Primacy of Marcion and implications for historicity

[GakuseiDon]

I've been thinking through the implications for historicity if Marcion's Gospel was the first known written one, and that he had in his possession a copy of ten letters of Paul that were much less interpolated, so a more original version. So the below is based on the assumption that Marcion had access to the first Gospel.

First: trying to date when Marcion lived. Some hints show he may have lived earlier than commonly thought (around 145CE). Justin Martyr, in his First Apology (around 150CE), wrote:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ology.html

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians

That sounds like a man with a long career: an old man ('even at this day alive') who has spread his message to 'many of every nation'.

Also, Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata Book 7 (around 180 CE):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book7.html

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics].

According to the Church Fathers, Marcion apostatised at some point in his career. It seems that he was born later in the First Century, perhaps around 80CE if he was an older man in the 150s CE. He is grouped with early heretics like Valentinus. If Marcion was born in Pontus, then he might have had early exposure to letters by Paul sent to the Christian community of the Galatians.

The start of Marcion's Evangelion is:

1. In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,
2. [Pontius Pilatus being the Governor of Judaea,] Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was
3. teaching on the sabbath days: and they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was in authority.

I don't think it unreasonable to conclude, based on what we know about Marcion, that Marcion thought that this really happened. I.e. that there really was a Jesus who went to Galilee and taught Jews there his doctrine. That it wasn't some analogy for a greater truth.

Since Marcion also had access to an early version of Paul's letters, I suggest that he didn't think Paul had a different Jesus in mind to that Gospel's Jesus. That is, for Marcion, Paul's Jesus also came to earth in the 15th year of Tiberius, into Galilee, and taught on the sabbath days.

So if Marcion's Gospel was the first one written, then it is the earliest conciliation of the Gospel and Paul's letters in terms of an earthly and actual Jesus.

Some notes:

1. For the above, I'm assuming that Marcion's Gospel is the first written Gospel.
2. I'm not assuming Marcion himself wrote the first Gospel. It may be that an earlier writer may have made a literary story about a Jesus who looked like a man who descended from heaven that wasn't meant to be literal, and Marcion did take it literally. But I suggest that this pushes back the date of when Paul's letters about Jesus Christ were seen as referring to the same person as the Gospel's Jesus Christ.
3. We don't really know when Marcion apostatised. But he appears to have been active early in the Second Century CE, and the earliest person to reference both a Gospel and letters of Paul.

Any thoughts on the above?

[Giuseppe]

Usually mythicists who accept Marcion priority insist on the incipit (descent in Capernaum already adult) to argue that this is very in line with Paul's view (see hymn to Philippians) less the "born by woman" bit, about a Jesus humanoid, not fully human.

Remember that for Heracleon "Capernaum" is the "lower part of the middle region", i.e. outer space. So it is not even sure your dogma (that Marcion believed really that Jesus visited a town in Galilee) .

[rgprice]

Firstly, I'll say that I don't believe that Marcion's Gospel was the first. I still think that a proto-Mark was the first of a major current forms of the Gospels.

However, if Marcion's was the first, then of course it would be devastating to historicity.

But I think that Marcion's Gospel was derived from proto-Mark (which would have been very similar to canonical Mark) because I don't see how you can get from Marcion to to Mark, but I do see how you can go from Mark to Marcion.

Virtually every scene in Mark is derived from scriptural refences. These references either don't exist or are mangled in Marcion/Luke. I find it hard to believe that someone could take an existing story that was not based on these scriptural refences like Marcion's Gospel, and the re-write it in such a way as to preserve the essential story and scenes, but to be able to find a way to derive each scene from the Jewish scriptures. It would be much easier to invent your own narrative drawing from Jewish scriptures, and for that narrative to later be revised in a way that disassociated it from the Jewish scriptures.

In addition, Mark is not overtly orthodox, so it doesn't appear to be an "orthodizing" revision of Marcion in the way that Matthew and Luke do. So I just cannot really conceive of an explanation for the Gospel of Mark if Mark is derived from Marcion. I find it much easier to explain Marcion as a derivation from Mark.

[neilgodfrey]

Consult any book on how historians know what happened, how they use sources (many exist -- look for material written for aspiring post-grad students) and I would be very surprised if a single one allowed historicity to be even hypothesized in the way proposed in the OP.

-- What is known of Marcion's thoughts on the gospel and Paul comes from very late evidence;

-- what is said about Marcion's teachings can tell us nothing about how Marcion actually interpreted or understood any of the attributed material;

-- even if we had contemporary evidence that Marcion believed in a figure Jesus, that tells us nothing about the historicity of such a figure;

-- we know nothing about Paul's letters or Marcion's relationship with them until the late second century.

The proposal for an argument for historicity is a nice fancy or daydream but it is not history. Not even close to how historians work, sorry.

[Sinouhe]

Virtually every scene in Mark is derived from scriptural refences. These references either don't exist or are mangled in Marcion/Luke. I find it hard to believe that someone could take an existing story that was not based on these scriptural refences like Marcion's Gospel, and the re-write it in such a way as to preserve the essential story and scenes, but to be able to find a way to derive each scene from the Jewish scriptures. It would be much easier to invent your own narrative drawing from Jewish scriptures, and for that narrative to later be revised in a way that disassociated it from the Jewish scriptures.

True

[Peter Kirby]

According to the Church Fathers, Marcion apostatised at some point in his career.
3. We don't really know when Marcion apostatised.

Any thoughts on the above?

Could you define what you mean by "Marcion apostatised" and explain if you believe it happened at all, and why?

[Secret Alias]

= because it's written somewhere. (for GD)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

delete

[MrMacSon]

... I think that Marcion's Gospel was derived from proto-Mark (which would have been very similar to canonical Mark) because I don't see how you can get from Marcion to to Mark, but I do see how you can go from Mark to Marcion.

Virtually every scene in Mark is derived from [Jewish] scriptural refences.1 These references either don't exist or are mangled in Marcion/Luke. I find it hard to believe that someone could take an existing story that was not based on these scriptural refences, like Marcion's Gospel, and the re-write it in such a way as to preserve the essential story and scenes, but to be able to find a way to derive each scene from the Jewish scriptures.2 ...

1 You and others have said/demonstrated that G.Mark was/is [also/largely] derived from the Pauline epistles which, in turn, are [also] derived from Jewish scriptural references.

2 which would essentially have been a Judaising of the Marcion[ite] euangelion-gospel

It's also possible that neither the Marcion[ite] euangelion-gospel or [proto].Mark were/are derived from each other.

There are a number of possible, variable scenarios among/around all this including Markus Vinzent's proposition that there were two editions of the Marcion[ite] euangelion-gospel, one before and one after the proto.canonical-gospels appeared.

[MrMacSon]

Some notes:

1. ...
2. ... It may be that an earlier writer...made a literary story about a Jesus—who looked like a man who descended from heaven—that wasn't meant to be literal, and Marcion [took] it literally

• a few of the so-called 'gnostic' texts might/would fit the bill ...

2. ... But I suggest that this pushes back the date of when Paul's letters about Jesus Christ [might have been] seen as referring to...the Gospel's Jesus Christ

• what do you mean by push back? ... make the [first] perception later or earlier?

• a perception of/by who[m]?