jakejonesiv

In G.A. Wells new book, Cutting Jesus Down to Size (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2009, G.A. Wells distances himself from the views of Earl Doherty. P.E. Eddy and G.A, Boyd in The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk) conflated the views of Wells and Doherty.

In response. Wells wrote:

page 328
Earl Doherty belongs unequvocally in category 1 of Eddy and Boyd's 3 [categories], and they make it easier for themselves to suggest that my ideas seem at first sight strange by repeatedly grouping me with him, even though they are in fact aware that I differ from him significantly. Doherty argues that, for Paul, the earliest witness, Jesus did not come to Earth at all, that, under the influence of the Platonic view of the universe, salvic events such as his crucifixion were believed to have taken place in a mythical spirit-world setting. I have never espoused this view, not even in my pre-1996 Jesus books, where I did deny Jesus' historicity. Although I have always allowed that Paul believed in a Jesus who, fundamentally supernatural, had nevertheless been incarnated on Earth as a man..."

page 329
And I am certainly not among those who suppose that Paul says nothing at all about a human Jesus, or that he viewed him as a "mythic diety" who "performed his saving works ... in the heavenly realm" (p. 201). On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that, for Paul, this pre-existent supernatural personage was incarnated as a descendent of David (Romans 1:3), was born of a woman under Jewish law (Gal. 4:4) and ministered to the Jews (Rom. 15:8) prior to his crucifixion on Earth."

My views on this subject are well known; that all of the texts appealed to by Wells for a human Jesus are anti-Marcionite redaction by the proto-orthodox. None are in Marcion's recension as recreated from the writings of the Heresiologists. The texts used in the modern mythical/historical controversy are properly seen to be reflective of the great second century battle over Christology; Docetism vs. Incarnation. The earliest Pauline Christology was Docetic (Phil. 2:7) as understood by Marcion.

Jake Jones IV

Toto

"Repudiates Doherty" sounds a bit harsh. I gather that Wells distinguishes himself from Doherty and repudiates Eddy and Boyd's confusion.

Toto

Title edited per Jake Jones IV's request

GakuseiDon

Wells has always thought that Doherty's "Platonic sublunar incarnation" theory was wrong, going back quite a few years to the late 1990s.

In your opinion, why didn't the proto-orthodox redactors put in Jesus being the son of Mary, a Galilean, etc, into the texts, instead of "born of a woman" and "according to the flesh", etc?

Do you see crucifixion and resurrection as docetic themes?

jakejonesiv

The argument was over Christology, not history.

The earlier recension of the Pauline epistles give evidence of a Docetic Christology (Phil. 2:7, Romans 8:3). At least that is the interpretation of the Uberpaulinists of the early second century, the Marcionites.

"Of course the Marcionites suppose that they have the apostle on their side in the following passage in the matter of Christ's substance----that in Him there was nothing but a phantom of flesh. For he says of Christ, that, "being in the form of God, He thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," not the reality, "and was made in the likeness of man," not a man, "and was found in fashion as a man," not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh;"
Tertullian AM 5.20.3; cf PH 24.

One of the uses of the redacted Pauline epistles was to evangelive the Marcionite areas with proto-orthodox doctrine. The groundwork for the nativity would be laid first.

But that is not the question we should be asking. Rather, why bother insisting that Jesus was "born of a woman" or had "flesh" when this does not distinguish him from 100% of humanity? It doesn't make sense unless someone else was arguing just the opposite. These are the very passages that Earl Doherty spends so much time battling (by supposing sublunary realms!), but receive a much simpler explanation as orthodox corruptions against Docetism. Bart Ehrman has clearly demonstrated in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pages 238-239 even after we enter the period of extant manuscripts, the orthodox scribes continued to modify these same texts for theological and dogmatic reasons.

Yes.

In the Marcionite version of Pauline theology, Christ’s death was a ransom for freeing from the law, paid to the Demiurge. Christ according to Marcion, Jesus died and was raised from the dead. Romans 1:1. Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. In Romans 3:24, the word “redemption” (apolytrosis) means release, or deliverance on the payment of a price. (cf Eph. 1:7-8).


The ramson was a difficult issue for proto-orthodox Christianity. One doesn't have to pay a ransom to another being over which you have complete power. Indeed, an all powerful God could simply forgive sins by divine fiat without anyone having to die. So the orthodox end up with extensive philosphizing that God, by killing his own Son, was paying a ransom to himself to satisfy his requirements for justice.

Jake Jones IV

DCHindley

Jake,

If, as you suppose, the Pauline epistles as they exist are essentially orthodox propaganda¹ to win (back?) Marcionites, a couple of issues will need to be addressed:

A: Would you say that the Marcionites considered themselves "Christian," and if so, what essential doctrines would you say they shared with the proto-Orthodox? My opinion is that they did consider themselves Christian as Marcion is said to have presented the church of Rome with a big endowment. On the other hand, the proto-Orthodox bishop of the church of Rome returned the money, suggesting that it was rejecting Marcion's claim to legitimacy. This can be critical when taken in the context of proto-Orthodox views regarding heresy and rehabilitation of heretic or lapsed Christians into the proto-Orthodox fold (I believe we have some info regaring how this was done with members of Montanist sects).

B: If the creation of redacted Marcionite letters was intended to snatch, if possible, redeemable Christians from the fire of heresy, then by what mechanism were these propaganda items disseminated to Marcionites? I think here you will have to adopt or create a model for the distribution and reading of Christian literature. Who was being targeted, where did they live, how would they hear the word, how were assemblies organized, and finally who was organizing this? From what has yet been posted here, they could have been hawking them from street corners! "Here ya' go, git yer free scriptures rite here!"

C: Do the Pauline letters (say the "undisputed" only) actually present a coherent Christology, docetic or gnostic or otherwise? I think this will be much harder for you to show than you think. And if so, what parts of these letters (as we have them from orthodox Christian hands) can be shown to have been added by the proto-Orthodox? Now as many here know I have done that kind of analysis, separating the Christological passages from the rest, and I am struck by how coherent the message was that is left when Christology is separated out. The problem is, it is a message that resonates much more with the circles associated with diaspora Judaism than it would with a semi-gnostic understanding of Jesus Christ the son of a greater good God who transcends the legalistic and vindictive God of the Jews. The Dutch Radical reconstructions of Galatians and Romans do not seem to present a coherent presentation of identifiably Marcionite doctrine, as even these reconstructed works include materials that seem to assume a Jewish understanding of God.

David Charles Hindley I

¹ The term "Propaganda" meant in its neutral sense, as literature disseminated to inform and persuade.

dog-on

It becomes quite clear when you look at the character of God. Notice the difference in character of this creature from the Jewish writings to the Christian writings.

Jake is absolutely correct.

Regarding the Marcionites, they were eventually squeezed out. Of course, when Rome officially became a Christian empire, such an action would have been relatively simple.

One can never overlook the fact that the vast majority of believers couldn't actually read. This tended to leave the power to "interpret" scripture in the hands of a small group of individuals. Additionally, it allowed for a fairly easy molding of theology over time.

The other thing one must not discount is the gullibility of believers in the first place. A perfect example, from recent times, being the doctrinal adjustments made in the Book of Mormon between it's first and second editions, 1830 to 1835.

In this example, the entire nature of the godhead was fundamentally changed and is not unlike what I believe happened with regards to Christianity.

jakejonesiv

Hi DHC1,

A. According to Justin Martyr, the Marcionites were Christians. “All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians." Apology 1.58. The Marcionites were not lapsed proto-orthodox Christians. They were another variety of Christianity that arose in a separate geographical location. Marcion's church was very large. It rivaled in size the proto-orthodox sects of the time. Already, about 150 CE, Justin Martyr acknowledged that Marcion's influence extended all over the Empire. (Apol. 1.26 cf. Tertullian Adv. Marc. 5:19). Marcionism challenged the Roman church for the rights to be called the Universal (i.e. Catholic) church. For the most part, Marcionite services were so similar to those of the proto-orthodox, that proto-orthodox Christians were warned to be careful not to attend a Marcionite service by mistake. (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechisms 18.26). Rather than identifying what they shared, it is easier to identify where they differed.

B. Are you denying that the competing sects sought to increase their respective memberships by conversion? It is quite clear, for example, that 1 Peter was written to help evangelize Marcionite areas. All alleged ungrammatical scripture hawking aside, in no wise do I have a higher burden of proof than anyone else concerning the “mechanisms of dissemination.”

C. When we read the alleged writings of Paul today, the logic seems so convoluted and strange. The current text is the result of multiple redactions with clashing theological agendas. Marcion’s recension is smoother and can be recreated with a fair degree of accuracy (especially Galatians and Romans) from the writings of the Heresiologists. For example, Hermann Detering: The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians - Explanations, translated by Frans Joris Fabri, 2003
http://www.radikalkritik.de/DetGalExpl.pdf
page 45 ff demonstrates that Galatians 3:6-9 was not in Marcion’s version based primarily on Jerome, CommGal (PL 26 [1845] 352A, 2-4), and presents the argument for why Marcion’s text was the original. The Abraham typology is a proto-orthodox theologoumenon, as can be seen from Justin Dialogue with Trypho 119.

Thus the Dutch Radical position begins with a text critical analysis. I am aware of your study and I do not see that type of textual basis. These texts did not arise nor were they modified in a vacuum. Neither have you have demonstrated a known sect that used your earliest theoretical text that I am aware of, but I would be glad to see it if I have missed it. If you want to discuss your theory, please start a thread.

Jake :lol:

GakuseiDon

D'oh! Yes, you are correct. My mistake: I was thinking of the gnostics, not Marcion.

It's possible, though I'd like to see where you think the proto-orthodox redactors inserted passages and why. But that may require a fuller discussion on another day.

I agree, but those passages were about Gentiles inheriting the promise through the seed of Abraham, rather than whether Jesus was "born of a woman" or not. So it does make sense in context (in my thoroughly amateur and humble opinion).

Yes, which shows your reading is certainly possible.

Actually, Tertullian suggests that Marcion was a lapsed proto-orthodox Christian:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ullian124.html

With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,) that portion of it which we alone receive is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? Tert AM 4:4

jakejonesiv

Hi GakuseiDon,

We should take Tertullian's comment with a grain of salt. It fits much too well with the proto-orthodox agenda to label itself as the universal or "catholic" church. The proto-orthox position was that Christianity was orignally orthodox, and and all heresy was a falling away from the original "pure" faith; that there could be no heresy without first orthodoxy to fall away from. This is precisely Tertullian's charge against Marcion in AM 4.4. But studies in Christian diversity in the second century has shown this is not true.

As Walter Bauer observed in Othodoxy & Heresy in Earliest Christianity, pages 172-173 Christianity was synonmous with heresy in the Marcionite areas until nearly the 3rd century.

'...there was no discernable "ecclesiastical" (i.e. proto-orthodox) life in central and eastern Asia Minor in the second century. Christianity there was entirely, or predominately, of a different sort.' page 173.

It should be noted that when Marcion emerged to the West, he carried letters of recommendation from his co-religionists in Pontus. (Latin prologue to the Gospel of John. Bauer, 91n33. cf Harnack, Evangelien-Prologe, pp. 6 f. [=325 and 334 f]. Also his Marcion, pp. 24, 11 * ff.

Orthodoxy and Heresy in earliest Christianity, by Walter Bauer, translated by a team from the Philadelphia Seminar on Christian Origins, and edited by Robert A. Kraft and Gerhard Krodel, Sigler press, Mifflintown, PA, 1996. Copyright © 1971 Fortress Press. "However, east of Phrygian Hierapolis we could hardly discern any traces of orthodoxy. Christianity and heresy were essentially synonymous here." Page 229.

While Walter Bauer was not correct in every point, Lost Christianities: the battles for scripture and the faiths we never knew By Bart D. Ehrman gives a modern defense of Bauer's main points.

The lines between the proto-orthodox and the Marcionite conception of Jesus’ body were quite fuzzy by today’s standards. It seems as if the proto-orthodox position may have evolved from an earlier Docetic Christology, perhaps through the mediation of Apelles as Roger Parvis has suggested.

Origen maintained that Jesus could change his body’s appearance at will. (Serm. Mount 100). Clement of Alexandria argued that Jesus ate food, not because he needed it, but to keep the Docetae from believing he didn’t need it!

Best,
Jake