Marcion's Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12079
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:47 pm

Why is it 'a fact' when Irenaeus says that Marcion stole and corrupted Luke but not a fact when the Marcionites (Megethius) says that Acts is a spurious codex? Let me guess. We like the orthodox better than the Marcionites. Some science.
“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

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Bernard Muller » Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:02 pm

to Ben,
I have no real issue with the supposition that the nativity stories were written early(ish) and then tagged on to Luke 3-24, but the same effect is achieved if they were written by a different hand, as well, and then edited into Luke. The main thing is that chapters 1-2 are observably independent of chapters 3-24.
Both the nativity stories and the rest of the gospel are very much pro-feminist. So my prime suspect would be the same author for both.
But I do not think that can be absolutely demonstrated. Maybe 2 different authors, both women, for the same Christian community, one lead by women (as deducted from the gospel, Paul's epistles and Acts).
I am certain that community was Philippi. There are so many clues showing just that:
http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
Also, I think it is pretty clear that Luke 3.1-2 was once the beginning of a gospel text. It still is in the cases of the Ebionite gospel and of the Marcionite gospel. A claim that the Ebionites and the Marcionites excised the nativity narrative on purpose is fine in the abstract, but it fails to explain how great a beginning Luke 3.1-2 makes. Only the original independence of Luke 1-2 from Luke 3-24 explains all these factors.
Luke 3.1-2 "greatness" is reduced by Lk 1:1-4, which I think was part of the gospel from the beginning of its existence. Lk 1:1:4, set the gospel as being "historical", all true (you do not lie to an excellency. If you do, the consequences can be bad for the author!) and also make believe the gospel was written before 65 AD.
The nativity stories, already known by the audience targeted by the gospel, written later, were inserted in the gospel in order to "prove" their authenticity.
Final remark: the Greek spelling of Nazareth in the nativity stories is the same, but different on what shows in the other gospels (including GMark) and Q. It looks to me the nativities stories were written without the knowledge of GMark and Q.

Cordially, Bernard
..
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7471
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:36 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:02 pm
to Ben,
I have no real issue with the supposition that the nativity stories were written early(ish) and then tagged on to Luke 3-24, but the same effect is achieved if they were written by a different hand, as well, and then edited into Luke. The main thing is that chapters 1-2 are observably independent of chapters 3-24.
Both the nativity stories and the rest of the gospel are very much pro-feminist. So my prime suspect would be the same author for both.
But I do not think that can be absolutely demonstrated. Maybe 2 different authors, both women, for the same Christian community, one lead by women (as deducted from the gospel, Paul's epistles and Acts).
I am certain that community was Philippi. There are so many clues showing just that:
http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html
Those are interesting arguments (which I have read before), but they do not negate the arguments for Luke 3.1-2 having formed the beginning of a/the gospel text. The stronger I feel your arguments about Philippi are, the more I want to integrate them into what I feel is the more certain contingency: that the gospel once began at 3.1-2.
Luke 3.1-2 "greatness" is reduced by Lk 1:1-4, which I think was part of the gospel from the beginning of its existence. Lk 1:1:4, set the gospel as being "historical", all true (you do not lie to an excellency. If you do, the consequences can be bad for the author!) and also make believe the gospel was written before 65 AD.
I do not really buy this as a guarantee for the absolute truthfulness of the account; the author positions himself (he uses a masculine participle to refer to himself, not a feminine one, so I am doing the same) as having more knowledge and even access to knowledge about such affairs than Theophilus (whoever that may be); the likelihood of Theophilus following up and finding lies seems remote; only if we knew in advance that Theophilus was at least a bit antagonistic would we be able to draw such conclusions from the preface.

And the gospel nowhere dates itself; Acts may date itself, depending on what one does with the "we" passages. My faith in the efficacy of the "we" passages for demonstrating authorship is perhaps not as strong as it could be, since it appears that "we" passages could be invented during the course of textual transmission.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

davidmartin
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by davidmartin » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:17 am

Both the nativity stories and the rest of the gospel are very much pro-feminist. So my prime suspect would be the same author for both.
But I do not think that can be absolutely demonstrated. Maybe 2 different authors, both women, for the same Christian community, one lead by women (as deducted from the gospel, Paul's epistles and Acts).
I think for sure both Acts and Luke contain much that would appeal to women and support their activity in the faith and it is noticable
i think that is a fact.

John2
Posts: 3307
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:59 am

perseusomega9 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:39 pm
The docetism was first. Look at the record in the NT of when Jesus became lord or messiah. In the kenosis hymn and Roman's at his resurrection, at his baptism in mark, at his birth in matt/luke, his prexistence in john. In jewish apocalyptic still waiting him to come on the clouds. Birth traditions are late.

But Paul cals Jesus a man elsewhere in Romans (and to the extent of likening him to Adam).

5:12-15:

Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.

My understanding of Paul is that Jesus became a spiritual being (or, rather, the "son of God in power") after dying as a man, as per Rom. 1:4 and 1 Cor. 15:42-44:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.



And my understanding of Mark is that it espouses adoptionism, and while there is no birth narrative in Mark, it says (by both the author of Mark and the crowd in the scene) that Jesus had a mother and brothers, which implies that he was a man.


3:31-32:
Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

That Jesus rejects them (or, rather, broadens the meaning of "mother" and "brothers") doesn't negate that the author of Mark says he had a human mother and brothers. And Mk. 6:3 names his mother and brothers and adds that he also had sisters (and a job, which would be odd for a phantom to have):

Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?”


And whether they believed in a virgin birth or not, all Jewish Christians (including Nazarenes, who in my view are the earliest Christians) are said to have beleived that Jesus was a man, which is in keeping with Paul and Mark.

As for the Philippians Hymn, I think it is more in keeping with adoptionism (i.e, that the spiritual Christ-being entered Jesus at some point in his life) than docetism because it says that Jesus died ("he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death").
Last edited by John2 on Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:40 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

John2
Posts: 3307
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:06 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:47 pm
Why is it 'a fact' when Irenaeus says that Marcion stole and corrupted Luke but not a fact when the Marcionites (Megethius) says that Acts is a spurious codex? Let me guess. We like the orthodox better than the Marcionites. Some science.

I buy the idea that Marcion rejected Acts. As I said upthread:

And that Marcion rejected Acts (even though in my view it was written by the same author) makes sense, because even though it is pro-Pauline, it has (in my view) the agenda of smoothing things over between Paul and Jewish Christians (and even presents Paul as observing the Torah).
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12079
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:15 pm

But that's not the point. Is it enough to simply say he didn't use Acts. What do you do with the robbery accusation? Remember it forms part of the 'history' of the Church too when Irenaeus says:
Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him ...
The question as always with these people - like Trump for instance - is at what point do you stop ignoring the lying? At first with Trump people tried to say, 'okay he bends the truth a little, he's a salesman so it's part of his schtick.' But if you have someone who literally builds his reality on bullshit - in this case the importance of Marcion being the benefactor or successor of a 'thief' or robbery, at what point do you say 'he's full of shit.'
“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

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7465
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:18 pm

John2 wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:59 am
That Jesus rejects them (or, rather, broadens the meaning of "mother" and "brothers") doesn't negate that the author of Mark says he had a human mother and brothers.
the problem is, that according to the same ethic of "Mark" (author), the episode of Jesus who denies the his human mother is too much embarrassing for "Mark".

Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

(Mark 1:20)

Here "Mark" (author) was moved to insert the "hired men" to mitigate the brutality by which otherwise the disciples would have abandoned alone their dear old father to his fate. Hence "Mark" reveals that he considers as important the love of a son for human father and mother. Therefore "Mark" (author) could only be moved by the need of a reaction against a great theological threat (=docetism) to invent a Jesus who denies the his human mother and brothers at the point of abandoning them forever.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

John2
Posts: 3307
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by John2 » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:32 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:15 pm
But that's not the point. Is it enough to simply say he didn't use Acts. What do you do with the robbery accusation? Remember it forms part of the 'history' of the Church too when Irenaeus says:
Cerdo was one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live at Rome in the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the episcopal succession from the apostles downwards. He taught that the God proclaimed by the law and the prophets was not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the former was known, but the latter unknown; while the one also was righteous, but the other benevolent. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him ...
The question as always with these people - like Trump for instance - is at what point do you stop ignoring the lying? At first with Trump people tried to say, 'okay he bends the truth a little, he's a salesman so it's part of his schtick.' But if you have someone who literally builds his reality on bullshit - in this case the importance of Marcion being the benefactor or successor of a 'thief' or robbery, at what point do you say 'he's full of shit.'

I could ignore everything that church writers say about Marcion (and re-title this thread "The Gospel of Luke and Acts") and it wouldn't affect my view of the creation and evolution Luke and Acts. But just out of curiosity, what would we be left with regarding Marcion without not necessarily believing but at least having (and being able to assess) what his opponents say? Would we know that Marcion even existed? I'm curious to know if there is any information about Marcion that is not filtered through his opponents. Would the Marcionite prologues count?
Look at the sky, look at the river, isn't it good? Winding, finding places to go.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 7465
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:35 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 12:18 pm
John2 wrote:
Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:59 am
That Jesus rejects them (or, rather, broadens the meaning of "mother" and "brothers") doesn't negate that the author of Mark says he had a human mother and brothers.
the problem is, that according to the same ethic of "Mark" (author), the episode of Jesus who denies the his human mother is too much embarrassing for "Mark".

Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

(Mark 1:20)

Here "Mark" (author) was moved to insert the "hired men" to mitigate the brutality by which otherwise the disciples would have abandoned alone their dear old father to his fate. Hence "Mark" reveals that he considers as important the love of a son for human father and mother. Therefore "Mark" (author) could only be moved by the need of a reaction against a great theological threat (=docetism) to invent a Jesus who denies the his human mother and brothers at the point of abandoning them forever.
Something as: it is not true that he was without real mother and brothers. He merely rejected them (sic).

As if the public rejection of a mother was less morally disturbing than the mere absence of a real mother!!!

This is very a low form of vulgar propaganda.

The negationists of very recent historical facts use the same kind of "argument".
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply