Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schilling.klaus · 01-14-2008, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

there is good reason to believe that Marcion redacted his Pauline letters

this is a propagandistic desinformation
invented by the Catholic forgery mill,
such as Tertullian, Epiphanius etc.
Of course it was the Catholic church who corrupted
Marcionite writings into canonical epistles
assigned to some fictive Paul.

Already Couchoud proved that it's straightforward to get from
the Marcionite versions to the canonical ones,
but requires often supernatural strength to get from
Marcion to canonical Paul.

Klaus Schilling

Ben C Smith · 01-14-2008, 06:05 AM

BTW, very sorry, Neil, for misspelling your name in the OP. I hate spelling mistakes, and especially with regard to personal names. (And thanks to Amaleq13 for pointing this out by PM.)

Ben.

schilling.klaus · 01-14-2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

but requires often supernatural strength to get from
Marcion to canonical Paul.

errr vice vers, from canonical Paul to Marcion's

P.L. Couchoud
La Premie`r E'dition de St.Paul
(1928)

Klaus Schilling

andrewcriddle · 01-14-2008, 10:51 AM

One argument against a very early date for Marcion is that his apparent belief that the Messiah predicted by the Jewish scriptures was to be an earthly warrior fighting on behalf of the Jews seems likely to have been influenced by Bar Kochba's Messianic claims from 132 CE onwards

see Tertullin Against Marcion books III http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-30.htm and IV http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm eg

Quote:

You are equally led away by the sound of names,when you so understand the riches of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, and the king of Assyria, as if they portended that the Creator's Christ was a warrior

Quote:

So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God for the liberation of the whole human race

Quote:

You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed warrior, instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 01-14-2008, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One argument against a very early date for Marcion is that his apparent belief that the Messiah predicted by the Jewish scriptures was to be an earthly warrior fighting on behalf of the Jews seems likely to have been influenced by Bar Kochba's Messianic claims from 132 CE onwards

Could not Marcion have gotten this idea from (A) the scriptures themselves and (B) various figures from century I such as Judas the Galilean, the zealots, and Theudas?

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 01-14-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One argument against a very early date for Marcion is that his apparent belief that the Messiah predicted by the Jewish scriptures was to be an earthly warrior fighting on behalf of the Jews seems likely to have been influenced by Bar Kochba's Messianic claims from 132 CE onwards

Could not Marcion have gotten this idea from (A) the scriptures themselves and (B) various figures from century I such as Judas the Galilean, the zealots, and Theudas?

Ben.

The idea of the Messiah in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures is IMO ambiguous and was interpreted differently by various Jewish and Jewish derived groups.

There seems little evidence that Judas the Galilean etc were regarded as Messianic figures in the strict sense in the way that Bar Kochba was.

Marcion could in theory have got the idea from earlier non-canonical Jewish writings, but it seems more plausible that the link between Marcion's belief that the Messiah predicted by the Hebrew Bible would be someone like Bar Kochba and the actual career of Bar Kochba is that Marcion formed his ideas a few years after Bar Kochba rather than a few years before.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 01-14-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

... unless Marcion is to be dated earlier than usual, which is the topic of the other article, by Neal Godfrey, in two parts (1, 2). Neal is reviewing Hoffman and Tyson and giving reasons to date Marcion much earlier in century II than usual.

Godfrey gives a quote from Clement of Alexandria as possible evidence for an early date for Marcion

Quote:

Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. (Stromateis, 7, 17)

In context this passage is very problematic http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ata-book7.html

Quote:

For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius.

And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the elder, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]. And after him Simon heard for a little the preaching of Peter.

At face value this says that Marcion is earlier than Simon (Magus) which seems weird. There may be some major corruption in the passage, eg a line missing.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 01-14-2008, 11:40 AM

But do not Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and more generally the Sibylline Oracles, all relate that many Jews, and perhaps some gentiles, thought that one or more Jewish leaders would come to lead a world empire, around the time of the first rebellion (i.e., 1st century CE)? Presumably these opinions were engendered by interpretations of Jewish scriptures.

As they say, you cannot make an omlette without breaking some eggs. Creation of a world empire generally involves warfare.

Remember too that there was a major rebellion of Jews in Egypt, Cyrene and Cyprus, around 110 CE. For its part, the Bar Kochba rebellion, fierce as it was, was pretty much limited to Judea, wasn't it? But it could suggest to a gentile that they might try it again. Gentile adherents of the Jesus movement must have been in a prickly situation.

This *is* fertile ground for gentiles attached to the Jesus movement to develop the idea that Jesus Christ was more than a warrior king for the Jews, however much they thought they might benefit from a Jewish world empire on account of their degvotion to the jewish god. Could Jesus actually have been a world savior operating on a higher plane than the creator god of the Jews, who had been repeatedly unable to secure a victory for his worshippers after 1, 2, even 3 attempts?

DCH (this time on lunch break)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One argument against a very early date for Marcion is that his apparent belief that the Messiah predicted by the Jewish scriptures was to be an earthly warrior fighting on behalf of the Jews seems likely to have been influenced by Bar Kochba's Messianic claims from 132 CE onwards

Could not Marcion have gotten this idea from (A) the scriptures themselves and (B) various figures from century I such as Judas the Galilean, the zealots, and Theudas?

Ben.

andrewcriddle · 01-14-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Remember too that there was a major rebellion of Jews in Egypt, Cyrene and Cyprus, around 110 CE.

wasn't it c 115 CE ?

(I agree this is a possibility for the source of Marcion's ideas.)

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 01-14-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

At face value this says that Marcion is earlier than Simon (Magus) which seems weird. There may be some major corruption in the passage, eg a line missing.

I agree this text is problematic. Migne gives several options in one of the longest footnotes I have ever seen, including an emendation suggested by Voss and, if I am skimming the Latin aright, the notion that the term after means afterward in the sequence given, not afterward in absolute time (but this option does not make sense to me in context, so I am probably misreading something).

Ben.

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

01-14-2008, 06:05 AM	#12
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	BTW, very sorry, Neil, for misspelling your name in the OP. I hate spelling mistakes, and especially with regard to personal names. (And thanks to Amaleq13 for pointing this out by PM.) Ben.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.