Jesus Christ as Redeemer, it clung to the numerical unity of the deity. Two types of Monarchianism developed: the Dynamic (or Adoptionist) and the Modalistic (or Sabellian). Monarchianism emerged during the 2nd century and circulated into the 3rd century; it was generally regarded as a heresy by the mainstream of Christian theology after the 4th century.

Dynamic Monarchianism held that Christ was a mere man, miraculously conceived, but constituted the Son of God simply by the infinitely high degree in which he had been filled with divine wisdom and power. This view was taught at Rome about the end of the 2nd century by Theodotus, who was excommunicated by Pope Victor, and taught somewhat later by Artemon, who was excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus. About 260 it was again taught by Paul of Samosata.

Modalistic Monarchianism took exception to the “subordinationism” of some of the Church Fathers and maintained that the names Father and Son were only different designations of the same subject, the one God, who “with reference to the relations in which He had previously stood to the world is called the Father, but in reference to his appearance in humanity is called the Son.” It was taught by Praxeas, a priest from Asia Minor, in Rome about 206 and was opposed by Tertullian in the tract Adversus Praxean (c. 213), an important contribution to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Origen wasn't a monarchian because he wrote that the Father and the Son were different divine persons, that God was in one respect "one" and in another respect multiple. Origen didn't have wide popular support in this. Many took this a bit more literally:

I and the Father are one.

The proto-orthodoxy of a Tertullian or an Origen, each of whom were teaching against monarchian ideas even while they were trying to warn people off getting carried away with the multiple gods of the demiurgists, was influential on later orthodoxy but had less pull during their own lives. The distinctions they made were hard to grasp. If they were successful in opposing one idea, they didn't generally succeed in preventing the adoption of an opposed idea that also wasn't their own.

Monarchianism was easier to understand and more capable of winning over the common man who might otherwise listen to the demiurgist idea of multiple gods, including a just creator god and a higher good God. Even if Origen didn't teach it, there were others who would, and Origen respected these men as his "brothers" in Christian faith.

From the perspective of the 4th century idea of Nicene orthodoxy, the monarchianism that was popular in the 3rd century was a heretical meme that diminished the influence of the demiurgist meme that was popular in the 2nd century.

Before orthodoxy gained power, it was heresy against heresy.

[maryhelena]

The purpose of this thread is not to defend my ideas above, though I'm happy to do so. It's to get people's own ideas around what Marcion means for early Christianity.

SPECULATION WELCOMED! I'm interested in speculative ideas. Posts don't have to be the strong, respectful and well-thought out arguments that we usually have on this forum. Go wild! Again, I don't necessarily want to make this about HJ vs MJ (though that's okay as well), but how people think that Marcion fits into the development of early Christianity.

Marcion is viewed as the Arch-Heretic.

The Arch-Heretic Marcion by Sebastian Moll.

Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century by Judith M. Lieu

Whatever one makes of the theology of Marcion (as referenced in early church fathers) the take away is the issue of heresy. An issue that, seemingly, was born with christianity. Eventually, some sort of order was established - Orthodoxy - and heresy got a bad rap and inquisitions brought their own horror. However, whatever 'truth' is - it cannot be kept down. The search for it is nicely set out in this quote.:

Perhaps the mission of those who love mankind is to make people laugh at the truth, to make truth laugh, because the only truth lies in learning to free ourselves from insane passion for the truth. Umberto Eco

However, contrary to Umberto Eco, we cannot free ourselves from this 'insane passion for the truth'.

Christianity has its roots in heresy - it's breakaway from Judaism, from the OT Law. It's clarion call has always been the cry of freedom, the very cry of heresy. Freedom to think, to question. But ideas have their own inherent danger - their sometimes unwillingness to let go, to cling to their glory days. But never fear - heresy has their number - it is as able to put 'truth' to shame just as an executioner can put the axe to a man's neck.

Those early church fathers might have put Marcion's neck on the executioner's block - but Marcion's struggle with Orthodoxy is as alive today as it was 2000 years ago. Marcion's 'evil god' is alive and kicking.......

Marcion's 'evil god' has had a bad innings. Who can forget Richard Dawkins on the OT god:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

RICHARD DAWKINS, THE GOD DELUSION P.31.

Yep, people get their back up re notions of an 'evil god'. But is not this god the very god of heresy ? A god with the ability to knock down, to destroy. In other words - a negative god. The OT of course being a prime example of a negative god, a god who has a chosen people and a Law. In contrast, the NT has its focus on neither Jew nor Greek - seeking a positive relationship between man and man, a god of love, a positive god.

Two notions of god - a negative and a positive. Both 'gods' are part of our human dualistic nature. It's our choice as to where we decide to allow these two 'gods' to function, to have a primary say in our personal and social/political lives. It's not a choice between the two - one can't have one without the other. The NT tells us to love our neighbour - it also tells us about the sheep and the goats. The OT tell us about killing our enemies but it also tells us to live by a moral code. Context - as they say - matters. Social/political stability requires a positive god - but growth, intellectual growth, requires a negative god.

Marcion's struggle continues......the Orthodox think, believe, they have the 'truth'. But, methink, Jason BeDuhn has a point.

"Intellectual inertia. And just to be very frank very poor quality of graduate programs in this field across the world. It's just laziness .... just let's do another of the same kind of work we've been doing. And behind it I think there's a kind of terror. The kind of .... let's not open the door to reconsidering everything... They're afraid that the whole construct is going to come apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWfQEGQeaXU&t=1472s

Christian orthodoxy has had a good innings for stability - but has now become moribund, lifeless in it's inability to move forward. As unwelcome as Marcion was for the early church fathers - he remains so today - but a thorn in their flesh nevertheless.....his 'evil god' - the god of heresy is awake from slumber and seeks the light of day....well, something like that...

So, to all the heretics out there - raise a class to Marcion.

[JarekS]

Marcion provided Christianity with organizational know-how and was the first to define the target market and tailor products to it. During his life, he had no one to report to because Rome was full of talking heads and there was no one there who could sort out the chaos. Only the risk of losing the competition for leadership in Christianity made the Romans choose practical and organized people as leaders, such as Callixtus, the banker pope. The rest is propaganda.

[andrewcriddle]

Lots of Christians in the early 2nd century used the NT rather than the Jewish Bible, while still in theory accepting the authority of the Jewish Bible.

Most of them found Marcion's outright rejection of the Jewish Bible unacceptable and in response they made much more use of it (allegorically interpreted).

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

All Christians reject the authority of the Law. The hypocritical acceptance of "general principles of the Jewish Law giver" was merely a late heresy. A reconsideration. Like a wife who after divorcing her husband in a traditional marriage from the 1500s learns to think "he wasn't all bad" while still rejecting his authority his decisions over her. The way you guys dance around Marcion founding Christianity. The Law IS slavery. It saw from the very beginning its relationship with its adherents in terms of master and slaves. Jesus established the end of the slavery. Marcion perpetuated the original understanding. All other phony baloney reconsiderations were later heresies who lacked the balls to be honest. You either accept the tyranny or you don't.

[Ken Olson]

10 Theses on Marcion and the Evangelion

1) Marcion created the Evangelion primarily from Luke, mostly by removing material he believed to have been interpolated into the original gospel by Judaizers. In traditional synoptic problem terms, it is attested that the Evangelion has a good many of Luke’s L or singly attested pericopes, many of Luke’s Double Tradition (Matthew -Luke) pericopes, many of Luke’s triple tradition (Mark-Matthew*-Luke) pericopes, and the Evangelion lacks the material from Luke’s Great Omission of the pericopes from Mark 6-8.



2) Critics have pointed out that the contents of the Evangelion as attested by patristic writers conflict with Marcion’s theology as attested by patristic writers. This is true, but we have to allow for (1) unsympathetic exegesis of Marcion from those patristic authors, and (2) if Marcion is using Lukan readings, they can be read in the sense Luke meant them, which may be different from the sense Marcion meant them (see the descent to Capernaum below). It is important to remember that Marcion circulated the Antitheses along with the Evangelion, and the Antitheses probably served both as a guide to Marcion’s theology and on how the Evangelion ought to be read.



3) Marcion thought Jesus had descended to earth from heaven (or a higher world) and edited out material from Luke and Paul that conflicted with that idea, including the idea that Jesus had an earlier history on earth or earthly ancestry.



4) Marcion was, by his own standards, honest. He was trying to restore the gospel to what he thought was its original form. He worked with existing material, omitting a great deal of material from Luke, and some from Paul, and perhaps occasionally using readings from Mark or Matthew, as well as editing for narrative readability. He did not create new pericopes to serve his theology in the way the canonical synoptic evangelists had all done Mark (e.g., Mark’s Empty Tomb 16.1-8), Matthew (e.g., Matt 6.9-13 Lord’s Prayer, 8.5-13 Centurion’s Boy), and Luke (e.g., Luke 7.11-17 The Widow’s Son of Nain, 15.11-32 The Parable of the Prodigal Son).



5) Some of the readings that scholars have placed in their reconstructions of the Evangelion are probably from the Antitheses.



6) Despite claims to the contrary, Luke 4.16-30 presupposes material from the Lukan Infancy Narrative in chapters 1 and 2 as well as Jesus’ having been baptized with the Holy Spirit in chapter 3. Joseph is thought to be Jesus’ father by the inhabitants of Nazareth, and Nazareth is where Jesus was nourished (and is notably not claimed to be where he was born). Also, Jesus' claim that the people will doubtless say 'Physician, heal thyself" presupposes that they think there is something wrong with Jesus, which in all likelihood is that he is possessed by a spirit, which he is. We see that accusation made also in the Beelzebul controversy. The powers at work in Jesus are due to the presence of the Holy Spirit in him (4.1, 4.14) which he earlier received in baptism (Luke 3.21)

7) The Marcionites were neither more honest nor better informed regarding the origin of their gospel than the orthodox patristic authors were regarding their gospels. All of them made decisions about literary history based on what they considered theologically necessary. They inferred history from theology.



8) Much of the biographical information about Marcion found in the patristic witnesses is probably correct. Marcion was probably active in Rome in the 130’s and 140’s CE. Mark, Matthew, and Luke had already been written at that time, as Luke (with the infancy narrative) was known to Basilides c. 130.

9) Klinghardt, and to a lesser extent, BeDuhn, allow that canonical Luke knew Mark and Matthew. If they allow Luke’s knowledge of Matthew (i.e., at an earlier stage than they do), Luke’s use of Marcion (or the hypothetical Q document) is unnecessary.


10) While it is true that many Christians or those raised in a society dominated by Christians might have a canonical bias, it is also the case that some non-Christians have an anti-Christian and anti-canonical bias. Their starting point is that traditional Christian claims are inherently probably wrong and alternative theories are therefore inherently more likely to be right (including some unattested in the ancient documents).


Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

Please. Why not read Mein Kampf and draw from it the "essential characteristics" of the Jewish people or Luther's "The Jews and their Lies"? It's a joke these theses. No one knows what the "Antitheses" were. No has the original text of Irenaeus's Adversus Marcionem upon which Tertullian's copy was based. Lot of BS here.