Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

.
Markus Vinzent "would like to advocate a full reunification of New Testament and Patristic Studies". He thinks that would be "the best way to resolve longstanding problems like that of the Synoptic Question and to allow for a re-assessment of the early history of Christianity."
He has concluded
  • (4) "Marcion, however, not only created the basis for the growing new race of the Christians, inspired them with the narratives of Christ and endowed them with Paul’s letters, he also became the one target with and against whom Christian theology developed, although it took until Irenaeus that the four Gospels were fully credited with Apostolic authority and harmonized with Paul on the basis of Acts."
and
  • (5) "If this were so, Marcion was the initiator and cult-founder of Christianity. He also provided the basis for modern New Testament Studies, while his contribution, on the basis of plagiators and heresiologists, became obscured already during Patristic times."
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by Giuseppe »

I read this of interesting about the Transfiguration Episode:
If Marcion did not create himself the entire pericope with its outspoken
Marcionite content, who could have been this Marcion before
Marcion? Which triggers the other question, what could have been premarcionite
material used by Marcion here? Was it the endorsement
oracle of the voice from the cloud? The ending of the story that Peter
and the Zebedees kept silent “at that time (…) of what they had seen”
indicates that it might have been an oral tradition which Marcion had
come across and which he substantially reworked into a narrative of
his own.
(p. 28. my bold)

An oral tradition who may explain why the semi-obscure angel Jesus was already for the Pillars one angelic being more powerful than the angel Moses and the prophet Elijah.

I think that the comparison between GMarcion and Luke 9:28-36 about that episode is very useful:

[td][quote] 9:28 Now about eight days after these sayings, Jesus took with him Peter, John, and James, and went up the mountain. 9:29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face was altered, and his clothes became very bright, a brilliant white. 9:30 Then two men, Moses and Elijah, both talked to him. 9:33 In glory Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us make three shelters, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he was saying. 9:34 As he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 9:35 Then a voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Beloved One. Listen to him!” 9:36 After the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. So they kept silent and told no one at that time anything of what they had seen.[/quote][/td] [td][quote]28 Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. 30 Suddenly they [color=#BF0000][b]saw[/b][/color] two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. 31 They appeared [color=#BF0000][b]in glory[/b][/color] and were speaking [color=#BF0000][b]of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.[/b][/color] 32 Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they [color=#BF0000][b]saw[/b][/color] his glory and the two men who stood with him. 33 [color=#BF0000][b]Just as they were leaving him,[/b][/color] Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—not knowing what he said. 34 While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. 35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!” 36 When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone. And they kept silent and in those days told no one any of the things they had seen.[/quote][/td][/tr]
Marcion's GospelLuke 9:28-36

In red the Lukan additions on Mcn.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

Giuseppe wrote:
I read this of interesting about the Transfiguration Episode:
If Marcion did not create himself the entire pericope with its outspoken Marcionite content, who could have been this Marcion before Marcion? Which triggers the other question, what could have been premarcionite material used by Marcion here? Was it the endorsement oracle of the voice from the cloud? The ending of the story that Peter and the Zebedees kept silent “at that time … of what they had seen” indicates that it might have been an oral tradition which Marcion had come across and which he substantially reworked into a narrative of his own. (p. 28. my bold)
An oral tradition who may explain why the semi-obscure angel Jesus was already for the Pillars one angelic-being more powerful than the angel Moses and the prophet Elijah.
I wonder if lots of pericopes included in the gospels were circulating as oral stories independent of the gospels.

Michael J. Kok has just published a paper arguing that a story about Jesus’s encounter with a sinful woman was available to Papias and the evangelist Luke from a pool of oral traditions in circulation in Asia Minor, rather than being from a specific gospel (such as the Gospel according to the Hebrews).

Michael J. Kok (2017) 'Did Papias of Hierapolis Use the Gospel according to the Hebrews as a Source?' Journal of Early Christian Studies 25(1); 29-53.

In a blog-post Kok said that "many of Papias’s oral traditions are multiply attested by the author of Luke-Acts", and that "this particular episode evolves into the familiar story of Jesus rescuing an adulteress from getting stoned to death that was interpolated into John 7:53-8:11."
I think we'll see more discussion of pericopes / traditions / stories in this way.
.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by Stuart »

Vinzent makes a mistake in his assessment of Marcionite priority when he states "Marcion was the initiator and cult-founder of Christianity"

The meaning of Marcionite priority is that the Marcionite versions of the published -that is public- were first. There are many mechanical reasons to support this position. However, theologically and stylistically the material in the Marcionite Paul (e.g., Colossians is definitely a different hand than 1 Corinthians) and also the Gospel to a lesser extent indicate multiple hands prior to the collection taking Marcionite form. What is more the text leaves strong hints of factionalism already present within the movement.

Galatians 1:1 (remove καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς), 6-9, 11-12, 15-17, 2:1-2a (remove πάλιν, and probably μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ, read up to "the Gospel which I proclaim"), 3-7a (up to "the Gospel") 8-9 (remove καὶ Βαρναβᾷ), 2:11-14 make it abundantly clear there is a Jewish Christian faction, with a rival Gospel, compelling Marcion's Paul to declare his authority and it's origin, as declare his independence from this rival faction claiming the names of other "so-called Apostles (James, John, Cephas). This pseudo-Jewish Christian faction (why he calls out Cephas' hypocrisy) is precisely what the two covenants is about in 4:20-26, 31 in Marcionite form.

This presentation in Galatians leaves us with three clear observations about the conditions of Galatians in the Marcionite priority view. First that when this epistle was written in Marcionite form there was already second Gospel in circulation already (an early version of Matthew fits the description given in Galatians). There is a rival faction of Christians existent and competing with Marcion's, and it has a developed theology with clear markers, requiring a rebuke. Third there is already a second rival legend about the conversion of Paul and his authority, which is similar to Acts, in that Paul accepts human authority and immediately goes up to Jerusalem, and that he is instructed by men.

All of these point to Marcion's not the exclusive form of Christianity, and thus the "initiator" of the religion. And in fact the subtle differences within the Pauline collection and hints of somewhat differing theology in the Marcionite Gospel from the Marcionite teachings - as we understand them - indicates a diversity of Christianity from the very first moment of publication. This is a diversity within the stream of Christianity to which Marcionism arose, and also forms of Valentinianism and other Gnostic systems. And also, even in the earliest layers of this material there is a dichotomy, a contrast against another stream of Christianity, which is the forerunner of Catholicism, the (pseudo) Jewish-Christian proto-Orthodox factions (they are also diverse already, but that is another discussion).

What this leaves us to conclude is that Marcionite priority must be restricted only to the public publishing of the NT. And thus the influence is upon the form and content (the books) of the NT. But it does not extend to the creation of the religion; hat was already there, but simply nothing was published, or should I say were not circulated beyond the church walls.

For purely mechanical reasons I also differ in opinion with Vinzent in seeing there was a prototype Gospel (IMO two forms already by 140 AD) one of which was used by Marcion's author. (Unlike Price I think this author dropped the John the Baptist scene.) Matthew used the other form of the proto-Gospel. Mark conflated both forms -- why, I have no clue. This is another indication that Marcion/Marcionism was not first.

To summarize: Marcionism drew from existing material, especially a proto-Gospel, which is already Christian, to create their Gospel. Paul's legend was not the only legend circulating when epistles were written in his name, from multiple hands (earliest forms). At least one, and maybe more than that, are denounced and opposed in the earliest writings. All these indicate, that while the Marcionite text was the first, Marcionism was not alone, but one fo several existing factions, the very first day the NT in Marcionite form was written. But what Marcionism can be credited with is the form of the NT, and the evangelizing missions. This started a competition among factions which led the the NT to be written and for the faith to be spread rapidly from the mid-2nd through to the end 3rd century. So Marcion can be credited with founding Evangelism, but not with founding Christianity.
Last edited by Stuart on Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

Stuart wrote:
...There is a rival faction of Christians existent and competing with Marcion's, and it has a developed theology with clear markers, requiring a rebuke.

.... the subtle differences within the Pauline collection and hints of somewhat differing theology in the Marcionite Gospel from the Marcionite teachings - as we understand them - indicates a diversity of Christianity from the very first moment of publication. This is a diversity within the stream of Christianity to which Marcionism arose, and also forms of Valentinianism and other Gnostic systems. And also, even in the earliest layers of this material there is a dichotomy, a contrast against another stream of Christianity, which is the forerunner of Catholicism, the (pseudo) Jewish-Christian proto-Orthodox factions (they are also diverse already, but that is another discussion) ...
What we know about Marcionism we mostly know from people after the period Marcionites are supposed to have become active; & many are quite a bit later. The most important sources remain Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, especially book four; the Panarion (Adversus haereses) of Epiphanius, especially section forty-two and the seventy-eight σχόλια and έλεγχοι concerning Marcion’s Gospel; and the Pseudo-Origen Adamantius Dialogue, especially books one and two where Adamantius debates the Marcionites Megethius and Marcus.

Others include Irenaeus, Haers; Hippolytus, Haer; Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron, Hymns
Against Heresies
, Against Marcion; (Pseudo-)Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel; Origen, eg. Ex libro Origenis in Epistolam ad Titum.

Stuart wrote:
... Paul's legend was not the only legend circulating when epistles were written in his name, from multiple hands (earliest forms). At least one, and maybe more than that, are denounced and opposed in the earliest writings. All these indicate, that while the Marcionite text was the first, Marcionism was not alone, but one of several existing factions, the very first day the NT in Marcionite form was written.
It's also possible that many of these epistles written in Paul's name were written later than we have been led to believe.
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:08 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

Stuart wrote:
Vinzent makes a mistake in his assessment of Marcionite priority when he states "Marcion was the initiator and cult-founder of Christianity"
Vinzent qualified that statement with a series of preceding propositions, and "If this [ie. they] were so ..." -

I cannot outline here all arguments that speak in favour of Marcion giving us the right account of how Gospels came into being. But if he were correct. and [with?] Irenaeus and Tertullian apologetical distortions, [we] would have to conclude that:

(1) Until the times of Marcion, those who read the Jewish Torah, the Prophets and the Jewish writings ... did so while they regarded themselves as Jews, perhaps as God-fearers, but at least as sympathizers of the Synagogue, whereas other Jews (like initially Paul himself) and gradually the outside world saw in these Jesus-oriented Jews a Jewish branch of its own.

(2) Only after the end of the Bar Kokhba war (132-135 A.D.), did the business man and ship-owner Marcion turn (Jesus-)Jews, proselytes, God-fearers, and sympathizers of the Synagoge, as Tertullian claims, into “God-lovers,” re-discovered Paul and collected his letters, probably also collected.. sayings [attributed to] Jesus [or a Christ], and came up with the new literary genre of combining those sayings with narratives to create the Euaggelion, the new angelic edict or law. With the arrival of the new Master and his New Testament, one saw the Old Law of the Creator God replaced, the prophets and their writings no longer valid. For the first time Marcion coined the technical terms “Gospel” for a written document, the “New Testament” (namely 'the Gospel' plus Paul’s letters) as opposed to the Old Testament, termed the movement “Christianity” as opposed to “Judaism” and introduced liturgical rites such as “baptism” to replace Jewish “circumcision” and other liturgical praxis to form a separate religion.

(3) The decades of his teaching [in Rome?] and those of the second century after his death became the formative years to develop this separate “Christian” identity, although not as a radically antithetical-Jewish positioned as Marcion had suggested. And yet, despite the re-judaizing of Marcion’s Gospel through what was credited to Apostles other than Paul, the Synoptics, Acts and despite the balancing of Paul’s message with what was [later] credited to Peter, James and John, the Marcionite basis of the Gospel, its institutional concept of a new religion with non-Jewish rites, hierarchical leadership and distinct identity that was conceived as antithesis to the old and in contradistinction to its Roman environment was broadly accepted even by those who soon started to criticize Marcion’s rigorous views.

(4) Marcion, however, not only created the basis for the growing new race of the Christians, inspired them with the narratives of Jesus and endowed them with Paul’s letters, he also became the one target with and against whom Christian theology developed, although it took until Irenaeus that the four Gospels were fully credited with Apostolic authority and harmonized with Paul on the basis of Acts.

(5) If this were so, Marcion was the initiator and cult-founder of Christianity. He also provided the basis for modern New Testament Studies, while his contribution, on the basis of plagiators and heresiologists, became obscured already during Patristic times.

(6) The beginnings of Christianity, its identity formation and early history, therefore, has to be re-assessed in the light of a combined field of New Testament and Patristic studies.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by Stuart »

MrMacSon wrote:
Stuart wrote:
...There is a rival faction of Christians existent and competing with Marcion's, and it has a developed theology with clear markers, requiring a rebuke.

.... the subtle differences within the Pauline collection and hints of somewhat differing theology in the Marcionite Gospel from the Marcionite teachings - as we understand them - indicates a diversity of Christianity from the very first moment of publication. This is a diversity within the stream of Christianity to which Marcionism arose, and also forms of Valentinianism and other Gnostic systems. And also, even in the earliest layers of this material there is a dichotomy, a contrast against another stream of Christianity, which is the forerunner of Catholicism, the (pseudo) Jewish-Christian proto-Orthodox factions (they are also diverse already, but that is another discussion) ...
What we know about Marcionism we mostly know from people after the period Marcionites are supposed to have become active; & many are quite a bit later. The most important sources remain Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem, especially book four; the Panarion (Adversus haereses) of Epiphanius, especially section forty-two and the seventy-eight σχόλια and έλεγχοι concerning Marcion’s Gospel; and the Pseudo-Origen Adamantius Dialogue, especially books one and two where Adamantius debates the Marcionites Megethius and Marcus.

Others include Irenaeus, Haers; Hippolytus, Haer; Ephrem, Commentary on the Diatessaron, Hymns
Against Heresies
, Against Marcion; (Pseudo-)Ephrem, An Exposition of the Gospel; Origen, eg. Ex libro Origenis in Epistolam ad Titum.
My argument is from the attested texts of Marcion, not from the Patristic writers. And you are correct they are much later. None appears to be earlier than the reign of Septimus Severus. Irenaeus and the pseudonymous writings under the name Justin are also 3rd century.

The subtle differences in the texts are points of minor conflict with each other. Some align with other sects of the Gnostic sort that developed later.

The denunciation of opponents, directly and by allegory (in the Gospel) is a feature already present in Marcion. Stand-ins for rivals are present in the earliest Marcionite text. That does not speak to unity. It says we have the wrong model if we assume Marcion/Marcionism was initially alone.

Another point of the diversity is the ür-Gospel, something even Vinzent admits - albeit much differently. This points to a pre-publication germination period before the writings erupted. This is where I think Price gets it wrong, thinking John the Baptist was not present in the first Gospel. I think the opposite, that the Marcionite Gospel dropped a dozen verses we find in Mark because the author disagreed with the opening, as John suddenly appears later, but with the exact same theological presentation as the last prophet of Malachi we find in Matthew and Mark, except that he belongs to a different God (elements of that theology are still present in Matthew and Mark, although they do not hold that opinion). The point being Marcion's author already had material with differing theology to draw from. This is not an argument from the Patristics, but the Marcionite text itself.
MrMacSon wrote:
Stuart wrote:
... Paul's legend was not the only legend circulating when epistles were written in his name, from multiple hands (earliest forms). At least one, and maybe more than that, are denounced and opposed in the earliest writings. All these indicate, that while the Marcionite text was the first, Marcionism was not alone, but one of several existing factions, the very first day the NT in Marcionite form was written.
It's also possible that many of these epistles written in Paul's name were written later than we have been led to believe.
.
I agree with this point. My own opinion is the collection as known by Tertullian (early 3rd century) did not appear at once, but was built up over a generation during the reign of Antoninus and perhaps the early Lucius Versus/Marcus Aurelius reigns. There are dependencies within the attested texts of Marcionite Paul that point to a slow accumulation (e.g., Laodiceans knows a form of Romans, Colossians 1:15-20 is a later formula of earlier creeds, etc).

My criteria is not the Church fathers who often have the theology a bit wrong, but the text itself. It is necessary to separate the attested text from the commentary by the Patristic writers (all 3rd to 5th century, including Irenaeus, and the writings under the pen name Justin) to see what the text reveals. My arguments are from the attested text itself.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by Stuart »

On Vinzent's "if it were so" statements, well those can be called weasel words. But I don't fault him for caution, as the entire genesis of Christianity is speculative. The observations are worth consideration, so I'll go through them and give my take FWIW.

Vinzent's prelude about how the gospels came into being does not account for the ür-Gospel(s). This is already a problem, although he assigns the unpublished prototype Gospel to Marcionites. I am less convinced. The two forms of this prototype, represented by the shared Mark-Matthew, and the shared Mark-Luke, including in Matthew-Mark the feeding of the 4000 set of stories which are duplicates in what appears to be simpler form, indicates these documents had some gestation period prior to the publishing of the Marcionite Gospel. This has serious implications for what follows.
(1) Until the times of Marcion, those who read the Jewish Torah, the Prophets and the Jewish writings ... did so while they regarded themselves as Jews, perhaps as God-fearers, but at least as sympathizers of the Synagogue, whereas other Jews (like initially Paul himself) and gradually the outside world saw in these Jesus-oriented Jews a Jewish branch of its own.
There are several problems with this view. While I think it correct, that these followers of "the way" included, and perhaps were dominated by a nominally Torah and Nevi'im observant factions -referred to as Jews or the Circumcision by Paul- it assumes Jesus was development of a faction within the movement and not common. I think this is incorrect, the split was already made from Judaism before Marcionism erupted. The term Synagogue is actually the Greek for assembly. If by this term Vinzent means that Christians followed the Judae Provencial Assembly and their rulings on legal code (and Torah was like Sharia today, the Law for Jews in the Empire ... not an abstract religious code we think of today) then perhaps I might agree on this point.
(2) Only after the end of the Bar Kokhba war (132-135 A.D.), did the business man and ship-owner Marcion turn (Jesus-)Jews, proselytes, God-fearers, and sympathizers of the Synagoge, as Tertullian claims, into “God-lovers,” re-discovered Paul and collected his letters, probably also collected.. sayings [attributed to] Jesus [or a Christ], and came up with the new literary genre of combining those sayings with narratives to create the Euaggelion, the new angelic edict or law. With the arrival of the new Master and his New Testament, one saw the Old Law of the Creator God replaced, the prophets and their writings no longer valid. For the first time Marcion coined the technical terms “Gospel” for a written document, the “New Testament” (namely 'the Gospel' plus Paul’s letters) as opposed to the Old Testament, termed the movement “Christianity” as opposed to “Judaism” and introduced liturgical rites such as “baptism” to replace Jewish “circumcision” and other liturgical praxis to form a separate religion.
I actually agree with much of this statement. The Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in dissolution of the province Iudaea (Judea) and thus the end of Roman recognition of the Jewish legal code, leaving Jews throughout the empire without a law they could appeal to --- they now fell into the category of provincials and expats in the empire without a legal code, who fell under the law of the peoples (Ethnos). This caused the circumcision problem and led to the Antoninus Pius to amend the Roman legal code to allow Jewish circumcision, although no longer following Torah and applying to all in the household, but restricting it to Jews (their children) only -- similar to the ruling allowing circumcision for Egyptians that was already on the books. Much of the Pauline writing about the Law finds context in the decades immediately after the Bar Kokhba revolt. I am less convinced death and resurrection are from this era, and may have existed prior.
(4) Marcion, however, not only created the basis for the growing new race of the Christians, inspired them with the narratives of Jesus and endowed them with Paul’s letters, he also became the one target with and against whom Christian theology developed, although it took until Irenaeus that the four Gospels were fully credited with Apostolic authority and harmonized with Paul on the basis of Acts.
What I would be willing to say is that Marcion started the evangelism, and turned the Gospel into the tool for that. It is worth noting here that I place Irenaeus in the first half of the 3rd century -- the 2nd century placement is simply too soon for the full acceptance of the four gospel form, ad likely they were not in the form Irenaeus knew until Severus' reign anyway. (There are other problems with 2nd century dating of Irenaeus)
(5) If this were so, Marcion was the initiator and cult-founder of Christianity. He also provided the basis for modern New Testament Studies, while his contribution, on the basis of plagiators and heresiologists, became obscured already during Patristic times.
The diversity in the texts of Marcion as well as the ür-Gospel point to Marcion being one of many, not a a singularity
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

Stuart wrote:
Vinzent's prelude about how the gospels came into being does not account for the ür-Gospel(s). This is already a problem, although he assigns the unpublished prototype Gospel to Marcionites. I am less convinced. The two forms of this prototype, represented by the shared Mark-Matthew, and the shared Mark-Luke, including in Matthew-Mark the feeding of the 4000 set of stories which are duplicates in what appears to be simpler form, indicates these documents had some gestation period prior to the publishing of the Marcionite Gospel.
I am not sure what pre-Gospel material can be assigned to Marcionites, either. When they started coalescing theological tracts is also not clear.

I am not sure what was around before the Marcionites were active. I think we collectively should be looking at known texts, rather than be speculating about possible texts.

I am intrigued by proposals that the Didache or that a work of Papias are part of a Q or 'Q' tradition: Alan Garrow and Dennis MacDonald, respectively. Garrow has argued for the Gospel of Matthew's dependence on the Didache (http://www.alangarrow.com/didache-and-matthew.html), and he has also been contemplating whether Matthew used Luke directly; as well as whether 1 Thessalonians uses part of the Didache (http://www.alangarrow.com/didache-and-paul.html).

Stuart wrote: ... the split was already made from Judaism before Marcionism erupted. The term Synagogue is actually the Greek for assembly. If by this term Vinzent means that Christians followed the Judae Provencial Assembly and their rulings on legal code (and Torah was like Sharia today, the Law for Jews in the Empire ... not an abstract religious code we think of today) then perhaps I might agree on this point.
The splits and other situations would likely have varied from place to place.
Stuart wrote:
(2) Only after the end of the Bar Kokhba war (132-135 A.D.), did the business man and ship-owner Marcion turn (Jesus-)Jews, proselytes, God-fearers, and sympathizers of the Synagoge, as Tertullian claims, into “God-lovers,” re-discovered Paul and collected his letters, probably also collected.. sayings [attributed to] Jesus [or a Christ], and came up with the new literary genre of combining those sayings with narratives to create the Euaggelion, the new angelic edict or law. With the arrival of the new Master and his New Testament, one saw the Old Law of the Creator God replaced, the prophets and their writings no longer valid. For the first time Marcion coined the technical terms “Gospel” for a written document, the “New Testament” (namely 'the Gospel' plus Paul’s letters) as opposed to the Old Testament, termed the movement “Christianity” as opposed to “Judaism” and introduced liturgical rites such as “baptism” to replace Jewish “circumcision” and other liturgical praxis to form a separate religion.
I actually agree with much of this statement. The Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in dissolution of the province Iudaea (Judea) and thus the end of Roman recognition of the Jewish legal code, leaving Jews throughout the empire without a law they could appeal to --- they now fell into the category of provincials and expats in the empire without a legal code, who fell under the law of the peoples (Ethnos). This caused the circumcision problem and led to the Antoninus Pius to amend the Roman legal code to allow Jewish circumcision, although no longer following Torah and applying to all in the household, but restricting it to Jews (their children) only -- similar to the ruling allowing circumcision for Egyptians that was already on the books. Much of the Pauline writing about the Law finds context in the decades immediately after the Bar Kokhba revolt.

I agree, especially "much of the Pauline writing about the Law finds context in the decades immediately after the Bar Kokhba revolt."
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Vinzent on unifying Patristics & the NT via Marcion

Post by Stuart »

Can't buy the Didache represents anything early. I would place it post-Decian persecution at the earliest.

Papias is one of those Eusubian characters I put almost zero weight on. We are grasping at straws for early references here.

But yeah, I'll concede a bit on the pre-Marcion text. One has to reconstruct it, after you reconstruct the Marcionite Gospel (which there is not as yet a critical edition ... I am working on it, just as soon as I revise my Romans and finish the Thessalonians to have a complete Pauline collection in semi-critical form). But I am convinced something existed before Marcion, with Jesus, and that the letters of Paul drew from existing and even conflicting tracts. That points to diversity.

BTW, in responding to another post I looked at my Marcionite 1 Corinthians and noticed verse 11:19
11:19 δεῖ γὰρ καὶ αἱρέσεις ἐν ὑμῖν εἶναι, ἵνα [καὶ] οἱ δόκιμοι φανεροὶ γένωνται ἐν ὑμῖν. *
For it is also necessary for sects among you, that [also] the approved ones may be manifest among you.

note: AM 5.8.3 Saepe iam ostendimus haereses apud apostolum inter mala ut malum poni. English: We have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil among "works of the flesh," (1 Corinthians 11:19) – english translation rather loose
This is an example of how even in the Marcionite text, and 1 Corinthians is pretty early as the collection goes, and some have observed that it's likely this was the original head of the collection. What is of note is that multiple sects are suggested, not simply a Jewish Christian and a heretical Christian division, although those are the larger battle lines. This says there is diversity within the heretical camp -- just as it is easily detected in the porto-Orthodox by the differences in the Catholic text on several theological points. It is verses like 1 Corinthians 11:19 which convince me that Marcion was not alone, not the originator. Rather his role is as the catalyst for the production of the New Testament to support evangelism.

Side note: this is strictly opinion, but based on the addresses of the Pauline letters and Revelation, but I think the initial geography of the Christian movement was likely restricted to three provinces, Macedonia, Achaea, and Asia. If Corinthians is simply a disguise for Cerinthius (Cephas as stand-in?) then the geography is even more restricted. To me this makes more sense, the movement starts in a smaller Aegean geography along the coast and up the Meander river(s). Again this is just personal speculation, only based on title addresses.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Post Reply