Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 01-31-2010, 01:54 AM

I find Marcion's position re a non-Jewish Jesus most fascinating. Much writing seems to have been done re Marcion' two gods theories - but I have not seen any discussion on his, to my mind, far more important 'heresy' - his idea that 'his' Jesus is not to be equated with a Jewish Jesus. If, indeed, the early christian movement was intent upon doing a merging operation - of a non-Jewish historical figure into OT prophetic interpretations - do we not have here, with Marcion, a very early attempt to rock the boat...

Quote:

TERTULLIAN

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION.

BOOK IV.

The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent--even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time. But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known. Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me?" unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety?

That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's loins, the restorer also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere named of Jesus, the Son of David.

Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"--in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

Such, then, is to be the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question. Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

CHAP.VII.--MARCION REJECTED THE PRECEDINGPORTION OF ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,"

(my bold)

aa5874 · 01-31-2010, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I find Marcion's position re a non-Jewish Jesus most fascinating. Much writing seems to have been done re Marcion' two gods theories - but I have not seen any discussion on his, to my mind, far more important 'heresy' - his idea that 'his' Jesus is not to be equated with a Jewish Jesus. If, indeed, the early christian movement was intent upon doing a merging operation - of a non-Jewish historical figure into OT prophetic interpretations - do we not have here, with Marcion, a very early attempt to rock the boat...

Quote:

TERTULLIAN

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION.

BOOK IV.

The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent--even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time. But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known. Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me?" unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety?

That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's loins, the restorer also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere named of Jesus, the Son of David.

Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"--in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

Such, then, is to be the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question. Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come.

CHAP.VII.--MARCION REJECTED THE PRECEDINGPORTION OF ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,"

(my bold)

It would appear to me that the information about Marcion supplied by the writer under the name Tertullian may be filled with errors.

Examine the passage you have supplied.

The writer claimed "Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process".

But, immediately, the very writer refers to a passage found ONLY in our canonical gMatthew.

Matthew 15:24 -26

Quote:

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.

26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

The story of the woman with a daughter possessed with a devil can only be found in our canonical Matthew 15.21-28 and Mark 7.24-30 but nowhere at all in canonical Luke.

The phrases "lost sheep", "house of Israel" and "children's bread" are nowhere found in canonical Luke.

So, the writer using the name Tertullian appears to be wrong when he claimed Marcion seemed to SINGLE OUT Luke based on his own references.

And it must be noted that the writer using the name Tertullian virtually did NOT get anything right about the contents, dating, authorship and chronology of the Gospels.

The writer under the name Tertullian claimed or implied that some disciples of Jesus wrote gMatthew and gJohn and that some characters called Mark and Luke wrote gMark and gLuke. This information appears to be in error.

"Against Marcion" 4.

Quote:

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel............Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards................Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body...

The writer using the name Tertullian did not admit that there were discrepancies about the dating, authorship and chronology the Pauline writings. He wrote that Paul wrote all the Epistles including the Pastorals.

"Against Marcion" 5.21

Quote:

To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, when he received (into his Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man, that he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of ecclesiastical discipline.

His aim, was, I suppose, to carry out his interpolating process even to the number of (St. Paul's) epistles....

The writer using the name Tertullian is not credible at all.

And further it would appear that he wrote about Marcion when he was already dead.

In "Against Celsus" a writer using the name Origen did NOTwrite that Marcion himself mutilated any Gospel.This writer stated it was his followers.

"Against Celsus" 2.27

Quote:

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections.

Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/

So, the Church writers appear to be confused not only about what Marcion wrote but also about their own "evangelical Testament.

Now, there is one writer who appears to be consistent with the deduction of scholars today that the Gospels were anonymous and that only writer is Justin Martyr and it is he who also is probably the only extant writer who claimed to have written while Marcion was still alive.

Justin Martyr did NOT write a SINGLE thing about Marcion isolating and mutilating any gospel called Luke and any Epistles with the name Paul.

This is a written "LIVE" report from Justin Martyr on Marcion in "First Apology"

Quote:

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. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians.

See http://earlychristianwritings.com

Based on Justin Martyr, Marcion simply did not accept the Jewish God and invented some other God with another son.

Marcion would have not singled out gLuke or the Pauline Epistles, when he had REJECTED the Hebrew Scripture starting from Genesis.

It was Marcion's God that created the world not the Jewish God. Now such an idea is not peculiar to Marcion.

And that Gods have sons is far less unusual. It was not necessary for Marcion to SINGLE out gLuke when he had already REJECTED the Jewish Creator.

And further, based on Justin Martyr there were probably Tens of Thousands of Christians since the time of the Emperor Claudius who did NOT BELIEVE in a Jewish Christ.

The information about Marcion from the writer using the name Tertullian is internally contradicted among the Church writers and may be erroneous.

dog-on · 02-01-2010, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I find Marcion's position re a non-Jewish Jesus most fascinating. Much writing seems to have been done re Marcion' two gods theories - but I have not seen any discussion on his, to my mind, far more important 'heresy' - his idea that 'his' Jesus is not to be equated with a Jewish Jesus. If, indeed, the early christian movement was intent upon doing a merging operation - of a non-Jewish historical figure into OT prophetic interpretations - do we not have here, with Marcion, a very early attempt to rock the boat...

I think Marcion was, what we would call today, an inerrantist. He read the LXX and found the description of both the deity and the messiah as being completely incompatible with Christ.

This lead to his view that Christ and indeed the father must be some other dudes and that the Jews will still get their's, at some point.

neilgodfrey · 02-01-2010, 04:10 AM

We do not know the details of what Marcion’s gospel contained. Tertullian tells us that he writes from memory (his first draft was lost or stolen), and Marcion’s gospel was said to have been regularly being revised even after Marcion’s time. So by the time we are reading accounts of Irenaeus and Tertullian we cannot know what version of Marcion’s gospel they were reading. Nor can we know how much they were paraphrasing accurately from memory.

But there is good reason to think that Marcion’s gospel was closer to the gospel of Luke’s than it was to the other canonical gospels -- discussed in Did Marcion Mutilate the Gospel of Luke.

There must have been some overlap between Marcion's gospel and canonical Luke for Marcion's opponents after Justin to have thought it was canonical Luke he had mutilated. Most notably Luke is the only gospel containing that passage so central to Marcionism -- the statement in Luke 6 about the 2 trees and fruit of good and evil.

neilgodfrey · 02-01-2010, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It was Marcion's God that created the world not the Jewish God. Now such an idea is not peculiar to Marcion.

Just one correction here -- Marcion's Alien (Top) God did not create the physical world, but left this to his subordinate Demiurge, the god of the Jewish bible. It is correct that the idea does not originate with Marcion -- Marcion embraced it from well known philosophical speculations.

maryhelena · 02-01-2010, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I find Marcion's position re a non-Jewish Jesus most fascinating. Much writing seems to have been done re Marcion' two gods theories - but I have not seen any discussion on his, to my mind, far more important 'heresy' - his idea that 'his' Jesus is not to be equated with a Jewish Jesus. If, indeed, the early christian movement was intent upon doing a merging operation - of a non-Jewish historical figure into OT prophetic interpretations - do we not have here, with Marcion, a very early attempt to rock the boat...

I think Marcion was, what we would call today, an inerrantist. He read the LXX and found the description of both the deity and the messiah as being completely incompatible with Christ.

This lead to his view that Christ and indeed the father must be some other dudes and that the Jews will still get their's, at some point.

Quite a big step I would imagine - if Marcion had at one time been part of the general consensus - whatever that was - and then decides to go out on his own with a heretical idea or two. My interest is not in how many gods he had in his theology but in his insistence that 'his' Jesus was not Jewish.

Quote:

Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;" and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"--in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite.

What could possibly be going on that would have made Marcion so bold in his assertion? If, as is the historicists position - Jesus was a fulfillment of OT prophecy and his ministry was to the Jewish people - then, for the sake of argument, if this position has merit - what was Marcion objecting to with claiming 'his' Jesus was a non-Jewish Jesus? Was Marcion claiming that 'his' Jesus, the non-Jewish Jesus, was the 'real' Jesus - and those expecting a Jewish Jesus are to wait a bit longer....

It really seems an unnecessary heresy if everything was mythological from day one ie without a grain of historical 'salt', without any historical core whatsoever. Surely, the orthodox could have simply shrugged their shoulders - its all ideas anyway and Marcion has just got himself some harebrained one to boot....

If, on the other hand, there is some historical core to the gospel storyline re Jesus of Nazareth - a historical core that lies behind the mythology - then, perhaps, it might be a good idea to take Marcion at his word - the historical figure behind the Jesus of the gospel storyline was not Jewish.

If this is indeed the case, then it might well be that Marcion's heresy had to be stamped out - particularly if the orthodox position was intent upon adopting a non-Jewish historical figure and transforming, merging or fusing, that historical figure into the cut and paste mythological Jesus of the gospel storyline.

Wells has his itinerant Galilean preacher - later 'fused', according to Wells, into the Jesus of Nazareth figure. Marcion has his non-Jewish Jesus. Could it be that what Marcion was actually rebelling against - was the fusing, the merging, of a non-Jewish historical figure with a Jewish genealogy and Jewish prophecies...?

Maybe Marcion was the very first mythicist - maybe he looked behind the Jesus mythological elements and came face to face with a historical core to the Jesus traditions that was not Jewish. He then decides that 'his' Jesus is going to reflect the true historical core - his Jesus is going to be a non-Jewish Jesus.

In and of itself, such a notion of a non-Jewish messiah, or anointed one, is not far fetched - Cyrus comes to mind. Josephus gives the honor to Vespasian - putting a damper on any would be Jewish claimants at that time.

At the end of the day - Marcion notwithstanding - developing christian ideas eventually led to even the mythological Jesus of the gospel storyline being upstaged, overshadowed, by Paul and his Cosmic, spiritual, Christ. The Jesus story and the historical core that lay behind it - of no real concern apart from historical interest - Paul put paid to any looking backwards for any 'salvation' concerns.

dog-on · 02-01-2010, 08:43 AM

Would you use Rush Limbaugh to get a good understanding of what Obama actually thinks?

maryhelena · 02-01-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Would you use Rush Limbaugh to get a good understanding of what Obama actually thinks?

Why would I do that - Obama has himself put pen to paper..

By all accounts there are no Marcion written documents available - looks like the orthodox did their job in stamping out his 'heresy' pretty well - and yet did not contend themselves with that and themselves put pen to paper to try to put out any fire that Marcion had lit...Sure, most probably included a lot of propaganda along with the facts of Marcion's ideas - but that they felt the need to counter his arguments in print does indicate that his ideas were generally available and holding sway among a large section of the christian community...

show_no_mercy · 02-01-2010, 09:00 AM

Maybe Marcion's Jesus was a Samaritan.

dog-on · 02-01-2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Would you use Rush Limbaugh to get a good understanding of what Obama actually thinks?

Why would I do that - Obama has himself put pen to paper..

By all accounts there are no Marcion written documents available - looks like the orthodox did their job in stamping out his 'heresy' pretty well - and yet did not contend themselves with that and themselves put pen to paper to try to put out any fire that Marcion had lit...Sure, most probably included a lot of propaganda along with the facts of Marcion's ideas - but that they felt the need to counter his arguments in print does indicate that his ideas were generally available and holding sway among a large section of the christian community...

Seemingly true, but this does not change my question.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2010, 04:10 AM	#4
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	We do not know the details of what Marcion’s gospel contained. Tertullian tells us that he writes from memory (his first draft was lost or stolen), and Marcion’s gospel was said to have been regularly being revised even after Marcion’s time. So by the time we are reading accounts of Irenaeus and Tertullian we cannot know what version of Marcion’s gospel they were reading. Nor can we know how much they were paraphrasing accurately from memory. But there is good reason to think that Marcion’s gospel was closer to the gospel of Luke’s than it was to the other canonical gospels -- discussed in Did Marcion Mutilate the Gospel of Luke. There must have been some overlap between Marcion's gospel and canonical Luke for Marcion's opponents after Justin to have thought it was canonical Luke he had mutilated. Most notably Luke is the only gospel containing that passage so central to Marcionism -- the statement in Luke 6 about the 2 trees and fruit of good and evil.

02-01-2010, 08:43 AM	#7
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Would you use Rush Limbaugh to get a good understanding of what Obama actually thinks?

02-01-2010, 09:00 AM	#9
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	Maybe Marcion's Jesus was a Samaritan.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.