Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 09-23-2011, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Hi Jiri,

Ratschke's book is the place to start. I have the scanned copy here somewhere. Just have to find it. Otherwise the obvious place to start is the fact that Marcion is clearly a subform of the Latin name Marcus. This is universally acknowledged. Either a nickname/diminutive or some other related form and this statement in the Philosophumena:

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. [Phil. 7.18]

Where did this understanding that Marcionites claimed to have the original Mark come from? Well it is hard to argue that the idea must have ultimately been derived from things said by the Marcionites. Yet did the author of the Philosophumena actually walk up to Marcionites and learn from them directly what their beliefs were? I don't think so. As the core of the information from the Philosophumena is derived from an early version of Irenaeus's book, I suspect that the author (who may or may not have been Hippolytus) could only (a) have derived the information from an earlier version of Irenaeus's work which didn't have the account of the Marcion corrupting Luke (AH 1.27) or (b) a version of Irenaeus which said that Marcion corrupted Mark.

First off, thanks of pointing me to the Hippolyus quote. That is an extremely interesting piece, especially for developping the Mark=Simon Magus idea. Hippolytus mentions Paul and Mark in one breath, as the two scriptural authorities against Marcion.

As for the Markos - Markiwn connection, I don't think Marcion would have ever been suspected of authoring the Mark's gospel but there is the tantalizing possibility with him bringing Mark to Rome and the name then being pinned to him as its popularizer. The name 'Marcion' then would have not been derived from 'Mark', but vice versa : the text previously associated with Simon (among the Simonians) but unattributed generally, might have been named, or re-named, as 'euaggelion tou Markiwnos', from which it was then transposed and corrupted as 'kata Markon'. I am (kinda) convinced that Mark's gospel was the original (again supported by the Philosphumena quote you gave me) and that the 'stampede' to docetic gnosticism happened as a reaction of Paulines to the Matthean rewrite of (Mark) and its great initial popularity. Marcion's career then would have fallen directly in that line of development. It appears pre-figured by the first narrative gospel.

Irenaeus might have received a corrupted report about which gospel Marcion was using or might have been incented to make a mistake, had he known - as Hippolytus seemed to know several generations later - that Paul and Mark were the first scriptural authorities in their respective genres (the epistle and the narrative gospel). He could argue that the heretics 'pervert' Paul (A.H. V) but he could not do the same with the gospel of Mark. Mark did not have the birth and (presumably the) appearances narratives - so there really was nothing to 'pervert'.

At any rate, the arrival Marcion in Rome may coincide with the large-scale building of new "Christian only" catacombs in the city (previous to that Jewish and Christian burial places were shared), which could be quite interesting given the probability that (1) the writer of Mark suggests Pauline burial baptism with Christ, (2) Hippolytus recounting that Simon Magus attempted to bury himself alive, (3) John writing his Lazarus story transparently over an account of such practice, and (4) testifying to the generally accepted view that Simon was thought to be divinity by having the Jews mix him up with Jesus (The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" Jn 8:48)

Best,
Jiri

Solo · 09-23-2011, 03:07 PM

Stephan, take a look at this closely:

Quote:

Tertullian A.M. 4.2

Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. Porro Lucas non apostolus sed apostolicus, non magister sed discipulus, utique magistro minor, certe tanto posterior quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio, ut et si sub ipsius Pauli nomine evangelium Marcion intulisset, non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum. Exigeretur enim id quoque evangelium quod Paulus invenit, cui fidem dedidit, cui mox suum congruere gestiit, siquidem propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos apostolos et consultandos, ne forte in vacuum cucurrisset, id est ne non secundum illos credidisset et non secundum illos evangelizaret. Denique ut cum auctoribus con-
tulit, et convenit de regula fidei, dextras miscuere, et exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt, ut illi in Iudaeos, Paulus in Iudaeos et in nationes. Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae auctoritatem antecessorum et fidei et praedicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam evangelio Lucae expostulem, quae evangelio magistri eius fuit necessaria?

For out of those authors whom we possess, Marcion is seen to have chosen Luke as the one to mutilate. Now Luke was not an apostle but an apostolic man, not a master but a disciple, in any case less than his master, and assuredly even more of lesser account as being the follower of a later apostle, Paul, to be sure: so that even if Marcion had introduced his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single document would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of his predecessors. For we should demand the production of that gospel also which Paul found <in existence>, that to which he gave his assent, that with which shortly afterwards he was anxious that his own should agree: for his intention in going up to Jerusalem to know and to consult the apostles, was lest perchance he had run in vain a—that is, lest perchance he had not believed as they did, or were not preaching the gospel in their manner. At length, when he had conferred with the original <apostles>, and there was agreement concerning the rule of the faith, they joined the right hands <of fellowship>, and from thenceforth divided their spheres of preaching, so that the others should go to the Jews, but Paul to Jews and gentiles. If he therefore who gave the light to Luke chose to have his predecessors' authority for his faith as well as his preaching, much more must I require for Luke's gospel the authority which was necessary for the gospel of his master.

This excerpt shows that Tertuliian takes on faith that Marcion seems to have chosen Luke; it is by no means a sure thing ! And the reasoning is even more interesting: Tertullian believes that Marcion chose Luke because Luke was Paul's companion (as per Acts !!!) and of course in Tertullian's mind Paul was a later apostle not at the origin of the one gospel which came through, the original twelve apostles and was deposited into the four canonicals.

I would be hugely surprised if there was anything more to the "guess" of the orthodox fathers that Marcion's euangelion must have been Luke than the legend that Luke was Paul's travelling companion. So, ironic as it may seem Adolf von Harnack was not any farther in his analysis of the sequence of the texts than our numbered friend here on the board.

But in reality Marcion most likely followed the Pauline church gospel genealogy, in which Paul was the first (and only) gospel and Mark was its faithful 'interpreter' of the Nazarene.

Best,
Jiri

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.