Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 am
I think that the dilemma (how could Marcion himself write a Gospel and be totally unaware of a historical Jesus in the presumed epistles authored by him) can be resolved only:
1) by assuming, with Robert Price, that Marcion authored the epistles but he was unaware of any Gospel.
2) by assuming, with Couchoud and Vinzent, that Marcion wrote a Gospel but not the epistles (that therefore are written by the historical Paul).

Tertium non datur. To think otherwise means to be not perfectly aware of what means 'absence of a HJ in Paul''.
My contention with this would be that the [Marcionite] epistles show a lack of awareness of a historical Jesus, or at least a disinterest. Rather, they focus on the importance of the one writing them, whether he be called Paul or Marcion.
If I understand well, you are saying that you disagree with me because you think that the epistles are aware of a historical Jesus, therefore who wrote them (for example: Marcion) could very well also write a Gospel.
I think that one of the few sure facts about the epistles is that they are unaware of a historical Jesus beyond any doubt. Therefore who wrote them very probably couldn't write a Gospel. Not even after the writing of the epistles, since the epistles are clear in condemning any ''other Jesus'' (and the Gospel Jesus is surely a different Jesus from the Jesus of the epistles).
I opt for the point 2.
May I ask why? For the most part I don't see a reason to not accept that Marcion authored the epistles, especially since I see them reflecting policies sanctioned during the reign of Hadrian, and 2 Thessalonians seems to make a passing remark at Simon bar Kochba.
The evidence is so great, pace Bob Price, that the man Marcion wrote or used a Gospel, so simply he couldn't write epistles so soundly unaware of a Gospel Jesus.

The problem here is thinking of Marcion as being apart from Judaism. But even his theology, or at least his writings, is dependent upon Judaism. It my have had trappings of Hellenism, but so did many schools of Jewish thinking at the time. It was predominantly a Jewish focused religious reformation.
I understand where you want to conclude: that Marcion is samaritan, i.e. he is Simon Magus. :o
The Gospel of the Hebrews shows (for that bit in our knowledge) the negative portrait of the disciples: this is clearly an influence from a previous Gentile Gospel.
I don't follow this, either in it proceeding a Gentile Gospel, that there was a Gentile Gospel, or the negative portrait of the disciples.
I should quote Rylands where he shows that the Gospel of the Hebrews preserves something that only a Gentile Christian could have written. If my memory works, it is the fact that the Jews kill Jesus, but again, I should check again the book of Rylands to be sure and at the moment I can't.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by lsayre »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:32 am
I intend to argue to the best of my ability who I believe Marcion is in a book I am in the early stages of formulating. A sort of biography of the man, if you will, in the vain of the Acts literature.

Hint: he is a man of many names and forms.
Can you give one more hint with regard to your understanding of the general era of his active life? Do you believe he was still alive in roughly 155 CE as per Justin? That he attempted to present his understandings of Christianity to the Proto-Orthodox Church in Rome circa 138-140 CE, and was expelled by them in 140 CE?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 am
My contention with this would be that the [Marcionite] epistles show a lack of awareness of a historical Jesus, or at least a disinterest. Rather, they focus on the importance of the one writing them, whether he be called Paul or Marcion.
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:41 am If I understand well, you are saying that you disagree with me because you think that the epistles are aware of a historical Jesus ...
No, Joseph D.L. is agreeing with you: 'show a lack of awareness' = seemingly unaware.

As per -
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:41 am I think that one of the few sure facts about the epistles is that they are unaware of a historical Jesus beyond any doubt.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by Giuseppe »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:39 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 am
My contention with this would be that the [Marcionite] epistles show a lack of awareness of a historical Jesus, or at least a disinterest. Rather, they focus on the importance of the one writing them, whether he be called Paul or Marcion.
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:41 am If I understand well, you are saying that you disagree with me because you think that the epistles are aware of a historical Jesus ...
No, Joseph D.L. is agreeing with you: 'show a lack of awareness' = seemingly unaware.

As per -
Giuseppe wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:41 am I think that one of the few sure facts about the epistles is that they are unaware of a historical Jesus beyond any doubt.
Very thanks. Now it is more clear. I can see the logic: Simon Magus/"Marcion"/"Paul" was saying in the epistles that he suffered in Judaea as the Christ, etc. Or something of similar.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I wonder if there are element of the likes of Akiva (or ben Zakkai, or a contemporary or disciple of either, such as Aquila "Ponticus" of Sinope) in some of the texts, too.

Aquila "Ponticus" (fl. 130 AD) of Sinope was a translator of the Hebrew Bible into Greek (the Tanakh), proselyte, and disciple of Rabbi Akiva (& assumed to have also been known as Onkelos).

Aquila's Greek version of the Hebrew Bible is said to have been used in place of the Septuagint in Greek-speaking synagogues. Origen (& Jerome) spoke in its praise. Origen incorporated it in his Hexapla.
I have given much thought to Aquila/Onkelos. It may be a coincidence but Marcion's father is believed to have been a bishop of Sinope. Phocas instantly comes to my mind. It's also this Greek Judaism (one intermixed with the Attis-Sabazios mystery cult, a la the Naasseness) that I think Marcion grew up in.
Have you read Robert M Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul? +/or H Detering's The Fabricated Paul?
I haven't read any Price, though I have listened to many episodes of his Bible Geek podcast.

I've only been able to read a handful of Detering, due to him writing in German. His book on Paul is on my list though. So, soon...
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:21 pm
I have given much thought to Aquila/Onkelos. It may be a coincidence but Marcion's father is believed to have been a bishop of Sinope. Phocas instantly comes to my mind.

There's also Aquila (Greek: Ἀκύλας, Akylas) and Priscilla (Greek: Πρίσκιλλα, Priskilla) in the Pauline epistles and Acts -
  • which may or may not be significant

1 Cor 16:19: The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.
  • Paul founded the church in Corinth [1 Cor. 4:15]. Including Aquila and Priscilla in his greetings implies they were also involved in the founding of that church. Since 1 Corinthians discusses a crisis deriving from a conflict between the followers of Apollos and the followers of Cephas (possibly the apostle Peter), it can be inferred that Apollos accompanied Priscilla and Aquila when they returned to Corinth.

    Apollos is narrated as interacting with Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus in Acts 18:26, though that seems to be a first interaction.

Romans 16
  • 1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, 2 so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

    3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, 4 and who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first fruit/s [convert] in Asia for Christ... [several others are also greeted here, too]

2 Tim 4:19: Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus.


Acts 18:2-3: 1 After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. 2 There he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, [supposedly] because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, 3 and, because he was of the same trade, he stayed with them, and they worked together [as] .. they were [both] tentmakers. 4 Every sabbath he would argue in the synagogue and would try to convince Jews and Greeks.

Acts 18:18: And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

Acts 18:26: 24 Now there came to Ephesus a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria. He was an eloquent man, well-versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord; and he spoke with burning enthusiasm and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accuratelyx. 27 And when he wished to cross over to Achaia, the brothers [believers] encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. On his arrival he greatly helped those who through grace had become believers, 28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the scriptures that the Christ is Jesus.

x which seems to be a contradiction of Apollos being "well-versed in the scriptures", as per two verses previously: 18:24


Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:21 pm
Have you read Robert M Price's The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul? +/or H Detering's The Fabricated Paul?
I haven't read any Price, though I have listened to many episodes of his Bible Geek podcast.

I've only been able to read a handful of Detering, due to him writing in German. His book on Paul is on my list though. So, soon...
I recently got both on Kindle, and am enjoying working through them.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

If I understand well, you are saying that you disagree with me because you think that the epistles are aware of a historical Jesus, therefore who wrote them (for example: Marcion) could very well also write a Gospel.
A simple misunderstanding. I think that whether the epistles are aware or not of a historical Jesus that that is beyond their focus. At least in the Marcionite recension, which I believe was the original.

But I do think that whoever composed them also composed a Gospel, or used a pre-existing Gospel as a template. Marcion's career spanned decades, so it is not too much of a stretch to assume he could've written both epistles (at least twenty by my estimate) and a Gospel.
I think that one of the few sure facts about the epistles is that they are unaware of a historical Jesus beyond any doubt. Therefore who wrote them very probably couldn't write a Gospel. Not even after the writing of the epistles, since the epistles are clear in condemning any ''other Jesus'' (and the Gospel Jesus is surely a different Jesus from the Jesus of the epistles).
I agree in that the epistles do not emphasize an earthy/historical Jesus. But I do not agree that this precludes them from writing a Gospel, since (as you know I'm sure) all of the Gospels appear to be unhistorical. So it's contingent upon how the Gospel was used: as history, allegory, or both.
The evidence is so great, pace Bob Price, that the man Marcion wrote or used a Gospel, so simply he couldn't write epistles so soundly unaware of a Gospel Jesus.
My opinion is that Marcion composed a proto Johannine Gospel which empathized, not Jesus, but the coming Paraclete, whom the author of the epistles was claiming of himself. This makes Jesus in it redundant, serving only to legitimize the claims made by the Pauline writer. Where the dividing line is for me is between Gospel of John and Gospel of the Hebrews.
I understand where you want to conclude: that Marcion is samaritan, i.e. he is Simon Magus. :o
In Simon Magus's case, I think he was Yeshu ben Stada. Though there might be a few individuals going into Simon Magus. He is the scapegoat for the later heresies, who were projected their own ideas onto him.
I should quote Rylands where he shows that the Gospel of the Hebrews preserves something that only a Gentile Christian could have written. If my memory works, it is the fact that the Jews kill Jesus, but again, I should check again the book of Rylands to be sure and at the moment I can't.
But that doesn't necessitate a Gentile source. After all, the Old Testament speaks many times of the ills and transgressions of the Jews against God and his prophets, and of there punishments therein. And if the original Evangelion was as a new Torah, than it makes it more appropriate for the Jews to kill Jesus, so as to procure their eventual forgiveness and salvation. Even in GMarcion, it's not Jews but Gentiles, the Romans, who actually carry out the death of Isu Chrestus.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Can you give one more hint with regard to your understanding of the general era of his active life? Do you believe he was still alive in roughly 155 CE as per Justin? That he attempted to present his understandings of Christianity to the Proto-Orthodox Church in Rome circa 138-140 CE, and was expelled by them in 140 CE?
I think the range of Marcion's life was ca 80 ad to 157 ad. Though Justin never mentions him in his second Apology, I think he does make a jab at his death with his talk of "eternal fire". But I don't think that he was attempting to introduce his views to the Roman church; but rather, created the Roman church, and was exiled after running afoul with the government. This is the real reason why Justin tried to appeal to Antoninus Pius, so as to say that they (the Church of Rome) were not associated with this Marcion guy, or his cohorts.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by MrMacSon »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 am
... For the most part I don't see a reason to not accept that Marcion authored the epistles, especially since I see them reflecting policies sanctioned during the reign of Hadrian, and 2 Thessalonians seems to make a passing remark at Simon bar Kochba.

Robert M Price suggests that Paul is a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion [of Pontos], Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and an iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul. Price thinks Paul's letters were written and edited by other people, including Marcion & Polycarp.

According to Price, the canonical writings are not only infused with the hand of Marcion and Polycarp, as many scholars would acknowledge, but are an amalgam of biographical details derived from the other Christian martyrs’ lives.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Is the Earliest Gospel an answer to Revelation?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Robert M Price suggests that Paul is a composite of several historical figures, including Marcion [of Pontos], Stephen the Martyr, Simon the Sorcerer, and an iconoclastic evangelist who was named Paul. Price thinks Paul's letters were written and edited by other people, including Marcion & Polycarp.

According to Price, the canonical writings are not only infused with the hand of Marcion and Polycarp, as many scholars would acknowledge, but are an amalgam of biographical details derived from the other Christian martyrs’ lives.
I'm of a similar opinion, though I think the epistles were written by one figure. The possibility that Marcion had stewards and secretaries under him should also be considered. (Demas and Apollos are two such figures. I bring Phlegon up again because he's actually listed in the pastoral recension of Romans 16, and is possibly the same Phlegon of Tralles. Demas, I believe, is the Damis of Apollonius fame. One of these men I suspect was Hegesippus).

I agree that figures, historical or otherwise, are being divided threefold and fourfold, and vise versa. In fact a perfect example of this is in Acts, chapter 13. That chapter alone gave the show away for me. It revealed the underlying mechanics of how the tradition(s) worked. It's effectively a big knot of disparate threads.
Post Reply