Re: Flaw with Marcion priority theory?
Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 12:03 am
Here is another rub to the question of priority: from what point of the sediment are we starting from for our excavation?
If we are looking at these texts like fossils, and concluding that those on top came after those below them, then we can brush our hands off and call it a day. But Marcion above all others is a sort of Piltdown Man that throws that sequential chronology out of a nice and succinct order and that is the reason for the controversy around him. Indeed calling Marcion Piltdown Man may be more appropriate than we realize. Marcion may be the biggest hoax the early church constructed, but it is a hoax that reveals exactly what is being covered up: that there is no evidence for these texts prior to when Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius can date Marcion, an issue that was not at all at present to those who were contemporaries of his like Justin, Polycarp and Papias, and Hegesippus. It was only when the issue of canonization of church orthodox via holy writ needed to be settled that Marcion's name became as so much kindling for their ire and rue that accusations of co-opting Luke (or Matthew in some places in Irenaeus and Tertullian; or a shorter Mark for the Philosophumena; and even something appropriating John to Papias(!)). Heck, even dating Marcion is up in the air, as Tertullian puts him as coming into vogue ca. 140s, while Hippolytus and the Philosophumena have him in during the reign of Hadrian, and Papias has him as a contemporary to John, whom Irenaeus says active during the reign of Trajan; Justin speaks of Marcion's longevity with some astonishment.
So what do I think is going on? That Marcion himself, or rather itself, represents a growth of church history that became increasingly unpopular when the mores began to change and Judiazed Christians wanted more recognition from the Empire for protection against persecution. That is without a doubt why Justin began throwing people like Menander and Saturnius under the chariot, and why pseudo-Irenaeus would describe Polycarp as associating with Florinus of the royal hall; but the thing is the Marcionites were doing the same the same to them, but because they were actually older than these new fangled sects that Justin and Papias belonged to (what would you even call them? proto-orthodoxy? Isn't that just heterodox before being accepted?), and out of this back and forth cross chatter, new ideas and new texts are emerging, being accepted or dismissed, which ever could be used to further their respective agendas.
For convenience sake, here is my headcanon:
*first layer, 115ad-130ad, Marcionism 0.1: belief in a mystical translation into the body of the chrestus: only Pauline letters used: no written Gospel
*second layer, 140-155ad, Marcionism 1.0: a short Gospel with no title is published detailing practices: co-opted by Judiazers and expanded.
*third layer, 165-180ad, Marcionism 1.5: revised Gospel with Antithesis prefixed to it: the first judiazed gospel is discarded and Matthew in its place
*forth and final layer, 185-200ad, Marcionism 2.0: in light of Marcia's execution, Marcionism falls out of favour with the empire: orthodoxy wins: Marcionism moves east.
first note: I pointed out to John2 that the consensus timeline he promotes creates a problematic second Jewish Gospel, but I think that is exactly what happened
second note: Marcionism gets its name from Marcellina and Marcia. There never was a boogieman "man of Pontus". They probably called themselves Chrestians, and its founder probably was named Markos and had a Jewish name of John, but that knowledge became lost by the third layer and mythologized in Acts of the Apostles.
If we are looking at these texts like fossils, and concluding that those on top came after those below them, then we can brush our hands off and call it a day. But Marcion above all others is a sort of Piltdown Man that throws that sequential chronology out of a nice and succinct order and that is the reason for the controversy around him. Indeed calling Marcion Piltdown Man may be more appropriate than we realize. Marcion may be the biggest hoax the early church constructed, but it is a hoax that reveals exactly what is being covered up: that there is no evidence for these texts prior to when Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius can date Marcion, an issue that was not at all at present to those who were contemporaries of his like Justin, Polycarp and Papias, and Hegesippus. It was only when the issue of canonization of church orthodox via holy writ needed to be settled that Marcion's name became as so much kindling for their ire and rue that accusations of co-opting Luke (or Matthew in some places in Irenaeus and Tertullian; or a shorter Mark for the Philosophumena; and even something appropriating John to Papias(!)). Heck, even dating Marcion is up in the air, as Tertullian puts him as coming into vogue ca. 140s, while Hippolytus and the Philosophumena have him in during the reign of Hadrian, and Papias has him as a contemporary to John, whom Irenaeus says active during the reign of Trajan; Justin speaks of Marcion's longevity with some astonishment.
So what do I think is going on? That Marcion himself, or rather itself, represents a growth of church history that became increasingly unpopular when the mores began to change and Judiazed Christians wanted more recognition from the Empire for protection against persecution. That is without a doubt why Justin began throwing people like Menander and Saturnius under the chariot, and why pseudo-Irenaeus would describe Polycarp as associating with Florinus of the royal hall; but the thing is the Marcionites were doing the same the same to them, but because they were actually older than these new fangled sects that Justin and Papias belonged to (what would you even call them? proto-orthodoxy? Isn't that just heterodox before being accepted?), and out of this back and forth cross chatter, new ideas and new texts are emerging, being accepted or dismissed, which ever could be used to further their respective agendas.
For convenience sake, here is my headcanon:
*first layer, 115ad-130ad, Marcionism 0.1: belief in a mystical translation into the body of the chrestus: only Pauline letters used: no written Gospel
*second layer, 140-155ad, Marcionism 1.0: a short Gospel with no title is published detailing practices: co-opted by Judiazers and expanded.
*third layer, 165-180ad, Marcionism 1.5: revised Gospel with Antithesis prefixed to it: the first judiazed gospel is discarded and Matthew in its place
*forth and final layer, 185-200ad, Marcionism 2.0: in light of Marcia's execution, Marcionism falls out of favour with the empire: orthodoxy wins: Marcionism moves east.
first note: I pointed out to John2 that the consensus timeline he promotes creates a problematic second Jewish Gospel, but I think that is exactly what happened
second note: Marcionism gets its name from Marcellina and Marcia. There never was a boogieman "man of Pontus". They probably called themselves Chrestians, and its founder probably was named Markos and had a Jewish name of John, but that knowledge became lost by the third layer and mythologized in Acts of the Apostles.