back to the drawing board? the missing sondergut Marcion

[Secret Alias]

Moreover, taking up Paul's references to "my gospel" in Galatians, Marcion concluded that he used one written gospel" [Steven Wilson, Related Strangers p. 171]

"What of his insistence that there was only one true Gospel, the book which Paul referred to as 'my gospel'? Marcion was of course anachronistic in thinking that Paul meant a written gospel book" though Eusebius took the expression in the same way and also though it meant Luke" [John Barton Holy Writings Sacred Texts p. 43]

"(Marcion) seems to have interpreted Paul's mention of “my gospel”6 (Rom 2:16; cf Gal 1:6 - 9) as a reference to this book." [Heikki Räisänen in the Blackwell Companion to Paul p. 302]

[MrMacSon]

Paul's references to 'my gospel" could be

1. glosses added into the Pauline epistles by editors or collators or the Marcionite canon
2. glosses added into the Pauline epistles by editors or final redactors of the orthodox canon, or,
3. they could, in fact, be original

They [ie. Paul's references to my gospel] could refer to

1. a known gospel such as
   1. the Marcionite gospel
   2. a version of the gospel attributed to Mark
2. another gospeltext

[Secret Alias]

Marcion.

[MrMacSon]

Origen's Contra Celsus book II, chapter 4 (in part):

... Now, certainly the introduction to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are introduced prosecute their investigations into "the mystery according to revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets" [Romans 16:25], and by the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of Christianity do not, as you allege, treat 'the things written in the law' with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour, showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even fabulous.

And what absurdity should there be in our system — that is, the Gospel— having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: "If you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words? [John 5:46]"

Nay, even one of the evangelists— Mark — says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You," which 'shows' that the beginning of the Gospel is connected with the Jewish writings.

What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew of Celsus, that "if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God?" Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses.

But they do [treat the things written in the Jewish Law with disrespect]
this is gaslightling as is the section in pink and what follows therein.^

In the next chapter, chapter 5 of Contra Celsus book II, Origen gets stuck in:

Chapter 5

---

After these matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his statements about Jesus, repeating for the second time that 'he was punished by the Jews for his crimes,' "we" shall not again take up the defence, being satisfied with what "we" have already said.

But, in the next place, as this Jew of his disparages the doctrine regarding the resurrection of the dead, and the divine judgment, and of the rewards to be bestowed upon the just, and of the fire which is to devour the wicked, as being stale opinions, and thinks that he will overthrow Christianity by asserting that there is nothing new in its teaching upon these points, we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the conduct of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken from them, and given to the converts from heathenism.

For which reason, now, we may also see 'of a truth' that all the doctrines of the Jews of the present day are mere trifles and fables, since they have not the light that proceeds from the knowledge of the Scriptures; whereas those of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise and elevate the soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to seek 'a citizenship,' not like the earthly Jews here below, but in heaven. And this result shows itself among those who are able to see the grandeur of the ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and who are able to commend them to others.

Origen comes across, albeit covertly, as championing Marcionism

eta

Chapter 6

---

But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the Jewish usages, including even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the Church, do not transgress the law, but have escaped the mythologizings of the Jews, and have our minds chastened and educated by the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets. For the prophets themselves, as not resting the sense of these words in the plain history which they relate, nor in the legal enactments taken according to the word and letter, express themselves somewhere, when about to relate histories, in words like this, "I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hard sayings of old [Psalm 78:2];" and in another place, when offering up a prayer regarding the law as being obscure, and needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer up this prayer, "Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Your law [Psalm 110:18].

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm

[Secret Alias]

The proper analogy is porn. The idea that the proper number of gospels in the world is four and every heresy corresponds to one gospel and Irenaeus knows that the one gospel of the four that is Marcion's gospel is Luke is like.



Title: Secrets of the Sand
Scene: "A Midnight Revelation"

INT. OASIS RESORT - GRAND BALLROOM - NIGHT

The ballroom is aglow with warm, golden light, casting dramatic shadows on the elegant, Egyptian-themed décor. Ancient Egyptian music fills the air, blending with the soft murmur of the distinguished guests dressed in their finest attire. The conference has ended for the day, and now the night is for celebration and relaxation.

ELENA, in a stunning gown that echoes the styles of ancient Egyptian royalty, navigates through the crowd. She looks out of place with her pensive gaze, clearly distracted by the secrets the desert sands might hold.

MARK (mid-30s, charismatic) watches her from across the room, a glass of wine in hand. He’s dressed sharply, his suit impeccable, his eyes never leaving Elena.

LIAM (early 30s, adventurous), holding a camera, captures the ambiance of the party but frequently lets the lens wander back to Elena.

CUT TO:

EXT. OASIS RESORT - GARDENS - NIGHT

Elena escapes the crowd, stepping into the cool night air. The gardens are lush, a stark contrast to the surrounding desert. She walks slowly along a path lined with softly glowing lanterns, her mind racing with thoughts of tomorrow’s potential discoveries.

MARK (offscreen, his voice carries softly in the night)
Elena?

Elena stops, looks around, unsure where the voice came from.

ELENA
Mark? Is that you?

MARK (offscreen, closer now)
Yes, sorry for startling you. May I join you?

ELENA
Of course.

Footsteps approach on the gravel path. Mark emerges from the shadows, his presence reassuring.

MARK
It’s quite something, isn’t it? This night, the stars, the history beneath our feet.

ELENA
It’s overwhelming. Sometimes, I feel like the past is just within reach, waiting to be uncovered.

They walk together in silence for a few moments, the only sounds are their footsteps and the distant party.

MARK
There’s something I’ve wanted to tell you. About the resort, about why I built it here.

ELENA (curiously)
Why here?

MARK (pauses, takes a deep breath)
This land... it’s not just any land. My last dig, years ago, I found something. An indication of something greater, deeper beneath the surface. Not just artifacts, but a tomb, perhaps.

ELENA (stops walking, shocked)
A tomb? Here?

MARK
Yes. I didn’t have the resources then to pursue it further. I built the resort hoping one day to explore more. And then you came with your expertise, your passion...

ELENA (overwhelmed, excited)
Mark, this could be a significant discovery. We need to explore it, carefully, respectfully. We could learn so much.

MARK (nods, earnest)
I was hoping you’d say that. I trust you, Elena. More than anyone.

ELENA
Then let’s do it. Together.

They reach a stone bench and sit, looking out over the desert, the site of tomorrow’s promises.

CUT BACK TO:

INT. OASIS RESORT - GRAND BALLROOM - SAME NIGHT

The camera finds Liam, who has left the party to look for Elena. He stops, seeing them in the distance through the open door, sitting together. He smiles slightly, understanding the gravity of their conversation, then turns back to give them privacy, the weight of history calling them into the starlit desert.

FADE OUT.

This scene sets up the emotional and professional stakes for the characters, emphasizing the blend of personal connections and professional ambitions that drive the narrative forward.

[RandyHelzerman]

The proper analogy is porn.

Go home, you are drunk man

[Peter Kirby]

So my question is: Does the evidence best support (1)/(3), or is there some good reason to suggest (2)/(4) here?

TL;DR: If there were any Marcionite sondergut, it's hard to imagine that the Father's wouldn't have jumped all over it. Feel free to skip the wall-of-text that follows.

It's always tricky when you are relying on an opponent's description to figure out what's what. Alas, we are in that position with Marcion. How much can we trust them? Let's quote from everybody's favorite whipping boy, Irenaeus: A.H. Book IV, Preface:

""The man, however, who would undertake their conversion, must possess an accurate knowledge of their systems or schemes of doctrine. For it is impossible for any one to heal the sick, if he has no knowledge of the disease of the patients. This was the reason that my predecessors — much superior men to myself, too — were unable, notwithstanding, to refute the Valentinians satisfactorily, because they were ignorant of these men's system; which I have with all care delivered to you ..."

Yeah, how seriously can we take that? Well, when the Nag Hammadi Books were found, and we could finally read the Valentineans, everybody was really amazed at how well Irenaus actually did.

I realize, that this might be disputed by members of this forum which I hold in the highest regard So I'd like to defend the fathers for a bit.

You gotta remember what the fathers were facing back then: Irenaeus got his job because his predecessor was martyred---these guys had no secular power over their rivals, and they probably were in the minority even among the Chrisitans. *Especially* with the Marcionites, who were well financed, had the new technology of a codex--which contained a cannon of some the most amazing literature ever written, had access to the best communication networks available in the day, and by all accounts were growing like weeds.

If the fathers were going to prevail, it would have to be through the force of better arguments. That's all they had. And they didn't write their books to rock the people in the pews to sleep--they wrote them to engage with the ideas of their opponents.

I am an brazen fanboy of Tertullian, so discount my remarks accordingly, but if you can bracket the over-the-top rhetoric, you'll find his text-critical arguments are amazingly good. I hate to write walls-of-text, but if ya'll will indulge me, I'd like to examine one of Tertullian's arguments to illustrate. He writes:

I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I
affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine
is. Now what is to settle the point for us...

Notice the remarkable, well, charity! with which he engages his opponent. For all his florid rhetoric, he recognizes that mutual recrimination is not a valid objection, and will convince nobody. He needs an *argument*. And boy do we get one:

...except it be that principle of time, which rules that the
authority lies with that which shall be found to be more
ancient...

...a principle which certainly the questers of the historical Jesus endorsed...

...and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of
doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of
comparative lateness in its origin.....A thing must exist
prior to its suffering any change; and an object must
precede all rivalry to itself.

How can anybody disagree with the observation that a revised text must follow the original text in time? It commands instant consensus. Here we have--expressed in different terms, to be sure, but what is nevertheless recognizable as--the principle that tracing the textual *history* and redactional *layers* of a composition gives us a powerful way to adjudicate these sort of disputes. It's a principle we still use today.

.....

All of which is a very long way of saying that we should give the fathers a bit more benefit of the doubt than we do, and since they universally complain about Marcion cutting down, rather than vice versa, its really hard to believe there was much if any sondergut in the Evangelilon. Or the Apostolicon, for that matter. In all likelihood, Marcion confined his "value added" to the Antithesis.

No need to apologize for "walls" of text. The forum encourages long form written content. It's preferable, if anything. Thanks.

.... unlike the post of a second ago (great example of why the "walls" are better) ....

[Secret Alias]

Go home, you are drunk man

The analogy is perfect. Ridiculous claims. Implausible plot. Idiotic character development. But everyone goes along with it.