Marcion's Gospel

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:11 pmWhy would Tertullian find it necessary to elevate Paul at this stage of Christianity if Christianity was [supposedly] well established?
Not sure what this means. Various modern Christians still "elevate Paul," and Christianity is extremely well established by now.
Why would he feel the need to appeal to the OT to do so?
Because, in general, new religions were considered highly suspect in the ancient Greco-Roman world. If one could trace a cult's roots back to some hoary Eastern religion, all the better for that cult in the estimation of many/most.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8855
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:41 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:11 pmWhy would Tertullian find it necessary to elevate Paul at this stage of Christianity if Christianity was [supposedly] well established?
Not sure what this means. Various modern Christians still "elevate Paul," and Christianity is extremely well established by now.
That various modern Christians still elevate Paul is irrelevant to what was happening in the late 2nd century/early 3rd century c.e.

When you wrote "Christianity is extremely well established by now" did you mean in Tertullian's times?

If so, I disagree. Based on what Tertullian says in Adv Marc V, I, among other things, eg., -

  • ...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.
  • ... I should be glad if you [Marcion] 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
  • ... 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.
    • [ie. there does not seem to be a seconder for Paul known to Tertullian]
  • I [Tertullian] appear in the character of a disciple and an inquirer
  • 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 [the OT]. Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul.
  • we have nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul—belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe
  • Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became “an apostle, not of men, neither by man;”
  • 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.
via https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nic ... n/Book_V/I

And Tertullian is said to have either converted or moved on to Montanism, so Christianity is unlikely to have then had the hold people assert.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
davidmartin
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by davidmartin »

Such hasty generalisations are wasted space ...
it wasn't hasty, i provided an example and i said there were many more i can also provide
feel free to disagree with these, not say i am hasty!

Case in point - Eugnostos the Blessed is a direct source of the gnostic Sophia of Jesus (+ strong parallels to the Secret book of John and Judas gospel)
The former has no 2nd century Gnostic traits
No demiurge, no fall of Sophia, no elevated dualism, no spirit/matter dualism
It does have a cosmology based on paired male and female emanations and angelic beings. That's it

So, why do i need to even bother arguing. It's crystal clear
The same for the Gospel of Thomas, a massive early text

It is not impossible the 2nd century Gnostic idea existed in the first century and was Semitic. It's just there isn't any proof for it, and even if it did, the evidence is earlier forms existed that lacked these 2nd century characteristics and were stronger then than later

The best evidence i have seen for 1st century Gnosticism as it appears in the 2nd century, is some Semitic names embedded in these texts
That is poor evidence. Names can be taken from previous iterations of something and put in new contexts

The Simonians are also very poor evidence due to the contradictory accounts on their beliefs in the church fathers
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:08 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 6:41 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:11 pmWhy would Tertullian find it necessary to elevate Paul at this stage of Christianity if Christianity was [supposedly] well established?
Not sure what this means. Various modern Christians still "elevate Paul," and Christianity is extremely well established by now.
That various modern Christians still elevate Paul is irrelevant to what was happening in the lat 2nd century/early 3rd century c.e.
Logically, then, that various Christians in century II elevated Paul is irrelevant to what was happening earlier in century II or in century I or even earlier.
When you wrote "Christianity is extremely well established by now" did you mean in Tertullian's times?
I was asking what you meant. "Well established" can mean many different things and shades of things. I am not interested in a semantic debate.

What presses beyond semantics is the simple fact of logic that Tertullian elevating Paul means nothing for how well Christianity was established in his day.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8855
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:16 am Logically, then, that various Christians in [late(?)] century II elevated Paul is irrelevant to what was happening earlier in century II or in century I or even earlier.
I disagree. What was happening thru century II is very relevant to the context of what Tertullian was saying, much much more so than the comparison of what Tertullian was saying and what people might think today (late 2019 ad).

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:16 am What presses beyond semantics is the simple fact of logic that Tertullian elevating Paul means nothing for how well Christianity was established in his day.
Perhaps.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8855
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

I note Irenaeus has lots to say about Paul - using his name in several chapters of at least two books of Adv. Haereses, apparently originally titled -

'On the Detection and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So Called' or 'On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis' (ancient Greek: Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως )

Interestingly, Irenaeus' first mention of Paul is after giving what seems to be a fairly full and accurate account of Valentinian theology based on Æons and derivatives of them in the first three books of Adv. Haereses, where he says at the end of section 1 of chapter 3 of Bk I of Adv Haers, -

Paul also, they affirm, very clearly and frequently names these Æons, and even goes so far as to preserve their order, when he says, "To all the generations of the Æons of the Æon". Nay, we ourselves, when at the Eucharist we pronounce the words, To Æons of Æons (for ever and ever), do set forth these Æons. And, in fine, wherever the words Æon or Æons occur, they at once refer them to these beings.

Before that,

a/ The end of Book II of Adv Haers

5 ...Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent forethought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit...for the purpose of fortifying and strengthening the Pleroma, and who at the same time completed the number of the Æons. Christ then instructed them as to the nature of their conjunction, and taught those who possessed a comprehension of the Unbegotten were sufficient for themselves. He also announced among them what related to the knowledge of the Father — namely, that he cannot be understood or comprehended, nor so much as seen or heard, except in so far as he is known only by Monogenes. And the reason why the rest of the Æons possess perpetual existence is found in that part of the Father's nature which is incomprehensible; but the reason of their origin and formation was situated in that which may be comprehended regarding him, that is, in the Son. Christ, then, who had just been produced, effected these things among them.

6. But the Holy Spirit taught them to give thanks on being all rendered equal among themselves, and led them to a state of true repose. Thus, then, they tell us that the Æons were constituted equal to each other in form and sentiment, so that all became as Nous, and Logos, and Anthropos, and Christus. The female Æons, too, became all as Aletheia, and Zoe, and Spiritus, and Ecclesia. Everything, then, being thus established, and brought into a state of perfect rest, they next tell us that these beings sang praises with great joy to the Propator, who himself shared in the abounding exaltation. Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which had been conferred on them, the whole Pleroma of the Æons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and the perfect fruit [of it], namely Jesus. Him they also speak of under the name of Saviour, and Christ, and patronymically, Logos, and Everything, because He was formed from the contributions of all. And then we are told that, by way of honour, angels of the same nature as Himself were simultaneously produced, to act as His bodyguard.

and, b/ the previous section of Adv Haers I, 3, 1, -

Such also is the account of the generation of the later Æons, namely of the first Christ and of the Holy Spirit, both of whom were produced by the Father after the repentance [of Sophia], and of the second Christ (whom they also style Saviour), who owed his being to the joint contributions [of the Æons]. They tell us, however, that this knowledge has not been openly divulged, because all are not capable of receiving it, but has been mystically revealed by the Saviour through means of parables to those qualified for understanding it. This has been done as follows. The thirty Æons are indicated (as we have already remarked) by the thirty years during which they say the Saviour performed no public act, and by the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.


Does anyone know if anyone has considered if Irenaeus was using a relatively complete, orthodox version of the Pauline epistles, or a [likely] Marcionite version?
davidmartin
Posts: 1605
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by davidmartin »

that quote is found in our NT!

"to Him is the glory in the assembly in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages" Ephesians 3:21

The question of aeons itself, appears alien to orthodoxy at first glance
But they feature in the Shepard of Hermas

Concepts such as 'grace' could be considered a type of aeon
Aeon seems to be a combination of angel + philosophical concept + something experienced + a time period and also sometimes a particular church assembly from the past that get's associated with the aeon. All wrapped up in one concept.

My guess is originally it was just an Jewish angelology based metaphysics and way simpler that this stuff we see in the mid 2nd century
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by Ben C. Smith »

MrMacSon wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:16 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:16 am Logically, then, that various Christians in [late(?)] century II elevated Paul is irrelevant to what was happening earlier in century II or in century I or even earlier.
I disagree. What was happening thru century II is very relevant to the context of what Tertullian was saying, much much more so than the comparison of what Tertullian was saying and what people might think today (late 2019 ad).
What are the rules for this little game, then? If Tertullian promotes Paul, Christianity is not established, and if he demotes Paul, Christianity is established? Or what? And why? What are the analogies you are working from?

While it is certainly true that things happening in the late second century are more useful for our understanding of early Christianity than things happening today, neither that nor its opposite is my point. My point is that the rule you seem to be setting up may be flawed, and the exposure of the flaws in such rules knows no chronological boundary unless the rule itself has established one.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8855
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

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

< . . snip . . >

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
davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:43 am
It is not impossible the 2nd century Gnostic idea existed in the first century and was Semitic. It's just there isn't any proof for it, and even if it did, the evidence is earlier forms existed that lacked these 2nd century characteristics and were stronger then than later

The best evidence i have seen for 1st century Gnosticism as it appears in the 2nd century, is some Semitic names embedded in these texts
That is poor evidence. Names can be taken from previous iterations of something and put in new contexts

The Simonians are also very poor evidence due to the contradictory accounts on their beliefs in the church fathers
You've made several generalisations. And referred to one Nag Hammadi texts, Eugnostos the Blessed, which I'll briefly mention below.

The following are notes I made after listening to an audiobook by Gnostic Scholar David Brakke, -

Most of the 46 separate works at Nag Hammadi - tractates - have passages in common with the Hebrew Bible (aka the OT); the New Testament, and other Jewish and Christian literature. Biblical characters such as Adam and Even or Jesus and the apostles appear in nearly all of them. Most are apocalypses or revelations.

Scholars have identified four religious groups or traditions represented in the texts.

The first of these is the Gnostics or Gnostic school of thought that Irenaeus wrote about in 180 A.D. He described the myth they taught, which is precisely the myth found in ‘the Secret Book According to John’ from Nag Hammadi. Another text is the Gospel of Judas, first published in 2005. The Secret Book According to John is the most important Gnostic writing that survives today. We know it’s Gnostic because a major part of it matches what Irenaeus tells us the Gnostics taught. It’s important because it tells the entire Gnostic myth, starting with God and the creation of this world and ending with the coming of the Savior and the salvation of humanity. Scholars believe that the book was written sometime between 100 and 150 A.D., which makes it the oldest surviving Christian or pseudo-Christian work of any kind that gives a complete and comprehensive narrative of salvation.

A second set of works comes from the Valentinian school of Christianity: the Treastise on Resurrection and the Gospel According to Philip (and they correlate with Irenaeus writing of an influential person named Valentinus).

A third group grants special authority to an apostle named Didymus Judas Thomas in the Gospel according to Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender. Thomas theology emphasized the divine origin of the soul, its fall from perfection into the body and the material world, and its ability to return to its origin through the reunion with its true self.

The fourth group consists of three tractates from Codex VI that centre on the god Hermes: the Prayer of Thanksgiving; an excerpt from the Perfect Discourse, also known as Asclepius; and the ‘Discourse on the Eight and Ninth’, a new addition to the Hermetic literature (Hermeticism). In these texts, the divine revealer is “thrice-great Hermes,” or Hermes Trismegistus, a composite of the Egyptian god Thoth and the Greek god Hermes.

In such works as the Secret Book According to John and the Gospel of Judas, the Gnostics combined the book of Genesis with Jewish, Platonist, and traditions that appear Christian [but it could be debated in which direction the traditions flowed] to create a strange but beautiful myth that included explaining how the universe came into being through an inferior, ignorant and malevolent lower god i.e. the God of the book of Genesis was such a god. The Gnostics offered salvation from ignorance and fate through knowledge of a higher God: the true God who is entirely spiritual, serene and unchanging, who sent Jesus, and they claimed people could have mystical contact with that God now.

The Christian teacher Valentinus and his disciples revised the original Gnostic myth to make it Christ centred.

The Gospel According to Thomas did not share the Gnostic myth, but it did teach that to know one’s self is to know God; that is, the Jesus who is within you and who you are [or could be].


davidmartin wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 1:58 amThe 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
davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 26, 2019 4:43 am Case in point - Eugnostos the Blessed is a direct source of the gnostic Sophia of Jesus (+ strong parallels to the Secret book of John and Judas gospel)
The former has no 2nd century Gnostic traits
No demiurge, no fall of Sophia, no elevated dualism, no spirit/matter dualism
It does have a cosmology based on paired male and female emanations and angelic beings. That's it
It is highly significant the Nag Hammadi manuscripts (i) were written in Coptic, a language said to have been invented by Christians, but perhaps invented outside Christianity, and (ii) are codices rather than scrolls.

The Epistle of Eugnostos is devoid of any specifically Christian themes or associations, and simply describes the esoteric cosmology of the gnostics. The similarity with the cosmology in Sophia of Jesus Christ led Douglas M. Parrott to conclude that that work was an adaption of this Epistle for a Christian audience, but did he or have others considered that Sophia of Jesus Christ was an adaptation of the Epistle of Eugnostos.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8855
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion's Gospel

Post by MrMacSon »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2019 8:32 am What are the rules for this little game, then? ... What are the analogies you are working from?

... the rule you seem to be setting up may be flawed, and the exposure of the flaws in such rules knows no chronological boundary unless the rule itself has established one.
I'm not setting up a rule.* I started commenting on Tertullians references to or use of Paul. I've started looking at Irenaeus on Paul (I'm aware Justin Martyr either hardly referred to Paul or didn't know him at all).

* the only 'rules' or 'inquiry-considerations' I'm following (but not setting up) are

(a) that, when dealing with Church Fathers, one ought to question which direction passages and pericopes flowed - whether, (i) as traditionally thought, from versions of what eventually became the NT books to the Fathers' documents; or (ii) from the Fathers to the eventual NT books (and therefore that passages in the Fathers' works identical to or similar to those in the eventual NT books might be a coincidence, or that the epistle or gospel writers used the Fathers' works to finalise their books);

and

(b) whether the Church Fathers might have been dealing with Marcion's version of a document or an orthodox one (something I'm hardly knowledgeable enough to discern)
Post Reply