Iskander

Diarmaid MacCulloch in: A history of Christianity says: It is not easy to reconstruct Marcion’s biblical writings and commentaries, since they were destroyed by his enemies.

Seeing scholars fed on the sayings of the enemies of Marcion reminds me of Matthew 15.
Matthew 15 27She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table

Iskander

Please! You do you think we are here to read this nonsense.
And proto-orthodox is only an unfortunate choice of words to describe an ongoing unresolved conflict to determine the identity of an emerging ideology

stephan huller

Jake

I don't want to get into a nit picky argument with you but let's start with your first statement:

No he didn't, and that's the problem with depending on the Irenaeus model. We know from firsthand testimony that Marcion called Jesus 'the Chrestos.' But Irenaeus doesn't mention this. As such, we're stuck with this shit out of luck statement which is not true. This is just one critical piece of information that does not come to us from the Irenaeus-based reporting about the Marcionite sect and which clearly emphasizes we have to think out of the box - we have to think for ourselves and not find our understanding is being dictated by what Irenaeus wants us to be true.

Marcion did not teach that there were two Christs because Jesus was not the Christ.

So where do we go with this? Why would Marcion go in this direction of calling Jesus Chrestos rather than Christos? The short answer must be that he did this because Paul established it first. Why don't our writings of Paul reflect this 'Chrestos' title? Again whatever your answer is it forces us to think out of the box, think out of the box (= trap) that Irenaeus set for us by making it seem that Marcion's own witnesses called Jesus Christ.

Yes I am aware of the nomina sacra argument. I've been around the block more than once. But even by substituting the name 'chrestos' for 'christos' you end up with Marcionitism as developing from Alexandrian Judaism. For Philo clearly identifies one side of the godhead as 'the kind God' (= chrestos) over and over again and Irenaeus slips on occasion (in Book Three for instance) and tells us that Marcionitism developed from the Philonic/rabbinic notion of the godhead consisting of two powers of kindness and judgement.

As I said the lack of any reference to the epithet chrestos in Irenaeus (and those dependent on him) can't be 'accidental.' It is a sign that the historical record about the Marcionites was manipulated in such a way to make them an unknowable commodity. I don't that it is simply a matter of Irenaeus 'lying' as it is the same pieces of information being repeated and repeated and corrected over time so that we are prevented from seeing the sensibility of the original Marcionite position.

The bottom line is that when you depend on Irenaeus and his cronies and then stumble upon the Deir Ali inscription you should know that you aren't getting the true story, the true account of the Marcionites. For some reason though, you stick with Irenaeus ...

andrewcriddle

If we are discussing early knowledge of Paul we should consider other early heretics as well as Marcion.

Valentinus (probably contemporary to Marcion) seems clearly to have known of Paul and used his writings. Basilides (probably earlier than Marcion) is claimed by Origen to have used the book of Romans to support transmigration. See Origen on Romans

Andrew Criddle

MrMacSon

Please clarify:

2. "The second edition of AM was stolen by a brother who betrayed Tertullian,
and who fraudulently made a transcription before it [Tertulian's authentic second edition] was complete"??

3. 'Thus, Tertullian came out with his new definitive third version to overcome the deficiencies of the previous two versions of "Against Marcion".'??
.

MrMacSon

Do Arianism & Docetism fit into this list?

Duvduv

For the "Academic Church" it is very easy. They do it, they write articles and books about it, and they say that this is how it was. Despite the fact that there is not a shred of evidence as to the texts or beliefs attributed to "Marcion" aside from the claims of those with a monopoly on church history, i.e. the spokesman of the emerging Byzantine regime's official religion.
Even Justin, who allegedly lived in the same town and time as "Marcion" makes no mention of the writings or texts, communities or followers of this Marcion, with epistles and gospels or without them.
There is nothing to corroborate the existence of a Marcion or a Marcionite movement in the second century.

jakejonesiv

Hi Stephan,

You are an intelligent man. Please proceed. I read your "Against Polycarp" and saw flashes of genius. And I read The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity and saw flashes of whatever the opposite is of genius.

Until I see where you are going, I will stick with a critical reading of the Church Fathers as exemplified by the Dutch Radical scholarship.

Jake

jakejonesiv

I suggest that interested persons read Tertullian's Against Marcion 1:1 and decide for themselves. I even copied it into a post above.

Jake

Iskander

There is a book you would enjoy reading and what it says goes directly to the subject matter of this thread.

The book is Beyond the quest for the historical Jesus, written by a Catholic Dominican priest, Fr. Thomas Louis Brodie who was until recently the director of a biblical research centre in Limerick, Eire.

He says that Jesus never existed and that the epistles are fiction and that Paul is also fiction (Page 145):