Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-08-2010, 02:27 PM

In "Against Marcion" a writer under the name of "Tertullian" made certain accusations against Marcion asserting that he mutilated Luke's gospel.

"Against Marcion" 2.

Quote:

...Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process...

Now, it is claimed that "Tertullian" wrote earlier than Origen. So let us hear what Origen wrote about Marcion after "Tertullian".

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...

Origen has destroyed "Tertullian".

Marcion did not mutilate any Gospel according to Origen.

It may be that "Tertullian" falsely mutilated and remodelled Marcion.

AtheistGamer · 07-08-2010, 03:39 PM

I don't get it.

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...

He seems to be saying that He knows of nobody who has altered the Gospel except for the followers of Marcion.

aa5874 · 07-08-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

I don't get it.

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...

He seems to be saying that He knows of nobody who has altered the Gospel except for the followers of Marcion.

"Origen" is claiming that it was the followers of Marcion, NOT Marcion himself, who mutilated the Gospels.

"Against Celsus"

Quote:

...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...

"Tertullian" is claiming that it was Marcion himself who mutilated Luke.

"Against Marcion"

Quote:

Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process...

It would appear that it was "Tertullian" who mutilated Marcion.

"Hippolytus" appears to agree with "Origen". Marcion used the writings of Empedocles.

"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....

AtheistGamer · 07-08-2010, 09:49 PM

Okay, so there is a slight dissagreement. One guy says it was Marcion and the other guy says it was Marcion's followers.

stephan huller · 07-08-2010, 11:08 PM

Hi AA

I don't know where you are going with this but let me give you my spin on it. Think about what Origen is saying for a moment. It was only 'those of Marcion,' 'those of Valentinus' and 'those of Lucian' (whatever those terms mean) who tampered with the Gospel.

This is quite significant and I never would have noticed it before if you hadn't brought it up. Thank you.

How can this make any sense? Is Origen saying that men named Marcion, Valentinus and Lucian all used 'the Gospel.' What gospel is that? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? Or all four?

Presumably all four - i.e. the Gospel is the four texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John read as one.

But how can this be a sensible argument? Does Origen really believe this?

I was looking in the Homilies on Luke and the same pattern is there 'those of Marcion,' 'those of Valentinus' 'those of Basilides' have this or that in their gospel etc.

Origen CAN'T be really claiming that these men were orthodox. He can't really be absolving them of tampering with scripture UNLESS he is - as I suspect - saying that the names of the sects exist and are applied to people (like his master Ambrosius) but Marcion, Valentinus (see Against Valentinus 4) and Basilides have no real historical reality.

Just think about it. How else can we interpret these bizarre statements? Origen is going along with the program. There are these Marcionites and Valentinians and they are evil and bad because Rome says they are evil and bad and they tamper with scripture and all the other bullsh$t that goes with it. But Origen - now at the end of his career - can finally let a little sunlight in the window. There are only followers of these heresiarchs. Marcion and Valentinus have no real historical reality. They are heretical boogeymen, scarecrows set up by the Imperial Church to scare people away from variant readings and variant interpretation of Scripture.

aa5874 · 07-08-2010, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Okay, so there is a slight dissagreement. One guy says it was Marcion and the other guy says it was Marcion's followers.

So if Marcion was long dead before his followers manipulated the Gospels how can that be a slight disagreement?

And if Marcion himself used the writings of Empedocles, not the Pauline writings, not gMark nor gLuke how can "Tertullian's" statement be a slight disagreement?

Are you claiming that whatever your followers do that it was actually done by you?

It must be noted that Origen and Hippolytus are apologetic sources and have fundamentally contradicted "Tertullian".

And it should also be considered that Justin Martyr mentioned Marcion and Empedocles but did NOT write about Paul, Mark and Luke up to the middle of the 2nd century.

AtheistGamer · 07-09-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So if Marcion was long dead before his followers manipulated the Gospels how can that be a slight disagreement?

Where does anyone say that Marcion was long dead before his followers manipulated the Gospels?

Quote:

And if Marcion himself used the writings of Empedocles, not the Pauline writings, not gMark nor gLuke how can "Tertullian's" statement be a slight disagreement?

I don't think they are saying that Marcion "only" used the writings of Empedocles. They are saying that Marcion's favorite theologies are not found in gMark, or gLuke.

Quote:

Are you claiming that whatever your followers do that it was actually done by you?

No. Not unless you ordered it. But I'm not claiming that Marcion ordered it.

Quote:

It must be noted that Origen and Hippolytus are apologetic sources and have fundamentally contradicted "Tertullian"

Yes Origen contradicts Tertullian. They cannot get their story straight as to whether it was Marcion or his followers that edited the gospels.

Quote:

And it should also be considered that Justin Martyr mentioned Marcion and Empedocles but did NOT write about Paul, Mark and Luke up to the middle of the 2nd century.

What does that mean?

aa5874 · 07-09-2010, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So if Marcion was long dead before his followers manipulated the Gospels how can that be a slight disagreement?

Where does anyone say that Marcion was long dead before his followers manipulated the Gospels?

Where does "Origen" say Marcion mutilated the Gospels? Where does "Origen" give the actual name or names of those who mutilated the Gospels?

Based on 'Origen's" statement, it would appear that he was NOT aware of any writing under the name of Marcion which had mutilations of gLuke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

I don't think they are saying that Marcion "only" used the writings of Empedocles. They are saying that Marcion's favorite theologies are not found in gMark, or gLuke.

Well, Marcion's God was not the God of the Jews. Marcion's God was called the Cosmocrator.

I don't think you can find a God called Cosmocrator in the entire NT Canon.

And I don't think you can find Dualism or Docetism in the entire NT Canon.

Dualism and Docetism appeared to be Marcion's favorite theology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

No. Not unless you ordered it. But I'm not claiming that Marcion ordered it.

"Origen" did not claim Marcion ordered it. "Origen" did not even name a single follower who mutilated any Gospel and give the title of any text written by any follower of Marcion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

Yes Origen contradicts Tertullian. They cannot get their story straight as to whether it was Marcion or his followers that edited the gospels.

But, this is what happens when people are making stuff up. "Tertullian", "Origen" and "Hippolytus" also did not get their stories straight with respect to the dating, chronology and authorship of the ENTIRE NT Canon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And it should also be considered that Justin Martyr mentioned Marcion and Empedocles but did NOT write about Paul, Mark and Luke up to the middle of the 2nd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistGamer

What does that mean?

It means that Justin Martyr augments the theory that there were no writings under the name of Paul, Mark, and Luke up to the middle of 2nd century.

Persons can argue that they were not a certain location when there is no evidence of their presence at the location.

Justin Martyr identified a writing called "Memoirs of the Apostles" that was read in the churches on Sundays and did not quote a single passage from any Pauline writings or Acts of the Apostles.

Mark and Luke were not even considered apostles by the Church.

stephan huller · 07-09-2010, 09:52 AM

Just for some perspective Origen DOES say that Marcion corrupted the gospel in his Commentary on Romans:

Marcion, who interpolated both the Gospels and the Epistles, deleted this passage [Romans 16:24] from the text, and not only this but everything [after 14:25] as well. In other manuscripts edited by Marcion we find this passage in different places (Commentary on Romans 5:280)

aa5874 · 07-09-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Just for some perspective Origen DOES say that Marcion corrupted the gospel in his Commentary on Romans:

Marcion, who interpolated both the Gospels and the Epistles, deleted this passage [Romans 16:24] from the text, and not only this but everything [after 14:25] as well. In other manuscripts edited by Marcion we find this passage in different places (Commentary on Romans 5:280)

But, you have NOW identified that the writings of "Origen" that, like virtually ALL the writings of the Church, are contradictory.

When "Origen" was making refutations against Celsus, he clearly stated that he knew of no others who mutilated the Gospels save the followers of Marcion, Valentinus and possibly those of Lucian.

"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....

Now who wrote "Against Celsus" 2.27 and the passage you quoted?

And it is still true that the passage in "Against Celsus" 2.27 destroys "Tertullian" and the homily on Romans under the name of "Origen."

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

07-08-2010, 03:39 PM	#2
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	I don't get it. 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... He seems to be saying that He knows of nobody who has altered the Gospel except for the followers of Marcion.

07-08-2010, 09:49 PM	#4
AtheistGamer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Central Iowa Posts: 128	Okay, so there is a slight dissagreement. One guy says it was Marcion and the other guy says it was Marcion's followers.

07-08-2010, 11:08 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Hi AA I don't know where you are going with this but let me give you my spin on it. Think about what Origen is saying for a moment. It was only 'those of Marcion,' 'those of Valentinus' and 'those of Lucian' (whatever those terms mean) who tampered with the Gospel. This is quite significant and I never would have noticed it before if you hadn't brought it up. Thank you. How can this make any sense? Is Origen saying that men named Marcion, Valentinus and Lucian all used 'the Gospel.' What gospel is that? Matthew? Mark? Luke? John? Or all four? Presumably all four - i.e. the Gospel is the four texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John read as one. But how can this be a sensible argument? Does Origen really believe this? I was looking in the Homilies on Luke and the same pattern is there 'those of Marcion,' 'those of Valentinus' 'those of Basilides' have this or that in their gospel etc. Origen CAN'T be really claiming that these men were orthodox. He can't really be absolving them of tampering with scripture UNLESS he is - as I suspect - saying that the names of the sects exist and are applied to people (like his master Ambrosius) but Marcion, Valentinus (see Against Valentinus 4) and Basilides have no real historical reality. Just think about it. How else can we interpret these bizarre statements? Origen is going along with the program. There are these Marcionites and Valentinians and they are evil and bad because Rome says they are evil and bad and they tamper with scripture and all the other bullsh$t that goes with it. But Origen - now at the end of his career - can finally let a little sunlight in the window. There are only followers of these heresiarchs. Marcion and Valentinus have no real historical reality. They are heretical boogeymen, scarecrows set up by the Imperial Church to scare people away from variant readings and variant interpretation of Scripture.

07-09-2010, 09:52 AM	#9
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Just for some perspective Origen DOES say that Marcion corrupted the gospel in his Commentary on Romans: Marcion, who interpolated both the Gospels and the Epistles, deleted this passage [Romans 16:24] from the text, and not only this but everything [after 14:25] as well. In other manuscripts edited by Marcion we find this passage in different places (Commentary on Romans 5:280)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.