maryhelena

I posted this on the Dating Paul thread - but decided it might do with having it's own thread. The figure of Marcion is dated after the date of the NT Paul. Paul usually dated prior to 70 c.e. A dating that is questionable. When the dating for Paul is moved later than the 1st century the dating for Paul comes up against the dating for Marcion. It is the figure of Marcion that is first mentioned in the early christian writings. Thus, the question arises as to which figure was the earlier figure, Marcion or Paul. The question becomes necessary to ask whether one runs with these two figures being historical figures or ahistorical figures. Proposing that these two figures are synonymous figures, ie. that Paul=Marcion and that the dating for this Paul/Marcion figure is the middle of the 2nd century, is to jettison any forward movement towards understanding early christian origins. The search for early christian origins has to go back further than the second century. It has to go back as far as the NT story will go...

My previous post on the Dating Paul thread.


The Arch-Heretic Marcion, Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

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)

Tertullian: (Adv. Marc. I.19,2)

So? The whole dating of Marcion, that this figure is post Paul, is a numerical formula said to be from the Marcionites! And how does Tertullian work the numbers? From the 15th year of Tiberius to the year 145 c.e. in the rule of Antoninus Pius. What else could he do once Acts is telling him that Paul is prior to 70 c.e. and thus prior to Marcion? He has to use this Marcionite formula to date Marcion late.

But how did the Marcionites use this number formula that resolved around the 15th year of Tiberius? Tiberius can be dated from his co-regency in 12 c.e., or sole rule from 14 c.e. His 15th year can be any year between 27 and 29 c.e. Taking the middle number 28 c.e. and using the 115 years to go backwards, instead of forward (re Tertullian) and one gets to about the year 87 b.c.

Yes, the time of Alexander Jannaeus. A time period in which Antigonus would have been born. Executed in 37 b.c. (being about 50 years old). Antigonus, a Hasmonean King and High Priest, an anointed Christ/Messiah figure that was executed via Roman hands (Marc Antony).

115 years, from an 87 b.c. birth date for Antigonus - and one is at around 28 b.c., the 15th year of Tiberius - a year in which Marcus Julius Agrippa was born, Agrippa II.

That, is what the picture looks like when one runs the Marcionite 115 years backwards instead of forwards from the 15th year of Tiberius. From the Hasmonean Christ/Messiah figure of Antigonus to the birth of Marcus Julius Agrippa.

And, no, I don’t think Marcus Julius Agrippa was Marcion. Marcion is ahistorical and a composite figure (like the gospel JC). However, the buck, as they say, stops at the door of Marcus Julius Agrippa. That is the door that needs to be opened up - Hasmonean and Jewish history.

What this scenario does strongly suggest is that the figure of Marcion was pre the figure of Paul. The Marcion figure is tied to those 115 years formula. 115 years between the birth of the Hasmonean Christ/Messiah figure, Antigonus, and the birth of Marcus Julius Agrippa. This scenario is dealing with historical figures. Marcion and Paul are ahistorical figures. Suggesting a beginning and an ending to the origin story of early Christianity. i.e. After Paul - the road to the wild west is open.....

Why all the cover up - opening up the whole conspiracy attack upon the early NT writers? Easy answer to that one. The new vision of the Pauline epistles, no Jew nor Greek, necessitated that the Hasmonean/Jewish origins of the NT story be sidelined. National and political issues could not be allowed to short-circuit the developing universal Christian philosophy.

aa5874

The known earliest source about Marcion when he was ALIVE is Justin Martyr supposedly writing c 150 CE in the time of Antoninus.

By the time of Irenaeus, supposedly writing around c 180 CE, Marcion was dead.

In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus the character called Marcion is referred to in the PAST TENSE.

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.4[/u] It is implied that "Against Heresies" was composed in the twelfth episcopate under Eleutherius

Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.3 In the Liber Pontificalis It is claimed Anicetus was bishop up to 153 AD.

See http://www.archive.org/stream/bookof...0loom_djvu.txt


From Apologetic sources Marcion FLOURISHED around c 150 CE and in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed c 180 CE or the time of Eleutherius there was NO claim that Marcion was Alive.

Duvduv

STILL NO descriptions of anything about Marcion or his alleged followers, what texts they used, where they were, who their leaders were, and certainly NOTHING significant by "Justin" about the matter when he supposedly lived in the SAME CITY and at the SAME TIME as Marcion.

maryhelena

And what source did Justin Martyr use to support his assertion that Marcion was alive when he wrote under Antoniuus?

Do you have a quote from Irenaeus saying this? And if so, what source is Irenaeus using to support his assertion?

OK

Source?

aa, what people write is not always what is accurate. The JC story is referenced by many early christian writers....

There is a JC story.
There is a Marcion story.
There is a Paul story.

All are stories until their historicity can be established.

maryhelena

The story about a figure called Marcion in the early christian writings is just that a story. That this figure is dated late, long after the NT Paul, is because the NT chronology places it's Paul figure prior to 70 c.e.

It's not only a question of when the NT dates Paul. Tertullian mentions the Marcionite 115 years involving the 15th year of Tiberius and Marcion. If Tertullian knows this Marcionite timetable - then so did did Justin Martyr. Which would explain his dating Marcion to the time of his writing under Antoninus Pius. i.e. they both counted these years forward from the 15th year of Tiberius.

But that does not translate into how the Marcionities understood these 115 years between a Christ/Messiah figure and the figure of Marcion. Historically, it makes more sense to count these 115 years backwards to the time of Alexander Jannaeus. Years relevant for Jewish history - whereas the years around 145 c.e. (115 years forward from the 15th year of Tiberius) have no particular relevance for Jewish history.

The Marcionites interested in Jewish history? The very fact that they proposed two gods and two sons, indicates that Jewish history was fundamental to their ideas. Did they maintain that the Jewish messiah had yet to come? Or was that their opponents. Perhaps the Marcionites were having their cake and eating it too! A Jewish messiah figure, a figure acceptable to all Jews, was yet to come - but a Hasmonean Christ/Messiah figure had already been - and was executed by Rome in 37 b.c.

outhouse

And according to almost all credible historians, all three''s historicity has been established.

While its not absolute, little often is within historical context.

maryhelena

They wish.......igsfly:

aa5874

What is important is that all sources that wrote about the time of Marcion corroborated Justin.

Essentially, Justin Martyr's claims are well Attested.

Justin Martyr wrote about Marcion in the reign of Antoninus c 138-161 CE and it is corroborated by Multiple sources of antiquity.

Do you understand what logical deductions are?? Again, In Against Heresies there is NO claim that Marcion was alive at the time of writing.

There is no logical reason that the author of Against Heresies would not have mentioned that Marcion was alive.

In Against Heresies it is claimed Marcion FLORISHED in the time of Anicetus NOT in the time of Eleutherius.

Anicetus was bishop FOR ABOUT 11 YEARS up to c 153 CE according to multiple apologetic sources.

The time of Marcion is multiple attested just like Apologetic sources Attest the time of Antoninus.

Well that is PRECISELY why I INVESTIGATED those very stories.

1. The time of JC is contradicted by Apologetic Sources.

The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was baptised at about 30 years and was crucified when Pilate was governor, Herod was tetrarch, and Tiberius was Emperor.

gLuke's Jesus, born of a Ghost and a Virgin was crucified NO older than 37-38 years.

In gJohn, Jesus was God the Creator who was Before anything was made.

Ignatius claimed Jesus was God but born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Justin Martyr claimed Jesus, born without sexual union, was crucified in the time of Tiberius--Not in the time of Claudius. See the writings of Justin.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age and that John told people so in Ephesus--See Against Heresies.

Clement of Alexandria claimed Jesus was 30 years old when he was crucified. See the Stromata.

2. The Time of Marcion is NOT contradicted by Apologetic sources.

It is Multiple attested by many Apologetic sources that Marcion lived in the time of Justin c 150 CE or the time of Antoninus.

3. The time of Paul is contradicted by Apologetics sources.

The author of Acts mentioned numerous activities of Paul but never the Pauline letters.

Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters

Justin did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline letters but mentioned Marcion.

Hippolytus claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline letters.

Origen claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

Origen claimed the 2nd century writer Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul.

Eusebius claimed PAUL was martyred under Nero but also claimed Paul was AWARE of gLuke.

In the Muratorian Canon it is claimed Paul wrote the Pauline letters AFTER Revelation by John.

In a writing of Julian the Emperor it is implied that no well known writer of antiquity wrote about Jesus and Paul--See Against the Galileans.

Supposed early Apologetic sources that mentioned PAUL or identified the Pauline letters are NOT credible.

Letters between PAUL and Seneca to place Paul in the time of Nero have been deduced to be forgeries.

Based on the abundance of Contradictory evidence from EVEN Apologetic sources I cannot accept the time of Jesus Christ or Paul.

maryhelena

The Arch-Heretic Marcion, Sebastian Moll (or via: amazon.co.uk)


There you go aa, contradictions for when Marcion went to Rome....that should, methinks, write off Marcion as being a historical figure for you - if contradictions in sources are important for you.

So, now, re the quote from Sebastian Moll - are you going to add Marcion to your list of figures that the sources provide contradictory evidence for?

stephan huller

As with music there are very different approaches to Marcion. There is what you might want to call 'the classical' approach of Moll and others at this forum and there is my own which you might want to liken to jazz. The jazz analogy is particularly apt because it isn't like you just pick up an instrument in jazz and just make noise. The jazz musician has to study just as hard but in the end his interest is to take the bits and pieces he learns and combine them in different ways.

The reason this is a particularly apt analogy with Marcion is that we are missing huge gaps in our knowledge. Only a moron would think that the Church Fathers provide us with enough information especially given the fact that their testimony is contradictory. An obvious example is the gospel of Marcion, whether it was Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - or a Diatessaron (i.e. all four) as Casey surmised.

The point is that a jazz musician can play classical music (although not as well as a classically trained musician). But a classically trained musician has no skills to play jazz. The same thing is true with Marcion. The professional scholar can tell you all about the things that have been said about Marcion but it requires something more to put it all together. We are necessarily forced to 'fill in our gaps of knowledge.'

Take the implication of the statement made in Origen and the Acts of Archelaus which implies that the Marcionites thought Paul was the Paraclete. The same thing is said about Marcion and his gospel. I won't get into explaining what a Paraclete is but the Catholic understanding is wrong. It meant a messianic figure to the Marcionites, Valentinians et al. And we see the exact thing said about Marcion and his gospel in Tertullian (a source which does not even tell us that the Marcionites thought Paul was the Paraclete.

We read about Marcion's gospel the following:

and this about Marcion and his gospel:

The strange thing here is not that we have an absolutely firm dating for Marcion and his gospel but it unfolds as a Paraclete revelation. In other words, Marcion's coming is referenced as being foretold in terms of Jesus's expectation for the Paraclete. This would necessitate of course that the Marcionite gospel had passages from John which is established in other sources. But more importantly it means that the either the Marcionites held that Paul wrote the gospel about Jesus announcing the coming of Marcion (which is discounted by what Origen says in the Homilies on Luke about Paul being the Paraclete) or that Paul was Marcion.

Remember also that Origen has Paul and Marcion sitting on either sides of Jesus in heaven.

Now what most classically trained scholars do is limit themselves to Irenaeus's testimony (or Irenaeus's testimony recycled through later Church Fathers). But the reality is that when we completely outside of Irenaeus's sphere weird things start to happen to our familiar Paul and Marcion.