Is John based on Marcion's Evangelion?

[Bernard Muller]

to MrMacSon,

rgprice didn't refer to any import from gMark and gJohn in[to] Marcion's gospels (sic).

Yes, it is rgprice: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7621#p117503

Except several scholars propose and argue there was. Your next point suggests you think there was at least a ''preamable of gLuke''.

I said "so-called preamble".
According to Hippolytus of Rome, in 'Refutation of all heresies', book VII, Basilides knew also about gMark, gMatthew and gJohn, and provided quotes from these gospels. See http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html then "find" on: Basilides (120-140).
Also on the same book, Hippolytus wrote in Chapter XV "... all the events in our Lord's life occurred, according to them [Basilidians], in the same manner as they have been described in the Gospels."
So I don't see why Basilides would be ignorant about gLuke.

See evidence showing Marcion truncated and "updated" gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html
My arguments are below the testimonies of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius.

Cordially, Bernard

[davidmartin]

John is very blatantly anti-Jewish. It's clearly written by a non-Jew and presents the Jews as a sort of vial group of people who are in error

I think it's worth countering this slightly. Whatever can be flagged as anti-Jewish, this gospel has some things that are opposite to this
For example, where Mary finds the gardener instead of Jesus is clearly inspired by the Song of Songs
And the woman at the well strongly connects to other 'well' episodes in Hebrew scripture going right back to the patriarchs and Moses
I heard about a study that find a lot more connections also (actually written by Jews!) which i haven't read. I think it is in Hebrew

Anyway, somehow those two aspects are in John's gospel
What is different to John's gospel it seems is that the Jewish elements are not based on scriptural quotes which alone does not make a writing Jewish. The church fathers quote them all the time and they are not Jewish

I think the anti-Jewish places can be explained by a mixture of the final redactor making some finishing touches, and also some real dislike of the religious authorities who i think account for most (all?) of what appears anti-Jewish

It could be a Jewish not a Gentile work (at least originally) more so than Luke and maybe the others as well?

[Secret Alias]

The Church Fathers were VERY SELECTIVE about 'what was wrong with the Jews' from their post-bar Kochba perspective. The Jews were depicted as insular having a 'hatred for mankind' basically. This was especially true in the second century (I know from first century documents in Alexandria this was claimed also but is contradicted by Philo and Justus. We know from the period leading up to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple that Justus of Tiberias and many other writers were 'extremely Hellenized.' As such, we have to be cautious about the implications of 'anti-Jewish' bias. The more common early Christian criticism of Jews was that they 'worshipped angels' or the planets. This appears in early Alexandrian documents. This disappears as (a) Christians and Jews were presumed to be two separate communities and (b) monarchianism takes over a the principal concern of Church writers (cf. Apelles's inquisition, Justin's forgeries, Irenaeus). Originally 'the Jews' and 'the Samaritans' understood there to be 'an economy' in heaven viz. an Almighty God manifest as two powers of justice and benevolence. As these originally Jewish ideas become heretical (= Marcionism) Judaism itself becomes an exemplar of the new orthodox understanding and then backdated to figures like Gamaliel. In other words Marcion's real crime was that he continued to act and think that Jews believed in things which the Church Fathers condemned as heresy (= two powers in heaven). Indeed the Church Fathers basically accuse Marcion of assuming things and likely assuming things about Jewish orthodoxy which were deemed to be evil and deserving of condemnation by later standards of orthodoxy. Sort of like the difference between thinking Dominion Voting Systems were corrupt before January 6 vs after January 6.

As such, any document which identifies 'the Jews' as being the epitome of virtuous monarchianism necessarily comes from the late second century period. The kind of criticism of the Jews defines allows us to date the documents.

(a) the Jews worship angels, the planets, two powers etc = pre-150 CE
(b) the Jews were always monotheists + heresies came among us Christians to deceive us with (a) = post-150 CE

[Secret Alias]

Basically the late second century world saw a rush among various religious schools of thought to embrace Emperor worship through monarchianism. Christianity went furthest and won the race effectively.

[Secret Alias]

In fact, as a Jew, I can give the best understanding of 'a history of anti-Jewish sentiment' in Gentile writings including Christianity:

0 CE - 70 CE = 'the Jews, haters of humanity and the gods, are actively proselytizing the nations to take over the world and bring us all under their stupid god.
70 CE - 140 CE = "the Jews, haters of humanity, worshippers of angels and planetary watchers, were punished for killing Jesus. They now have to repent and accept a higher, better God whom Christ revealed instead of dividing the godhead into two powers of justice and mercy."
180 CE - modern period = 'the Jews, haters of humanity, murdered Christ, were punished for their most recent revolt with the loss of their ancestral land, must accept Christ as a path to redemption but in many respects are admirable people especially the way they steadfastly adhere to monotheistic principles - i.e. one God."

This last point is retrojected into the person of leading Jews in the first century period, even though it is probably entirely untrue.