Casper

Well yes, anti-Jewish culturally, but what is less explainable to me is his semi-unfamiliarity with custom.

For instance, many people understand that the Jewish calender has a lunar aspect, but they may not know that the day begins at sundown.

Those kind of things might be explainable by someone with a slight familiarity with custom but not a day-to-day familiarity. At least that is my current thoughts on Mark the author. He might be able to inject some Jewish wisdom and prophecy into the story with a copy (or pieces) of the LXX present, but in a haphazard or strained way.

I may be way off base too. I am just fascinated by the possibilities Marcionism brings to the table re: church history and growth.

Malachi151

Well, not all Jews know every detail of everything. I suspect that "Mark" was a Hellenized Jew living in Rome who was not a practicing Jew who was actually trying to use scripture against Judaism, and who viewed the Israelis as "stupid rednecks" if you will.

Casper

okay, I can see that. I guess i was a little bit one-tracked trying to support the notion that Christianity in Rome was usurped by Judaizers who wanted an ancient and respected religion as their base for political purposes.

But it could be ex-jews (or Jews in name only) who wove it together out of whole cloth, as well as a Jewish oral tradition which spilled into Rome and unfortunately the earliest known scribe in the cartel was less than ideal for the job. Or a number of things. Thanks for slapping the blinders off of me

dog-on

How about:

Marcion -------
\ \ ---------- Matthew
| Mark---Q-
Paul -------- ----------- ------ Luke/Acts

Time--------------------------------------------->

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure I follow what is being asserted here about Eznik, "De Deo".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

Hi Roger,

In "Refutation of the Sects" (441-449 CE), Book IV, Eznik of Kolb, the fifth century Armenian philosopher describes a forgotten myth, which is said to be the original myth of Marcionism.

Although it is a late work, and we must allow for some development, it is very consistent with what we know of Marcion's doctrine and the Marionite recension of the Pauline epistles.

Jake Jones IV

Roger Pearse

As it happens, sometime ago I scanned Thomas Samuelian's translation of this work, which is here.

I was wondering to what you refer in it. (Or is this something you read elsewhere?)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

See Book IV, MARCION'S VIEWS AS RELATED BY YEZNIK (4.1)

The significance of the arménien myth was discussed by Mead and Ory, among others.

Jake

Roger Pearse

Yes, but to which part of it do you allude? Quote some bits, if you would, that refer to an Armenian myth (or whatever is being asserted).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Hmm. You don't quote any passages, you refer to the whole book without subdivision as your reference, and a couple of web pages which you also don't quote, and you try to be as brief as possible. I'm afraid that, like most long-time posters online, I infer from this rather characteristic behaviour that you didn't actually verify what you said. Please don't do this.

Nothing in Eznik justifies the comments made above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse