maryhelena

1) Someone named *Mark* had a collection of writings.

2) Some people claimed that *Mark* mutilated these writings.

Why?

1) Some people claimed the NT figure of *Paul*, who they date prior to 70 c.e., was the author of these writings.

2) These people date someone they call *Marcion* long after 70 c.e., i.e. that this *Marcion* figure was preaching in the middle of the second century.

Ergo: *Marcion* mutilated the writings of their earlier dated figure of the NT *Paul*.

Against this scenario is the early christian writings that make no mention of *Paul* until late second century. And yet, make mention of Marcion.


[T2]Post #452 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 (especially so from an ahistorical position on Marcion)[/T2]


If the name *Marcion* can be viewed as not the name of a man but the name of a collection of writings that were "still alive" and causing trouble - then two questions arise:

1) Who was the writer/creator of this collection of writings that Mark/Marcus had?

2) If this collection of writings is early, prior to Mark/Marcus having them in his possession, did he or did he not mutilate them?

Those who put *Paul* prior to 70 c.e., obviously, hold that his writings were early, pre 70 c.e. Those who hold that the NT Paul of the epistles is late, obviously, have to move the Pauline epistles late as well. Moving *Paul* late brings this figure into the time frame of the *Marcion* figure. Thus, this closeness of these two figures raises two questions. 1. are these two names for the same figure, Paul=Marcion. 2. One of these figures is ahistorical - i.e. the NT *Paul*.

Neither of these two options does justice to the written sources. One source, the NT, has it's *Paul* figure early. The other source, early christian writings, has *Marcion* late.

So, to do justice to the sources - two figures have to be entertained - whether these two figures are deemed to be historical figures or are deemed to be ahistorical figures. One figure is early and the other figure is late. The early christian writings indicate that it was the *Marcion* figure that was the early figure and that it was the *Paul* figure that was the late figure.

The mutilating charge against *Marcion*?

Ideas develop. Early christian philosophy/theology developed. Those who arrived on the scene late had the updated version - and, misunderstanding the developments that preceded them - laid charges of heresy and mutilation against those who did not move with the times and stayed with the earlier versions.

(Yes, most probably always two major groupings in early christian history - those who went with a literal interpretation of the gospel story - the orthodox - and those who went with the philosophical approach to interpreting that gospel story. The NT *Paul* being an attempt to bridge the gap that divided them...Actually, it's looking more and more, to my thinking, that this whole big heresy scenario debate is not Christian against Christian - that's way down the line - it's the original breakaway from Judaism that is the first real *heresy*....)

How early were the collection of writings that went by the name of *Marcion* - and held by a Mark/Marcus? Now - that depends upon who one thinks was the font of all this philosophical writing....

OK - I'll put my cards on the table - there is only one known name from the 1st century able to write such theologicall/philosophical stuff - Philo.

Yes, whatever the original form of these writings - they would have been christianized by re-issuing and updating them via the pseudonym of *Paul*.

Thus: Marcus Julius Agrippa collected the writings of Philo - writings that for many years went under the name of *Marcion*. Writings that were later re-issued and updated via the name of *Paul*.

No mutilation - just normal evolution of ideas: Some ideas get dropped, some ideas get developed. Some people stay the course, some people get stuck in the past.

Yep, the orthodox might have won the battle with the heretics of long ago - methinks their time is now up and this time they will loose the battle with the ahistoricists/mythicists in the JC debate.....

(That *Paul* is only mentioned very late in the early christian writings, the orthodox writings, does not translate into *Paul* being very late - all it suggests is that the Acts story about *Paul* took a long time to sell to the orthodox. Yes, they had a need for an early *Paul* in order to counter the Marcionities - i.e. Paul wrote first therefore Marcion is the heretic - truth is early and heresy is late...However, on the other hand; the emerging christian theology/philosophy had to be presented as a finished produce - minus the growing pains it had to go through....)

maryhelena

Thanks, Jake, for finally posting your position.

Check my latest post, #591, where I have outlined my position, as of now......

aa5874

You have only explained what you IMAGINE and have NOT supplied any supporting evidence from antiquity.

1. Which source of antiquity showed or claimed Marcion had the FIRST Canon of New Testament Scriptures, ten Pauline epistles and a gospel which was a substratum of Luke??

When was Marcion in Corinth?? What did Marcion write to the Corinthians??When was Marcion in Ephesus?? What did Marcion write to the Ephesians??When was Marcion in Phillipi??

Did Marcion write to the Seven Churches??

What did Marcion write to Timothy and Titus?

Did Marcion write to some other person?? When, who what??

Identify the Ten Epistles of Marcion.

Your position is based on Imagination. Your postion is a product of speculation.

Essentially, your position is unevidenced.

aa5874

jakejonesiv position is just hopelessly flawed.

Once he admits that Marcion had the First Canon of Ten Epistles and a substratum of gLuke then he has inadvertenty admitted his sources for Marcion are NOT credible.

jakejones NOW has no credible and corroborative sources of antiquity and must INVENT his own history of his Marcion.

maryhelena

People on this list make stuff up from scratch? Jake, nobody does that - the NT is before us all. It's open season on how that NT story should be understood, i.e. literally or as something else...

So, the door left open for an ahistorical 'Paul'.

And the Pauline epistles came from where? What was their source?

"Please pay attention"!!

Where did Marcion get the Pauline epistles from?

Ideas develop - whether these ideas are gospel based or epistle based.

In opposition? Or simply developments in the thinking of the NT writers?

Jake, look beyond the heretics verse orthodox scenario. It's misleading and can only inhibit further research into early christian origins. I know - I've also read the heretics verse orthodox at face value. But really - that approach is no different than reading the NT at face value. Both sources, the NT and the early christian writers, have to be subjected to a far more deeper and wider interpretation than that. And that means that Jewish history has to be put on the table...

The ahistoricist/mythicist position can't continue this forever running away from the history of the 1st century. No, there was no historical gospel JC (of whatever variant) but there was Jewish history that was relevant to the gospel writers - Jewish history that provided the setting for placing the gospel story.

Yes, one could argue the gospel writers put blindfolds on and simply stuck that tail on the donkey. Pure chance for the timeline. One could also say the gospel writers used OT prophetic interpretations for their chosen gospel timeline. Ah, but once one goes that route - then one has to deal with Hasmonean and Jewish history. Why? Because prophetic interpretations of the OT have to be seen to be fulfilled - however arbitrary that fulfillment was.

Which was it, tail on donkey or OT prophetic interpretations? The gospel story, itself, goes with prophetic interpretations of the OT. Thus, history has to be considered. There is no way out of this. Spiritualize everything and anything - and everything and anything becomes meaningless. Unless, of course, one enjoys magic carpet rides....

jakejonesiv

Mary,

You and Stephan have both put your cards on the table.
There is a bit of overlap there.

Jake

maryhelena

Let the game begin......

Seriously, though, methinks Stephan will not want to go where I'm going - you know that Josephan history - and the Hasmonean coins - re two Agrippa historical figures. Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Been there a few years ago with Stephan - and it's a no-go.....

stephan huller

It's very funny to ridicule the efforts of others who are trying to sincerely make sense of the text. Maybe it consoles those who are afraid of admitting how little they really know.

stephan huller

This statement at the beginning of chapter six of Book Four is unusual and is worthy of attention. It is translated by Evans as:

Once we get beyond Tertullian's introductory section (chapters 1 - 7) in Book Four we enter a long section which clearly has very little to do with the previous material. For one, Tertullian initially talks about Marcion cutting exclusively from Luke (chapters 1 - 7) and then throughout the remainder of the book he often cites things that could only have been cut out of Matthew or a Diatessaron.

maryhelena

Says the man who has done nothing but thrown scorn and ridicule on my person - and on my postings to this forum....:constern01: