Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence?

[StephenGoranson]

"I recently paid £21 for this article - of just 6 pages."
Wow, shameful.
(More than $4 a page.)

[RandyHelzerman]

It is unclear whether Marcion's Evangelion came before Luke, or vice versa. But there's no question that Marcion's New Testament came before Athenasius's. Marcion was the first we know about who had the brilliant idea of combining stories of Jesus with letters of Paul, and offering it up as being over against the Septuagint. He turned the Septuagint into the Old Testament.

And *a lot* of Athenasius's NT looks to me to be written in reaction to Marcion. My favorite is I Timothy, "avoid the Antithesis and Gnosis". Exactly how much more of an explicit reaction to Marcion could there be?

But it took a long time for the rest of christianity to think that was a good idea. For the next 250 years, they had collections of authoritative books, but they didn't have an authoritative collection of books, i.e. a canon.

[maryhelena]

"I recently paid £21 for this article - of just 6 pages."
Wow, shameful.
(More than $4 a page.)

Shameful indeed.

Klinghardt's recent book, 2023, Kindle edition from amazon cost £7.09 and it has 78 pages.....

Does the scholar get paid for a Journal article... Or is it supposed to be an honour to have an article accepted for publication?

[Ken Olson]

It is unclear whether Marcion's Evangelion came before Luke, or vice versa. But there's no question that Marcion's New Testament came before Athenasius's. Marcion was the first we know about who had the brilliant idea of combining stories of Jesus with letters of Paul, and offering it up as being over against the Septuagint. He turned the Septuagint into the Old Testament.

But Marcion may well not be the first to write a book about Jesus and a book (largely) about Paul. The author of Luke-Acts may have preceded him.

And *a lot* of Athenasius's NT looks to me to be written in reaction to Marcion. My favorite is I Timothy, "avoid the Antithesis and Gnosis". Exactly how much more of an explicit reaction to Marcion could there be?

1 Timothy may indeed show knowledge of Marcion. But I think we should avoid the trap of treating Athanasius' 27 book canon or Irenaeus' 4 book canon of the gospels as single entities. It seems obvious (at least to me) that Matthew, Luke, and John were not writing their works to be read alongside their predecessors and carry equal weight with them. I think they are correcting their predecessors and meant to supercede them.

But it took a long time for the rest of christianity to think that was a good idea. For the next 250 years, they had collections of authoritative books, but they didn't have an authoritative collection of books, i.e. a canon.

I don't think the issue was settled with Irenaeus Athanasisus. He was the first we know of to list exactly the 27 books generally recognized as inspired and authoritative by almost all Christians sects today, but I think some of those books continued to be disputed in churches outside the Latin and Greek speaking world.

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

The cleverest thing that the editor of our canon did was to shift focus from "which is the gospel of Paul" = the Marcionite understanding to "which is the real gospel of Luke." Can we stop talking about the gospel of Luke? The Marcionites knew THE apostle who wrote the letters also wrote THE gospel. For a brief moment black people managed to get the world to see things through their eyes (from George Floyd until the election campaign for 2024 started). Can we at least try to see things from the Marcionite perspective? If not why not?

[maryhelena]

It is unclear whether Marcion's Evangelion came before Luke, or vice versa. But there's no question that Marcion's New Testament came before Athenasius's. Marcion was the first we know about who had the brilliant idea of combining stories of Jesus with letters of Paul, and offering it up as being over against the Septuagint. He turned the Septuagint into the Old Testament.

And *a lot* of Athenasius's NT looks to me to be written in reaction to Marcion. My favorite is I Timothy, "avoid the Antithesis and Gnosis". Exactly how much more of an explicit reaction to Marcion could there be?

But it took a long time for the rest of christianity to think that was a good idea. For the next 250 years, they had collections of authoritative books, but they didn't have an authoritative collection of books, i.e. a canon.

Interesting developments re the NT canon. My interest is basically digging into the gospel Marcion had ie its role in the developing gospel Jesus story. I'll be crossing fingers Klinghardt can move the dial.....

[Secret Alias]

Why do we pretend that this forum isn't a mirror of the world in which the canon was created? Human behavior is consistent over time. We're all selfish assholes. Our forefathers were selfish assholes. Survival in the hostile world demands that only selfish assholes survive. The idea that Marcionites and Orthodox were fighting over the same canon is ridiculous. That the Marcionites held to a history identical or similar to Acts, had a canon of letters which presented Paul with the companions and history outlined in our text, is a self-serving presumption that we perpetuate for no other reason than to arrive at the predestined conclusion that we and our ancestors are right. If we stopped engaging in this sort of "rigging" of the outcome we might actually get some work accomplished.

[StephenGoranson]

In my experience, maryhelena, generally, there's no pay for an article.
For a book, depends on publisher and/or sales.

One example: I was co-author of
Origin of Kibosh: Routledge Studies in Etymology
(All serious libraries should have a copy!)
So far, royalties amount to less than the price of one copy.

I did get paid for an article in Bible Review:
"7 vs. 8: The Battle Over the Holy Day at Dura-Europos"
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Dura-Europos.pdf

[Secret Alias]

The Orthodox set a discussion by saying the Marcionites falsified a gospel called according to Luke under the pretext that Paul had a beloved disciple named Luke whom he asked to write the gospel which Paul himself referred to as "my gospel."

There is no evidence for a gospel of Luke until Irenaeus c. 195 CE.

The Marcionites and others read "my gospel" as if the apostle wrote his own gospel.

Why must we pretend that the Orthodox framing of the discussion of the origin of the Marcionite gospel in relation to Luke is fair and the right place to start the discussion?

[maryhelena]

The cleverest thing that the editor of our canon did was to shift focus from "which is the gospel of Paul" = the Marcionite understanding to "which is the real gospel of Luke." Can we stop talking about the gospel of Luke? The Marcionites knew THE apostle who wrote the letters also wrote THE gospel. For a brief moment black people managed to get the world to see things through their eyes (from George Floyd until the election campaign for 2024 started). Can we at least try to see things from the Marcionite perspective? If not why not?

Yep... eyes wide open to seeing Marcoin...