Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 03-21-2013, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Well here's the breakthrough I think that will help explain the name Marcion. I've been working at this for over twenty years (since I was at York University and I asked my professor of Aramaic studies how to explain the name - he suggested the idea of a Greek diminutive). While it is interesting to follow the idea in Ephrem of some sort of a relationship between Marcion and the Semitic root mrq, this may well be one of Ephrem's typical attempts at faux etymologies. The problem is the 'ion' suffix - it can only be Greek. But the other idea I have pursuing - viz. the idea that Μαρκίων was the designation of a collection of writings (= the Marcionite NT) has some new legs given the number of appearances of the term Κλήμεντίων to describe the collection of writings ascribed to Clement. I noticed it appears in this critical edition of what is commonly called the Pseudo-Clementine writings. Apparently one manuscript refers to the body of writings as the Κλήμεντίων (MS Regio 940).

http://books.google.com/books?id=KLf...%CE%BD&f=false

This would strengthen and perhaps ultimately prove that the references to Μαρκίων 'cutting' and 'self-castrating,' to him 'erasing' passages from the NT, to 'his' gospel and the like go back to Μαρκίων relative to Mark being the equivalent of Κλήμεντίων to Clement, Ὅμηρείων to Homer etc.

Yes, I finally have something to write about Marcion. Here is another manuscript (or perhaps it is the same) showing clearly that Κλήμεντίων is the equivalent of the Latin 'ex clementinis':

http://books.google.com/books?id=cqU...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

More:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bNY...%CE%BD&f=false

I don't know the dating of this one but it refers to τῶν Κλήμεντίων συγγραφές:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8IQ...%CE%BD&f=false

There we go. This is the most viable explanation to the sudden appearance of 'Marcion' in whatever year it was under Antoninus Pius. If you look at the same section of text in Against Marcion Book One of Tertullian you will see that the statement is made twice - once about the writings associated with 'Marcion' (= the gospel in particular) and then about 'Marcion' himself. The reason why this manifests itself in this way - and why there is such confusion in general about the dating of 'Marcion' is because the original debate was not about a man named Marcion but a collection of writings called Μαρκίων which were probably opposed by Justin. Justin is the first to make reference to 'Marcion' and Justin also happens to deny (or does not make reference to) the Pauline writings. The short (= 'mutilated') gospel and letters of Paul = Μαρκίων. Justin only knew the gospel, hence there is no 'collection', there is no collective form 'of Mark.' He demonized them.

My, my, Stephan Huller has a "breakthrough" and now "finally (has) something to write about Marcion."
.."the original debate was not about a man named Marcion but a collection of writings called Μαρκίων.."

This is post #550. (March 19)

In this post #452, (dated 17 March) I wrote:

Quote:

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

Quote:

[T2]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.[/T2]

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)

So, Stephan - is this the font from which your breakthrough on Marcion has come? i.e. a statement to the fact that it is the teaching, the writings of someone assumed to be named *Marcion* that are the source of the trouble - and not any historical figure known as *Marcion*.

Well done, Stephan - finally learning that insights came come from unexpected quarters - and especially in this case - from a source that you have so publicly and rudely deemed to be ignorant......:wave:

Quote:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/

Towards a New Understanding of Marcion and Secret Mark

wednesday, march 20, 2013

There are a number of reasons why I think this is a winner. The most obvious is that there are so many strange things said about Marcion in the writings of the Church Fathers - many of them fit the idea of 'Marcion' being a collection of writings.

maryhelena · 03-21-2013, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

To maryhelena,

Quote:

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

The Epistula Apostolorum, which can be dated no later than 156 (that is the time of Justin Martyr) does mention Paul with some details which appear only in 'Acts of Apostles'.
Of course, despite the rather arbitrary late dating from the List, '1 Clement', 'Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians', '1 Timothy', '2 Timothy', 'Titus', '2 Peter', Ignatian 'to the Ephesians' are dated before 150 by most critical scholars. All the aforementioned texts mentioned Paul. Except for 'Acts', these texts are either pseudo Pauline epistles or mentioned Paul wrote letter(s).
I studied the dating of '1 Clement' here.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, it is Marcion that is first mentioned in the early christian writings. Paul is mentioned later. Yes, one can come up with scenarios as to why this is so. For myself, I'm running with the idea that the story about a *Marcion* is the earlier story.

Duke Leto · 03-21-2013, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

'Dating Paul.' Sounds like one of those romantic comedies which stars Josh Duhamel (although the way you spell 'datig' it looks more like a foreign attempt at that genre).

I actually opened this thread with the sole intention of making that exact joke. Damn.

aa5874 · 03-21-2013, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Bernard, it is Marcion that is first mentioned in the early christian writings. Paul is mentioned later. Yes, one can come up with scenarios as to why this is so. For myself, I'm running with the idea that the story about a *Marcion* is the earlier story.

Actually, Apologetic writers of antiquity [Irenaeus and Eusebius] claimed or implied that a Letter from the Church of Rome supposedly from Clement which mentioned Paul was written sometime around c 95- 96 CE when there was a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth.

However, other Apologetic writers have shown that there was NO known Letter to the Church of Corinth c 95-96 CE from Clement because they claimed that Clement was Bishop of Rome for about 10 years between 68-88 CE.

This is an EXTREMELY significant contradiction

Tertullian, Optatus, Augustine of Hippo, Rufinus and the author of the Chronography of 354 claimed Clement was Bishop of Rome BETWEEN c 66 CE and 88 CE.

Tertullian claimed the Records of the Church of Rome show that Clement was Bishop of Rome After Peter or around c 66 CE.

Tertullian, Augustine of Hippo, Optatus, Rufinus, the author of the Chronography of 354 could NOT have known of the supposed Clement letter from 95-96 CE about the Great Dissension and could NOT have known of the supposed Great Dissension of the Corinth Church c 95-96 CE.

The supposed Clement Letter is a Blatant Forgery or False Attribution by the Church of Rome and there was NO Great Dissension at Corinth c 95-96 CE.

Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics

Quote:

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter...

Augustine's Letter 53

Quote:

The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus ...

Optatus'Against the Donatists

Quote:

Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.40

To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus 41 Sixtus, to Sixtus Telesphorus, to Telesphorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anacetus, to Anacetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephyrinus...

For Hundreds of years it was claimed Clement was Bishop c 66-88 CE by writers of the Church.

There was NO Great Dissension of a Corinth Church and NO letter from Clement c 95-96 CE.

There is NO credible corroborative Apologetic source for the Pauline letters before the death of Nero c 68 CE.

Bernard Muller · 03-21-2013, 09:16 AM

to maryhelena,

Quote:

Bernard, it is Marcion that is first mentioned in the early christian writings. Paul is mentioned later. Yes, one can come up with scenarios as to why this is so. For myself, I'm running with the idea that the story about a *Marcion* is the earlier story.

How did you arrive to that conclusion?
Why do you place the mention of Paul in '1 Clement', 'Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians' after the time of Marcion?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 03-21-2013, 09:39 AM

to aa,

Quote:

Actually, Apologetic writers of antiquity [Irenaeus and Eusebius] claimed or implied that a Letter from the Church of Rome supposedly from Clement which mentioned Paul was written sometime around c 95- 96 CE when there was a Great Dissension of the Church of Corinth.

However, other Apologetic writers have shown that there was NO known Letter to the Church of Corinth c 95-96 CE from Clement because they claimed that Clement was Bishop of Rome for about 10 years between 68-88 CE.

Please, tell me where Irenaeus & Eusebius claimed or implied the letter was written around 95-96.

What does the letter have to do with Clement being bishop of Rome or not at the time?
The author of the letter does not say he is a bishop, not even Clement and could have written that letter anytime in his adult life.

Another diversion.

Cordially, Bernard

stephan huller · 03-21-2013, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller
'Dating Paul.' Sounds like one of those romantic comedies which stars Josh Duhamel (although the way you spell 'datig' it looks more like a foreign attempt at that genre).

Quote:

I actually opened this thread with the sole intention of making that exact joke. Damn.

Although in all fairness if it was a romantic comedy they typically like to have double entendres in the title so it would probably be something with a name that could act like noun like 'Dating Destiny,' 'Dating Faith,' 'Dating Dick' etc. These movies and TV shows get more and more unbelievable every generation, people with poetic names - 'Will and Grace.'

maryhelena · 03-21-2013, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

to maryhelena,

Quote:

Bernard, it is Marcion that is first mentioned in the early christian writings. Paul is mentioned later. Yes, one can come up with scenarios as to why this is so. For myself, I'm running with the idea that the story about a *Marcion* is the earlier story.

How did you arrive to that conclusion?
Why do you place the mention of Paul in '1 Clement', 'Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians' after the time of Marcion?

Cordially, Bernard

I was using the dating timeline that Jake has outlined in his OP.

(1 Clement (Catholic redaction) 150-160's CE)

If one wants to use the earlier dating for 1 Clement, a dating late 1st century, that earlier date does not mean that the figure of Paul was earlier than the figure of Marcion. All an earlier dating for 1 Clement suggests is that the figure of Paul was known at that time - late 1st century. But that does not establish that the figure of Paul was earlier than the figure of Marcion!

Dating Paul pre 70 c.e. cannot be established. Establishing the historicity of Paul cannot be established.

The early sources, the NT and the early christian writers, tell of two figures, Paul and Marcion. Both figures, to my thinking, are ahistorical figures. What these two figures represent are two major development periods within early christianity. One period, the NT story, begins pre 70 c.e. The other period, the early christian writings, is late 1st century and early 2nd century.

The conventional theory is that Paul was early, pre 70 c.e. and Marcion was late. However, the early Paul theory cannot be historically established. Plus, the chronology of Acts and the Pauline epistles is questionable. That leaves open the early slot for the figure of Marcion.

Bernard, as to dating the other material you mentioned - if the dating you want to suggest is based upon a NT Paul figure of pre 70 c.e. - then I've no interest in it. You cannot establish historicity for the NT Paul or for any writings attributed to this figure pre 70 c.e.

Bernard Muller · 03-21-2013, 10:50 AM

to aa,
You did not answer that:

Quote:

It seems to me that part of your methodology is that a 2nd century Christian author had to be respectful and aware of all Christian texts written earlier. And not write anything which would conflict with earlier texts, or make them look bad. Am I right?

Quote:

aa wrote: It was ONLY necessary that people BELIEVED that they were composed before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE

But that does not mean these gospels were written before the fall of Jerusalem. And it was easy to have Jesus prophecy the fall after it happened. And in the case of gMark, give hope that the Kingdom will happen soon after the fall.

Quote:

If Jesus did actually live and told the Apostles that the Second Coming would happen in the 2nd century, 120 years After Pentecost, c 150-156 CE, then it would have been EXTREMELY STUPID for gMatthew and gMark to have been composed when the Apostles of the supposed Jesus were Alive.

And, likewise, if the supposed Jesus told the Disciples that many standing here would See the Second Coming then it was EXTREMELY STUPID for the Apostles to have claimed that Jesus told them he would come c 150-156 CE.

Jesus said that ..., the apostles composed ... claimed ...
In my books, never Jesus said that, or the apostles composed or claimed whatsoever.
But instead, later Christians writers did and put words in Jesus' mouth, at different times, well after Jesus' times.
And if you think later Christians (more so for an urgent cause) would not contradict what was written earlier, you do not know enough about Christianity.

Quote:

If the Epistula Apostolorum is historically accurate ...

I was not interested about the historical accuracy or either the Epistula or gMark or gMatthew (we all know they are not historically accurate), but when they were written. You are confusing issues, as usual.
An existing text (even historically a crappy one) has to be composed in the past and it is legitimate to find when it was initially written.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller · 03-21-2013, 11:22 AM

to maryhelena

Quote:

Dating Paul pre 70 c.e. cannot be established. Establishing the historicity of Paul cannot be established.

That sounds like a faith statement.
Can dating Paul pre 70 be unestablished by you?
Can the historicity of Paul be unestablished by you?

Quote:

Plus, the chronology of Acts and the Pauline epistles is questionable

Even if questionable, does that mean the whole chronology of 'Acts' and the Pauline epistles have to be trashed whole?
Both 'Acts' and the Pauline epistles (even Marcion's version), despite some chronology problems (among others), agree that Paul's ministry happened when Jerusalem was still existing.

Cordially, Bernard

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.