Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-18-2013, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...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?

This is exactly why I do NOT rely on flawed opinion. Examine the passage.

Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics

Quote:

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antoninus for the most part.....

Justin Martyr is corroborated again and again. In Prescription Against the Heretics Marcion is claimed to have lived for the most part in the time of Antoninus.

Justin Martyr wrote that Marcion was ALIVE when he wrote his Apology to Antoninus.

Vorkosigan · 03-18-2013, 12:53 AM

Dating Marcion? B-o-r-ing. The dude was celibate, man.

DrZoidberg · 03-18-2013, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Dating Marcion? B-o-r-ing. The dude was celibate, man.

ha ha. I was thinking the same thing. :grin:

maryhelena · 03-18-2013, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...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?

This is exactly why I do NOT rely on flawed opinion. Examine the passage.

Tertullian's Prescription Against the Heretics

Quote:

Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago—in the reign of Antoninus for the most part.....

Justin Martyr is corroborated again and again. In Prescription Against the Heretics Marcion is claimed to have lived for the most part in the time of Antoninus.

Justin Martyr wrote that Marcion was ALIVE when he wrote his Apology to Antoninus.

Yep - and Justin Martyr wrote that JC was crucified under Pilate - and Tertullian corroborated Justin Martyr.......:huh:

maryhelena · 03-18-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Dating Marcion? B-o-r-ing. The dude was celibate, man.

Does that mean that you are dating the NT Paul early - pre 70 c.e. - and thus any figure later than 70 c.e. is of no interest for research into early christian origins? And how sure are you for dating the NT Paul and the epistles early?

Vok - once the NT figure of Paul is moved away from the early, pre 70 c.e. NT chronology and placed in the second century - then that NT figure of Paul is occupying the same time period as the figure of Marcion.

Surely, not - you can't be - holding fast to the idea that the gospel story was after Paul and the epistles? That theory is a mythicist dead-end - going nowhere.....It's a theory that flies in the face of what the early christian writers were writing - Jesus crucified under Pilate in the time of Tiberius. No need for Paul or his epistles for these early christian writers.

maryhelena · 03-18-2013, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Caesar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth of the Emperor Severus;187 although, as being more excellent than the paltry works188 of the Creator, it should certainly have ceased to conceal itself, when its lord and author no longer lies hid? I ask, therefore,189 if it was unable to manifest itself in this world, how did its Lord appear in this world? If this world received its Lord, why was it not able to receive the created substance, unless perchance it was greater than its Lord? [Tertullian Against Marcion 1.15]

and this about Marcion and his gospel:

Quote:

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius,228 Christ Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the spirit of saving health. I cared not to inquire, indeed, in what particular year of the elder Antoninus. He who had so gracious a purpose did rather, like a pestilential sirocco, exhale this health or salvation, which Marcion teaches from his Pontus. Of this teacher there is no doubt that he is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the pious. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion. [3] Inasmuch, then, as Marcion, as we have shown, first introduced this god to notice in the time of Antoninus, the matter becomes at once clear, if you are a shrewd observer. The dates already decide the case, that he who came to light for the first time231 in the reign of Antoninus, did not appear in that of Tiberius; in other words, that the God of the Antonine period was not the God of the Tiberian; and consequently, that he whom Marcion has plainly preached for the first time, was not revealed by Christ (who announced His revelation as early as the reign of Tiberius). [4] Now, to prove clearly what remains of the argument, I shall draw materials from my very adversaries. Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself. He therefore could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law. Now this peace, which had remained unhurt and unshaken from Christ's appearance to the time of Marcion's audacious doctrine, was no doubt maintained by that way of thinking, which firmly held that the God of both law and gospel was none other than the Creator, against whom after so long a time a separation has been introduced by the heretic of Pontus. This most patent conclusion requires to be defended by us against the clamours of the opposite side. For they allege that Marcion did not so much innovate on the rule (of faith) by his separation of the law and the gospel, as restore it after it had been previously adulterated. O Christ, most enduring Lord, who didst bear so many years with this interference with Thy revelation, until Marcion forsooth came to Thy rescue![ibid 1.19]

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.

Yes, once the NT figure of Paul is removed from the pseudo-chronology, or to be kind, the NT's prophetic chronology, the relationship between the figure of Marcion and the figure of Paul raises it's head. However, if one runs with the idea that Paul=Marcion and dates this Paul/Marcion figure to the general date given for Marcion (to Rome about 145 c.e.) then, instead of opening up avenues for research into early christian origins, one has closed the door to the 1st century - and it's Hasmonean and Jewish history.

While I do think that the door to the 1st century has been closed (for nationalistic and political reasons), that door cannot remain closed for researching early christian origins. So - when I see any attempt to keep that door closed - as in equating Paul=Marcion - I just shake my head....

At the very least, as has been mentioned previously, here, two voices can be discerned in 1 Corinthians 15. i.e. an early and a late voice. An early 'Paul' and a late 'Paul'. In other words, not one but two major figures involved in the development of early christian ideas.

The Paul=Marcion equation silences these two voices. The Marcionite 'voice' is early - as is evidenced by the writings of the early christians. The Paul 'voice' is later. Both are 'voices' from the same 'school' - but voices for different contexts and different time slots. What Acts has done is condense christian history to a pre 70 c.e. history. The history of the later years is backdated - and what were two voices, two historical figures involved with early christian developments - becomes one voice. The voice of 'Paul'. The earlier 'voice' is submerged by the later voice of 'Paul'. The Marcionite voice (of the early christian writings) is submerged by the voice of the later figure of 'Paul'. (both figures, to my thinking, are ahistorical)

aa5874 · 03-18-2013, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Yep - and Justin Martyr wrote that JC was crucified under Pilate - and Tertullian corroborated Justin Martyr.......:huh:

I have already told you that Apologetics do NOT agree with the time and nature of JC.

I have done an investigation of the JC based on the contradictions of Apologetics.

The Existence of Jesus was questioned in antiquity.

1. Tertullian admitted Apologetics ARGUED whether Jesus Existed in the Flesh.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed. It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived? And of what kind was it?

2. Tertullian claimed Jesus existed WITHOUT a Father before he had a Mother.

Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

Quote:

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

3. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was Crucified during the reign of Claudius.

Irenaeus' Demonstration of Apostolic Teaching

Quote:

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified...

4. The author of gJohn claimed Jesus was Before Abraham.

John 8:58 KJV

Quote:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was , I am

5. Justin claimed Jesus was born WITHOUT sexual union.

Justin's First Apology

Quote:

....the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven...

The time of Marcion is corroborated by his contemporary Justin.

Not one supposed contemporary of Jesus claimed he was ALIVE and Preaching when they fabricated their stories.

maryhelena · 03-21-2013, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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:

Quote:

But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of Tiberius Caesar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth of the Emperor Severus;187 although, as being more excellent than the paltry works188 of the Creator, it should certainly have ceased to conceal itself, when its lord and author no longer lies hid? I ask, therefore,189 if it was unable to manifest itself in this world, how did its Lord appear in this world? If this world received its Lord, why was it not able to receive the created substance, unless perchance it was greater than its Lord? [Tertullian Against Marcion 1.15]

and this about Marcion and his gospel:

Quote:

In the fifteenth year of Tiberius,228 Christ Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the spirit of saving health. I cared not to inquire, indeed, in what particular year of the elder Antoninus. He who had so gracious a purpose did rather, like a pestilential sirocco, exhale this health or salvation, which Marcion teaches from his Pontus. Of this teacher there is no doubt that he is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the pious. Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion. [3] Inasmuch, then, as Marcion, as we have shown, first introduced this god to notice in the time of Antoninus, the matter becomes at once clear, if you are a shrewd observer. The dates already decide the case, that he who came to light for the first time231 in the reign of Antoninus, did not appear in that of Tiberius; in other words, that the God of the Antonine period was not the God of the Tiberian; and consequently, that he whom Marcion has plainly preached for the first time, was not revealed by Christ (who announced His revelation as early as the reign of Tiberius). [4] Now, to prove clearly what remains of the argument, I shall draw materials from my very adversaries. Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself. He therefore could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law. Now this peace, which had remained unhurt and unshaken from Christ's appearance to the time of Marcion's audacious doctrine, was no doubt maintained by that way of thinking, which firmly held that the God of both law and gospel was none other than the Creator, against whom after so long a time a separation has been introduced by the heretic of Pontus. This most patent conclusion requires to be defended by us against the clamours of the opposite side. For they allege that Marcion did not so much innovate on the rule (of faith) by his separation of the law and the gospel, as restore it after it had been previously adulterated. O Christ, most enduring Lord, who didst bear so many years with this interference with Thy revelation, until Marcion forsooth came to Thy rescue![ibid 1.19]

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.

Yes, once the NT figure of Paul is removed from the pseudo-chronology, or to be kind, the NT's prophetic chronology, the relationship between the figure of Marcion and the figure of Paul raises it's head. However, if one runs with the idea that Paul=Marcion and dates this Paul/Marcion figure to the general date given for Marcion (to Rome about 145 c.e.) then, instead of opening up avenues for research into early christian origins, one has closed the door to the 1st century - and it's Hasmonean and Jewish history.

While I do think that the door to the 1st century has been closed (for nationalistic and political reasons), that door cannot remain closed for researching early christian origins. So - when I see any attempt to keep that door closed - as in equating Paul=Marcion - I just shake my head....

At the very least, as has been mentioned previously, here, two voices can be discerned in 1 Corinthians 15. i.e. an early and a late voice. An early 'Paul' and a late 'Paul'. In other words, not one but two major figures involved in the development of early christian ideas.

The Paul=Marcion equation silences these two voices. The Marcionite 'voice' is early - as is evidenced by the writings of the early christians. The Paul 'voice' is later. Both are 'voices' from the same 'school' - but voices for different contexts and different time slots. What Acts has done is condense christian history to a pre 70 c.e. history. The history of the later years is backdated - and what were two voices, two historical figures involved with early christian developments - becomes one voice. The voice of 'Paul'. The earlier 'voice' is submerged by the later voice of 'Paul'. The Marcionite voice (of the early christian writings) is submerged by the voice of the later figure of 'Paul'. (both figures, to my thinking, are ahistorical)

The above post in reply to Stephan is dated 18 March.

New blog post by Stephan Huller.

Quote:

Towards a New Understanding of Marcion and Secret Mark

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/

wednesday, march 20, 2013

It's true - I have a lot of ideas about Marcion. I've considered the name 'Marcion' as a Greek diminutive form of Mark based on a suggestion by Hilgenfeld. Then I considered the idea that it was an Aramaic formation. But now I think I have it right. I've been working at this for over twenty years and I think the best explanation of the name is that that Μαρκίων was the designation of a collection of writings (= the Marcionite New Testament).

<snip>

But the idea that Μαρκίων might have been similarly conceived as a collection of writings associated with Mark never occurred to me.

<snip>

and why there is such confusion in general about the dating of 'Marcion' is because the original debate was not about a man named Marcion but a collection of writings called Μαρκίων

Methinks the background to Stephan Huller's breakthrough that the name *Marcion* relates to a collection of writings and not to a historical man - can be found on FRDB...:constern01:

More here

maryhelena · 03-21-2013, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Towards a New Understanding of Marcion and Secret Mark

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/

wednesday, march 20, 2013

It's true - I have a lot of ideas about Marcion. I've considered the name 'Marcion' as a Greek diminutive form of Mark based on a suggestion by Hilgenfeld. Then I considered the idea that it was an Aramaic formation. But now I think I have it right. I've been working at this for over twenty years and I think the best explanation of the name is that that Μαρκίων was the designation of a collection of writings (= the Marcionite New Testament).

<snip>

But the idea that Μαρκίων might have been similarly conceived as a collection of writings associated with Mark never occurred to me.

<snip>

and why there is such confusion in general about the dating of 'Marcion' is because the original debate was not about a man named Marcion but a collection of writings called Μαρκίων

A question, Stephan, in regard to this comment from your blog:

Quote:

Marcus Julius Agrippa was such an interesting historical figure to me because of course he is the historical Marcion. All scholars need to do is read the actual reports which survive in the rabbinic writings and they will see this as clear as day. He was a Jew who embraced the idea of another god besides what became known as 'the Jewish god.'

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...g-journey.html

my bolding

What now? Are you rejecting your previous position that Marcion=Marcus Julius Agrippa? Are you now upholding the idea that the name *Marcion* no longer refers to a historical figure but to a collection of writings? That the *Marcion* of the early christian writings is not a historical figure.

Why not state that you now have a revised position - that's let your readers know where they stand in regard to your theories...

Duvduv · 03-21-2013, 11:54 AM

Perhaps Stephan really means that the whole idea of a "Mark" is related to the idea of SOUP since the Hebrew word for soup is MARAK.

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

03-18-2013, 12:53 AM	#12
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Dating Marcion? B-o-r-ing. The dude was celibate, man.

03-21-2013, 11:54 AM	#20
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Perhaps Stephan really means that the whole idea of a "Mark" is related to the idea of SOUP since the Hebrew word for soup is MARAK.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.