Why did Marcion adopt the gospel of Luke?

[Peter Kirby]

An alternative to this that I have been toying with is that Marcion was less an innovator than a popularizer, that what we call "Marcionism" (including the notion of the antitheses) predated Marcion, who simply picked up the torch and ran with it.

Could be.

I would likely agree with the statement, "Marcion was less an innovator than a popularizer."

But I don't think that would imply not writing "Antitheses." (The notion? No idea who had it first.)

Then is there not the option of pushing early Paul backward in time rather than later Paul forward in time? (Obviously assuming the boulder known as the HJ at around 30 can be detonated.)

That gives you more time, if you drop the idea of a reference to Marcion in 1 Timothy (or any contemporary activity between them).

[Ben C. Smith]

An alternative to this that I have been toying with is that Marcion was less an innovator than a popularizer, that what we call "Marcionism" (including the notion of the antitheses) predated Marcion, who simply picked up the torch and ran with it.

Could be.

I would likely agree with the statement, "Marcion was less an innovator than a popularizer."

But I don't think that would imply not writing "Antitheses." (The notion? No idea who had it first.)

I do not doubt that Marcion wrote a book or tract by that title. What I am saying is that it seems possible to me that the kind of idea that book or tract conveyed was already around (the Matthean sermon on the mount has its own set of antithetical statements regarding the law, for example). Maybe, in fact, the idea was around early enough for 1 Timothy to complain about.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

FWIW I don't think Marcion wrote a second book called the Antitheses. I think its a garbled reference to the presence of the antitheses in Matthew in the Marcionite gospel. I've looked at all the references to this so-called 'Antitheses' - there's nothing there. It's just the usual scholarly bullshit built upon layer after layer of 'assumptions' but there is no 'there there.'

[Peter Kirby]

An alternative to this that I have been toying with is that Marcion was less an innovator than a popularizer, that what we call "Marcionism" (including the notion of the antitheses) predated Marcion, who simply picked up the torch and ran with it.

Could be.

I would likely agree with the statement, "Marcion was less an innovator than a popularizer."

But I don't think that would imply not writing "Antitheses." (The notion? No idea who had it first.)

I do not doubt that Marcion wrote a book or tract by that title. What I am saying is that it seems possible to me that the kind of idea that book or tract conveyed was already around (the Matthean sermon on the mount has its own set of antithetical statements regarding the law, for example). Maybe, in fact, the idea was around early enough for 1 Timothy to complain about.

Ben.

I see where you're going with it, then.

That would make sense.

[Peter Kirby]

FWIW I don't think Marcion wrote a second book called the Antitheses. I think its a garbled reference to the presence of the antitheses in Matthew in the Marcionite gospel. I've looked at all the references to this so-called 'Antitheses' - there's nothing there. It's just the usual scholarly bullshit built upon layer after layer of 'assumptions' but there is no 'there there.'

I'm sympathetic with this. Why not do a write-up with a listing of all the references to the so-called 'Antitheses'? I'm sure it could help underscore your point.

[Secret Alias]

Well if I have time sure. But let's start with - doesn't it sound suspicious that Matthew has a Marcionite sounding antitheses but not Luke. Marcion is officially 'assigned' this 'antitheses-free' gospel (Luke) but in spite of this Church Fathers can't help referencing the Marcionite gospel as having the Matthean antitheses. Instead of accepting that Marcion's gospel might have had these 'Jesus-spoken' antitheses Adv Marc allows for the idea that he simply wrote up a bunch of 'self-inspired' antitheses. It's like Pete Townsend saying he joined child pornography sites solely to 'research' the problem. File these under 'all-too convenient truths.'

[maryhelena]

Justin Martyr implies that Marcion is still around, making it very stretched (in biological terms) to imagine that Marcion was active before 70 AD.

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

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.

Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion.

Tertullian: (Adv. Marc. I.19,2)

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus deigned to pour down from heaven, a salutary spirit. This is at least the way Marcion would have it; in what year of the elder Antoninus his pestilential breeze breathed out from his own Pontus, I have not bothered to investigate. They [the Marcionites] put 115 years and 6 ½ months between Christ and Marcion, which is more or less the period of time from Tiberius to Antoninus.

So? The whole dating of Marcion, that this figure is post Paul, is a numerical formula said to be from the Marcionites! And how does Tertullian work the numbers? From the 15th year of Tiberius to the year 145 c.e. in the rule of Antoninus Pius. What else could he do once Acts is telling him that Paul is prior to 70 c.e.? He has to use this Marcionite formula in such a way as to date Marcion post the NT Paul.

But how did the Marcionites use this number formula that resolved around the 15th year of Tiberius? Tiberius can be dated from his co-regency in 12 c.e., or sole rule from 14 c.e. His 15th year can be any year between 27 and 29 c.e. Taking the middle number 28 c.e. and using the 115 years to go backwards, instead of forward (re Tertullian) and one gets to about the year 87 b.c.

Yes, the time of Alexander Jannaeus and the Toledot Yeshu. Thus, looks to me, that Marcion, Marcionites/Marcionism are tracing their intellectual roots back to Jewish, Hasmonean, history....Keeping in mind it's a philosophy/theology that one is dealing with not a man by the name of *Marcion*.

Yep, Marcion was 'alive' around the time of a late, post 70 c.e., NT Paul figure - but 'alive' as to the writings, the collection of written works, that this Marcionite Jewish movement produced. A collection of written works that the Pauline movement further developed for it's own philosophy/theology of internationalism.

[Bernard Muller]

Looking at Peter's own webpages on 1 & 2 Timothy (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html & http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html), all the scholars quoted here, agreed that these two epistles were not written by Paul, for various reasons.
Peter dates 1 Thessalonians at 50-60 and the letters to Timothy at 100-140.
So that would mean that Paul was active for 40 years (minimum) up to 90 years (maximum), average 65 years, if Paul wrote the Pastorals also.
If you put the Paul's episode starting later than 70, then that means someone wrote all the letters in the name of a fictitious Paul, and tried to put that Paul active before Jerusalem was destroyed (because of Paul's trips to Jerusalem, done or planned).
Then of course, 1 Clement http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html, written according to Peter 80 to 140 (here the quoted scholars disagree widely on the dating: from the sixties to 140, but normally dated towards the end of the 1st century), stipulates that Paul was dead already then.
I think Peter should look back at his stylometry method he used.

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

Looking at Peter's own webpages on 1 & 2 Timothy (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html & http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html), all the scholars quoted here, agreed that these two epistles were not written by Paul, for various reasons.
Peter dates 1 Thessalonians at 50-60 and the letters to Timothy at 100-140.
So that would mean that Paul was active for 40 years (minimum) up to 90 years (maximum), average 65 years, if Paul wrote the Pastorals also.
If you put the Paul's episode starting later than 70, then that means someone wrote all the letters in the name of a fictitious Paul, and tried to put that Paul active before Jerusalem was destroyed (because of Paul's trips to Jerusalem, done or planned).
Then of course, 1 Clement http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html, written according to Peter 80 to 140 (here the quoted scholars disagree widely on the dating: from the sixties to 140, but normally dated towards the end of the 1st century), stipulates that Paul was dead already then.
I think Peter should look back at his stylometry method he used.

Cordially, Bernard

No, Bernard, what it all means is that there are two very specific developments in early christianity - a Marcionite and a Pauline development. One development followed on from the other utilizing written sources from the earlier development. The debate is over which came first - the Marcionite or the Pauline. When that debate is settled then one can begin to debate who wrote what.....

The NT book of Acts is not history. It is an origin story. An origin story designed to retell a long history; a history, like all history, with it's sorrows as well as it's triumphs, in a condensed format. People and events flow into one another to become part of that origin story. The figure of Paul is as much a composite figure as is the gospel JC. The short time frame from crucifixion to death of Paul pre 70 c.e. - plus minus 40 years depending on dating that crucifixion - indicates the writer of Acts was placing his origin story within a biblical time frame. 40 years to the promised land. 40 years for an origin story for early christianity. Yep, using Acts as history will keep one wandering in it's wilderness. However, the walls of Jericho did eventually fall.....

[Bernard Muller]

to maryhelena,
I do not have a clue on what you are talking about, except you are rejecting Acts.

No, Bernard, what it all means is that there are two very specific developments in early christianity - a Marcionite and a Pauline development. One development followed on from the other utilizing written sources from the earlier development. The debate is over which came first - the Marcionite or the Pauline. When that debate is settled then one can begin to debate who wrote what.....

So what came first, BTW?

Cordially, Bernard