Marcion's Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

And it's the same thing with the relationship between Marcion and his canon. Irenaeus and Tertullian tell us a story that Marcion stumbled across a gospel and the Galatians epistle and read the letter and got the idea for how the orthodox corrupted the gospel. That's an explanation. It kind of makes sense in that it is possible theoretically for someone to find some books and misunderstand them like the Kevin Klein character in a Fish Called Wanda. But was there really a character like the guy in a Fish Called Wanda? No. Did Marcion really stumbled across orthodox scriptures? No, probably not.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias »

It's like what people do with Josephus. Because they are our only window into the events surrounding the destruction of the temple people act like they are a fucking road map to world history. But there were hundreds if not thousands of pieces of physical evidence, documents all related to the period 66 - 72 CE. They almost wholly disappeared. Now we are left with an overtly religious text which envisions history flowing according to Daniel 9:24 - 26 (funny how the Church Fathers would like that). How reliable is Josephus? Not very. But what choice do we have? But don't make me accept Josephus. It's a version of history at best.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by davidmartin »

In Justin's Trypho you can see what Jews were saying:
"you have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilæan deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven. Moreover, you accuse Him of having taught those godless, lawless, and unholy doctrines which you mention"

Who is lying? Or are they both wrong?
To Josephus every messiah claimant is a bandit and of little account. The original Christians to him were probably one of these bandits and renegades he lumps altogether telling stupid stories about, like digging for treasure on a mountain or parting a river like the people were childish imbeciles

So accusing Jesus of this stuff is of the same ilk. But then what did he teach?
Justin is referring to Gnostics which there is little evidence predated the first quarter of the second century
The really early 'Gnostic' texts are not even fucking Gnostic, look at Eugnostos the Blessed. It's just metaphysical angelology but is turned into the 'Sophia of Jesus' magically turns into a Gnostic writing. And that's just one

I can easily believe the original Christians just got left behind once the Gnostics got going and the church fathers started swinging their codpiece around... just left behind and ignored that's how i see it. Everyone thought they knew better
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Sun Dec 22, 2019 7:47 am And why is this true than the Mark reference in Philosophumena?
truer?

I'm not sure why you want me to compare different texts by different authors in this way.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:38 am
perseusomega9 wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:10 am But why even mention that at all? Mentioning Paul sure, given the tradition of Markion and Paul, but why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition?
I made a suggestion of a possible explanation here

Basically Hippolytus is arguing:
i/ The Gospel tradition which Hippolytus, (but apparently not Marcion), attributes to Luke derives from Mark and Paul.
ii/ Marcion’s doctrine cannot be derived from Mark and Paul.
iii/ Therefore, Marcion’s doctrine cannot be regarded as a legitimate version of the Lukan Gospel tradition.

Andrew Criddle
I agree with premises (i) and (ii), but I cannot agree that (ii) is a conclusion or even logically follows from them.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

John2 wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:59 pm Well, since 'the only thing that doesn't seem to line up with the idea that Marcion used a version of Luke' * is what Hippolytus says about Mark, I reckon it's just a matter of explaining what he means by that (as Andrew attempts to do), since the citation he gives of Marcion's gospel is from Luke.
* There is plenty more that suggests Marcion didn't use a final or near-final version of Luke.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:08 pm ... Did Marcion really stumbled across orthodox scriptures? No, probably not.
:thumbup:

Though I'm not sure what you're getting at beforehand in that post with -
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 2:08 pm And it's the same thing with the relationship between Marcion and his canon. Irenaeus and Tertullian tell us a story that Marcion stumbled across a gospel and the Galatians epistle and read the letter and got the idea for how the orthodox corrupted the gospel.
"the orthodox corrupted 'the gospel' ... "? which gospel? or did you mean something else?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:58 am ... To Josephus every messiah claimant is a bandit and of little account. The original Christians to him were probably one of these bandits and renegades he lumps altogether ...
There's little if any indication Josephus knew Christians or Christianity (Antiquities 18.3.3 and 20.9.1/199-201 are likely interpolations)

davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:58 am Justin is referring to Gnostics which there is little evidence predated the first quarter of the second century.
Gnostic scholars would disagree with you (though I agree Justin is likely referring to Gnostics)

The really early 'Gnostic' texts are not even fucking Gnostic ...
Such hasty generalisations are wasted space ...
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:34 pm The end of the opening chapter - chapter 1, of course - of book five of Tertullian's Against Marcion:


If you challenge us to your belief, (pray) tell us what things constitute its basis. Either prove the truth of what you believe or, failing in your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours, believing in opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe? Take now from my point of view the apostle, in the same manner as you have received the Christ—the apostle shown to be as much mine as the Christ is. And here, too, we will fight within the same lines, and challenge our adversary on the mere ground of a simple rule, that even an apostle who is said not to belong to the Creator-nay, is displayed as in actual hostility to the Creator—can be fairly regarded as teaching nothing, knowing nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle with him to set forth another god with as much eagerness as he would use in withdrawing us from the law of the Creator. It is not at all likely that he would call men away from Judaism without showing them at the same time what was the god in whom he invited them to believe; because nobody could possibly pass from allegiance to the Creator without knowing to whom he had to cross over.

For either Christ had already revealed another god—in which case the apostle’s testimony would also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not being else regarded as an apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and because of the impropriety of his being concealed by the apostle who had been already revealed by Christ—or Christ had made no such revelation concerning God; then there was all the greater need why the apostle should reveal a God who could now be made known by no one else, and who would undoubtedly be left without any belief at all, if he were revealed not even by an apostle. We have laid down this as our first principle, because we wish at once to profess that we shall pursue the same method here in the apostle’s case as we adopted before in Christ’s case, to prove that he proclaimed no new god; that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself. Now, the garbled form in which we have found the heretic’s Gospel will have already prepared us to expect to find the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness—and that even as respects their number.


Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (430–431). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

''we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself'' ...
Earlier on in Ad Marc V, i [paragraphed by me] -

I am brought, in the course of my little work, to this point, I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostle; even I, who am to some degree a new disciple, the follower of no other master; who at the same time can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed hastily (and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed without any examination of its beginning); in short, I who have the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution, since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles.

Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection; by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several missions.

Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler’s cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings.

He professes himself to be “an apostle”—to use his own, words—“not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ.” Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person. One man signs, another countersigns; one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records. No one is at once a proposer and a seconder to himself. Besides, you have read, no doubt, that “many shall come, saying, I am Christ.” Now if any one can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ!

But still, for my own part, I appear in the character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus both refute your belief, who have nothing to support it, and confound your shamelessness, who make claims without possessing the means of establishing them. Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament of the Creator. Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul.

For among the types and prophetic blessings which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to Benjamin, exclaimed, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment.” He foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order [other?] words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord’s sheep, as a persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the Gentiles.

Then, again, in Saul’s conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saulbelonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe—and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin’s genealogy.

Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I 'demonstrate' that from a persecutor he became “an apostle, not of men, neither by man;” thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt, “Then you deny the Apostle Paul.”

I do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you should admit the particulars which comprise it. If you challenge us to your belief, (pray) tell us what things constitute its basis. Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours, believing in opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe? Take now from my point of view the apostle, in the same manner as you have received the Christ —the apostle shown to be as much mine as the Christ is.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nic ... n/Book_V/I

Why would Tertullian find it necessary to elevate Paul at this stage of Christianity if Christianity was [supposedly] well established?

Why would he feel the need to appeal to the OT to do so?
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by perseusomega9 »

andrewcriddle wrote: Mon Dec 23, 2019 1:38 am
perseusomega9 wrote: Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:10 am But why even mention that at all? Mentioning Paul sure, given the tradition of Markion and Paul, but why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition?
I made a suggestion of a possible explanation here

Basically Hippolytus is arguing:
i/ The Gospel tradition which Hippolytus, (but apparently not Marcion), attributes to Luke derives from Mark and Paul.
ii/ Marcion’s doctrine cannot be derived from Mark and Paul.
iii/ Therefore, Marcion’s doctrine cannot be regarded as a legitimate version of the Lukan Gospel tradition.

Andrew Criddle
I think your argument breaks down where it assumes Hippolytus is referring to a tradition at the time that Luke used Mark.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Post Reply