Implications of Marcion for early Christianity?

[GakuseiDon]

There have been lots of threads about Marcion and early Christianity recently. I was wondering what theories people have around the implications of Marcion for early Christianity. Not necessarily HJ vs MJ, though that could be a part of it, but on the development of early Christianity itself.

For myself: I believe that Marcion was prominent for a few decades up to around 150 CE. As per Justin Martyr, I don't think Christians minded how Jesus was perceived, whether as a phantom, a man, an angel or the Logos. The central issue was around whether the Creator Jewish God was the true God or not. That's what Justin wanted to warn his Roman pagan readers about. I think that was a HUGE issue that divided early Christianity, and drove the formation of the proto-orthodox group. The issue developed when the earliest Christianity (which I believed was reflected in the beliefs of the later Ebionites) expanded throughout the wider Mediterranean and merged with Greek philosophical ideas like Plato's Demiurge. Suddenly a Jewish God was too small to run the world.

Marcion's Gospel in my view was a cut-down version of Luke, or an early version that became Luke. Lots of people have done something similar, so IMHO it is the most parsimonious explanation. Marcion's Gospel was about an apparently Jewish man in appearance who interacted with Jewish leaders of his day and was crucified by the Romans. 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.

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.

[MrMacSon]

I think the gospeltext that Marcion had was used & expanded by Luke, ie. the Marcionite gospeltext was a 'proto-Luke.'

I think a proto-Mark developed in the Marcionite community (or 'adjacent' to it) and was used to develop a proto-Matthew (and either that first edition of Matthew or subsequent development of Matthew - ie. subsequent editing - involved significant 'Judaification').

• I think the author/s of this proto-Mark used Paul (and/or subsequent editors of 'Mark')

I think at least some of the early editions of the then 'non-pastoral' Pauline epistles were developed in the Marcionite community.

• the references to doctrinal differences and disputes may be Marcionite or may be later, orthodox-added passages

Then Mark, Matthew and Luke were further developed 'in concert.'

A proto-John probably initially came from another early 'Johannine tradition' and added to the early synoptic and canonical 'tradition.'

Early version of the Epistle to the Hebrews & the book of Revelation were probably available and read & used by the various authors & editors.

Justin Martyr was witness to some of these developments (and communicated cordially with Marcion). Some of Justin's works were edited and 'developed' after his time (they show signs of repetition of passages and themes and tropes that later editors would have been responsible for).

---

For myself: I believe that Marcion was prominent for a few decades up to around 150 CE. As per Justin Martyr, I don't think Christians minded how Jesus was perceived, whether as a phantom, a man, an angel or the Logos. The central issue was around whether the Creator Jewish God was the true God or not. That's what Justin wanted to warn his Roman pagan readers about.

• It's not clear what you think Justin Martyr was wanting to warn Roman pagan readers about?

The issue developed when the earliest Christianity (which I believed was reflected in the beliefs of the later Ebionites) expanded throughout the wider Mediterranean and merged with Greek philosophical ideas like Plato's Demiurge. Suddenly a Jewish God was too small to run the world.

• How might "the issue" of earliest Christianity [whatever "the issue" might be], reflected in the later Ebionites, been preserved & transmitted?

Marcion's Gospel in my view was a cut-down version of Luke, or an early version that became Luke. Lots of people have done something similar, so IMHO it is the most parsimonious explanation.

• which of those two options is "the most parsimonious explanation" and why?

[Peter Kirby]

The central issue was around whether the Creator Jewish God was the true God or not.

I think that neither demiurgism, nor viewing Jesus as a heavenly man who descended, nor *Ev, were original to Marcion.

Marcion was a shipowner, a wealthy and practical man, and a Christian. A literary assistant helped him write Antitheses. He opposed allegorical reading of the scriptures, which was the main distinguishing feature where he stood out from Basilides and Valentinus. For others, some emphasized the "30 years of age" (aeons) and the "acceptable year" and other stuff that Marcion didn't go along with.

Marcion as an old man might have been a throwback to earlier, simpler demiurgists.

[RandyHelzerman]

Once we can get past these lingering dogmatic biases towards the canonical gospels, in terms of both priority and theology--which is to say, we can finally give Marcion's Gospel its proper premier place, I think most of the problems and conundrums which NT studies have had since time immemorial will be dissolved.

1. No more wasting endless grant dollars and intellectual energy on the whole Q industry. Marcion's gospel gives us everything we'd ever want from Q. We don't have to postulate some nameless text, of which we've never found any scrap of, nor even the slightest hint of mention of, to explain where Luke and Matthew got their material which is over and above what Mark gave them. IMHO the only reason we haven't done this already is that there is still this lingering dogmatic reluctance to admit that a heretical gospel is the basis of Luke and Matthew, (and perhaps even Mark.)

2. We can finally admit that we'll never be able to extract a coherent theology or interpretation from the cannonical letters of Paul--because they have been deliberately larded with anti-marcionite polemic. Stop even trying to, say, reconcile Paul's "in christ there is no male or female" parts with Paul's "women should wear a paper-bag over their heads and shut up in church" parts. Forget it. This too will free up endless grant money for research projects which will actually get somewhere.

3. No more conjuring up spectral "communities" in which Mark arose, or Q arose, etc etc. It all happened in Asia Minor, in proto-marcionite churches. We know from the Apostolicon what the concerns and problems of these early churches were, we have secular history in Pliny's letters about the churches which were in the process of writing the earliest gospels, we have all kinds of accounts of how Marcion spread the earliest canon around the empire. And we have excellent handle on increasing our knowledge of these.

4. Endless new frontiers will be open: Asia Minor's archeology and history has been sadly neglected, because, well, its not a christian territory now, and even if it was, the bias was that all we'd find out was about these weird heretics located at the arse-end of the Roman world, who said that God was the devil! *ALL KINDS* of theses and research, histories, archeological digs, etc have yet to be done, and will be done once we realize that its not just some God-forsaken nowheresville, but it is the heart and center of early Christianity. Finding out more about, say, the shipbuilding industry there sheds light on early christianity. Finding out more about the economy of that time frame will tell us more about the secular society which early christianity arose from, the differences between rich and poor which the christians were trying to transcend, etc etc.

IMHO it will be the biggest revolution in NT studies since the reformation. A lot of dogmatic old farts are going to have to die first, but its inevitable. Marcion will have his day.

[MrMacSon]

[Marcion] opposed allegorical reading of the scriptures, which was the main distinguishing feature where he stood out from Basilides and Valentinus.

• What scriptures are you referring to here?
  1. to Hebrew scriptures? Pentateuch? Tanakh? Mostly Genesis?, or
  2. to Christian scriptures?

And related:

For others, some emphasized the "30 years of age" (aeons) and the "acceptable year" and other stuff that Marcion didn't go along with.

• How can we know if that sort of 'theology' did not, in fact, arise from, say, Platonism or other non-Jewish 'theologies'?

Marcion was a shipowner, a wealthy and practical man, and a Christian.

• The shipowner thing might have been a label put on him to diminish him(?). Can we really know it's true?

[Peter Kirby]

Can we really know it's true?

I'm respecting the OP here:

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!

[Peter Kirby]

For others, some emphasized the "30 years of age" (aeons) and the "acceptable year" and other stuff that Marcion didn't go along with.

• How can we know if that sort of 'theology' did not arise from, say, Platonism or other non-Jewish 'theologies'?

I didn't imply anything about where "that sort of 'theology'" did arise from.

[Peter Kirby]

[Marcion] opposed allegorical reading of the scriptures, which was the main distinguishing feature where he stood out from Basilides and Valentinus.

• What scriptures are you referring to here?
  1. to Hebrew scriptures? Pentateuch? Tanakh? Mostly Genesis?, or
  2. to Christian scriptures?

Origen and De Recta in Deum Fide suggest that the answer is any and all.

[MrMacSon]

...

[Peter Kirby]

Marcion was a shipowner

I'm respecting the OP here:

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!

Let the 'discussion' begin!

It can't be proven one way or another.