Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 05-21-2010, 03:18 AM

Marcion [140 CE] wrote [in Rome] his rudimentary "Gospel of Marcion" based on documents/manuscripts supplied by Paul to the Church of Sinope where he was converted, from which other author/s elaborated the canonical Luke, including the Nativity chapters, etc.
I am terribly intrigued as to what would he think of John's gospel [if he had seen it - why then not include it in his primitive canon of Luke and 10 epistles of Paul].
Since it is suggested that the "many" previous attempts to tell the story were basically uninspired [Luke 1:1-3], was John at first also included in that list?
Or, was John's gospel originally only accepted by some churches?

[Ref: "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (or via: amazon.co.uk)", page 287]

dog-on · 05-21-2010, 03:31 AM

Does the author identify his sources for this?

avi · 05-21-2010, 03:59 AM

and the oldest extant copy of Marcion's writings is dated when??

oops. Forgot. There are no extant copies of anything Marcion wrote.....

avi

Julio · 05-21-2010, 06:20 AM

Westcott defended Marcion against the accusations he received from Epiphanius and Tertullian, that he tampered with the gospel of Luke, which this author [Charles Waite] also does [defending Marcion].
The gospel of Marcion is apparently extracted from the quotations of those two "fathers" [obviously, not from extant "originals"].
And there are several differences [pages 290 to 303, in the referred book].
The Nativity story, for instance, is missing in Marcion's.

dog-on · 05-21-2010, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Westcott defended Marcion against the accusations he received from Epiphanius and Tertullian, that he tampered with the gospel of Luke, which this author [Charles Waite] also does [defending Marcion].
The gospel of Marcion is apparently extracted from the quotations of those two "fathers" [obviously, not from extant "originals"].
And there are several differences [pages 290 to 303, in the referred book].
The Nativity story, for instance, is missing in Marcion's.

I was actually referring to this bit:

Quote:

Gospel of Marcion" based on documents/manuscripts supplied by Paul to the Church of Sinope

Julio · 05-21-2010, 07:18 AM

No, what Waite says is that Paul wondered by that city with his epistles and other writings, who knows what, and copies were made all the time, from which Marcion, by then only a young proselyte, eventually built his gospel.
It is apparent that Marcion wrote a gospel, which was named Gospel of Marcion, but his enemies in Rome burned or buried it.
We all know that, but my question was about John's gospel.
It was a turbulent century, with fresh and old sects entrenching themselves around certain leaders, building teachings of all kinds while rejecting others.
If Marcion ever handled the gospel of John, why did he not accept it in his rough canon?
It was the year 140 of our Lord.

dog-on · 05-21-2010, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

No, what Waite says is that Paul wondered by that city with his epistles and other writings, who knows what, and copies were made all the time, from which Marcion, by then only a young proselyte, eventually built his gospel.
It is apparent that Marcion wrote a gospel, which was named Gospel of Marcion, but his enemies in Rome burned or buried it.
We all know that, but my question was about John's gospel.
It was a turbulent century, with fresh and old sects entrenching themselves around certain leaders, building teachings of all kinds while rejecting others.
If Marcion ever handled the gospel of John, why did he not accept it in his rough canon?
It was the year 140 of our Lord.

And my question is how, exactly, does Waite know that Paul wandered by Pontius with his epistles?

What is his source?

aa5874 · 05-21-2010, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Westcott defended Marcion against the accusations he received from Epiphanius and Tertullian, that he tampered with the gospel of Luke, which this author [Charles Waite] also does [defending Marcion].
The gospel of Marcion is apparently extracted from the quotations of those two "fathers" [obviously, not from extant "originals"].
And there are several differences [pages 290 to 303, in the referred book].
The Nativity story, for instance, is missing in Marcion's.

But, I find it extremely odd that the writings of Justin Martyr, Hippolytus and Origen, apologetic sources, are not even considered when making an analysis of Marcion.

Both Origen and Hippolytus COMPLETELY CONTRADICT Tertullian's "Against Marcion" from which Marcion's writing was re-constructed.

And Justin Martyr, although he mentioned Marcion, did not write one single thing about Paul or any Gospel called Luke.

According to Hippolytus Marcion did NOT plagerise the Pauline Epistles at all and according to Origen Marcion did NOT mutilate any Gospel at all.

Now, even Tertullian in "Against Marcion" claimed that he had TWO versions of the Marcion story. Perhaps one version is FALSE and it may be the last one, the third which superceded the first.

This is Tertullian in "Against Marcion"

Quote:

Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one....

This is Hippolytus in "Refutation Against All Heresies' 7.18

Quote:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives...

This is Origen in "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....

And this is Justin Martyr in "First Apology" LVIII

Quote:

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us....

It would appear that Marcion preached ABOUT another GOD and another SON . Marcion did NOT BELIEVE in JESUS of the NT.

Marcion preached the DUALISM doctrine of Empedocles.

Julio · 05-21-2010, 07:54 AM

Marcion wrote his famous treatise "Antithesis", attacking Jehovah, and promoting Jesus' Father.
Not another Jesus, as it were, I guess.
Waite refers to that in his book.
The term "antithesis" appears in 1 Timothy 6:20 [for oppositions] to confuse everything, and rejecting Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles.
But back to John.
Is there any reference to John in the writings of Marcion?

Toto · 05-21-2010, 12:29 PM

What Waite actually says is that "It is supposed that the church at Sinope was supplied by Paul, at the time of its formation, with a collection, such as he supplied the other Asiatic Churches, containing records of the life and teachings of Jesus." (p. 4; see also p. 252)

Then at page 240, "[Marcion] was a follower of Paul and accused the other apostles of having perverted the gospel doctrines.

Tertullian ingeniously endeavors to treat this accusation as aimed at the four gospels; and argues thence that they must have been in existence before Marcion. His argument, however, destroys itself..."

The argument that Marcion had a gospel that Paul left at Sinope (never mentioned in Paul's letters) is ascribed to Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould, "Lost and Hostile Gospels" (1874) which can be read in its entirety at google books.

Waite wrote this around 1908. Some of his conclusions have not stood the test of time, others appear worth exploring. The idea that Paul dropped off a gospel at Sinope, written by his traveling companion Luke, is not one of those ideas that any modern scholar would support.

05-21-2010, 03:18 AM	#1
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Marcion's opinion on John? Marcion [140 CE] wrote [in Rome] his rudimentary "Gospel of Marcion" based on documents/manuscripts supplied by Paul to the Church of Sinope where he was converted, from which other author/s elaborated the canonical Luke, including the Nativity chapters, etc. I am terribly intrigued as to what would he think of John's gospel [if he had seen it - why then not include it in his primitive canon of Luke and 10 epistles of Paul]. Since it is suggested that the "many" previous attempts to tell the story were basically uninspired [Luke 1:1-3], was John at first also included in that list? Or, was John's gospel originally only accepted by some churches? [Ref: "History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred (or via: amazon.co.uk)", page 287]

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

05-21-2010, 03:31 AM	#2
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Does the author identify his sources for this?

05-21-2010, 03:59 AM	#3
avi Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Location: eastern North America Posts: 1,468	and the oldest extant copy of Marcion's writings is dated when?? oops. Forgot. There are no extant copies of anything Marcion wrote..... avi

05-21-2010, 06:20 AM	#4
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Westcott defended Marcion against the accusations he received from Epiphanius and Tertullian, that he tampered with the gospel of Luke, which this author [Charles Waite] also does [defending Marcion]. The gospel of Marcion is apparently extracted from the quotations of those two "fathers" [obviously, not from extant "originals"]. And there are several differences [pages 290 to 303, in the referred book]. The Nativity story, for instance, is missing in Marcion's.

05-21-2010, 07:18 AM	#6
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	No, what Waite says is that Paul wondered by that city with his epistles and other writings, who knows what, and copies were made all the time, from which Marcion, by then only a young proselyte, eventually built his gospel. It is apparent that Marcion wrote a gospel, which was named Gospel of Marcion, but his enemies in Rome burned or buried it. We all know that, but my question was about John's gospel. It was a turbulent century, with fresh and old sects entrenching themselves around certain leaders, building teachings of all kinds while rejecting others. If Marcion ever handled the gospel of John, why did he not accept it in his rough canon? It was the year 140 of our Lord.

05-21-2010, 07:54 AM	#9
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Marcion wrote his famous treatise "Antithesis", attacking Jehovah, and promoting Jesus' Father. Not another Jesus, as it were, I guess. Waite refers to that in his book. The term "antithesis" appears in 1 Timothy 6:20 [for oppositions] to confuse everything, and rejecting Paul as the author of the Pastoral Epistles. But back to John. Is there any reference to John in the writings of Marcion?

05-21-2010, 12:29 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What Waite actually says is that "It is supposed that the church at Sinope was supplied by Paul, at the time of its formation, with a collection, such as he supplied the other Asiatic Churches, containing records of the life and teachings of Jesus." (p. 4; see also p. 252) Then at page 240, "[Marcion] was a follower of Paul and accused the other apostles of having perverted the gospel doctrines. Tertullian ingeniously endeavors to treat this accusation as aimed at the four gospels; and argues thence that they must have been in existence before Marcion. His argument, however, destroys itself..." The argument that Marcion had a gospel that Paul left at Sinope (never mentioned in Paul's letters) is ascribed to Rev. Sabine Baring-Gould, "Lost and Hostile Gospels" (1874) which can be read in its entirety at google books. Waite wrote this around 1908. Some of his conclusions have not stood the test of time, others appear worth exploring. The idea that Paul dropped off a gospel at Sinope, written by his traveling companion Luke, is not one of those ideas that any modern scholar would support.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.