Ian Mills's "external evidence" that Luke preceded Marcion

[Giuseppe]

Ian Mills has proved that Basilides used canonical Luke, ok.

But what is the evidence that Basilides in particular, and separationism in general, preceded Marcion and/or the Marcionite docetism?

At contrary, I have always assumed that the separationism is a natural reaction to docetism:
before the god descended from above, only "in appearance of men" (cfr the hymn to Philippians, cfr also the opponents of Ignatius), and only later, a human (temporary) recipient is given to him, then the human recipient is adopted (adoptionism) to end in full incarnationism.

So: read the Mills's thesis and persuade me that Basilides preceded Marcion.

[Ken Olson]

Ian Mills has proved that Basilides used canonical Luke, ok.

But what is the evidence that Basilides in particular, and separationism in general, preceded Marcion and/or the Marcionite docetism?

At contrary, I have always assumed that the separationism is a natural reaction to docetism:
before the god descended from above, only "in appearance of men" (cfr the hymn to Philippians, cfr also the opponents of Ignatius), and only later, a human (temporary) recipient is given to him, then the human recipient is adopted (separationism) to end in full incarnationism.

So: read the Mill's thesis and persuade me that Basilides preceded Marcion.

Giuseppe,

You have reversed the burden of proof again. This came up during out discussion of Rivka Nir. You are making an argument from ignorance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You are asserting a certain belief and saying it is true because you have not been persuaded otherwise.

You have the burden of proof to persuade other people it is true. They do not have the burden of proof to persuade you.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

So Mills (p. 250):

Basilides of Alexandria is the earliest, easily datable author who knew and used Luke. 50 Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’ Chronicon reports that Basilides lingered (commoratur) in Alexandria until 132 CE.51 Since the heresiologists agree that he was a predecessor of Valentinus (e.g. Irenaeus AH 24.1; Epiphanius 1.31.21), Basilides’ tenure must have begun some decades earlier.52 Basilides is, in any case, Marcion’s predecessor. It is significant evidence for the present inquiry, therefore, that Basilides’ corpus reflects knowledge of Luke in its non-Marcionite form.

Note 52 reads:

2 This information does not fit well with Clement’s claim that Marcion was an old man during the lifetime of Basilides and Valentinus (Clement Stromata 7.17). Clement then dates Simon and Peter latest of all. Clearly, Clement is confused.

I read Irenaeus 24:1 and I find:

1. Arising among these men, Saturninus (who was of that Antioch which is near Daphne) and Basilides laid hold of some favourable opportunities, and promulgated different systems of doctrine — the one in Syria, the other at Alexandria. Saturninus, like Menander, set forth one father unknown to all, who made angels, archangels, powers, and potentates. The world, again, and all things therein, were made by a certain company of seven angels. Man, too, was the workmanship of angels, a shining image bursting forth below from the presence of the supreme power; and when they could not, he says, keep hold of this, because it immediately darted upwards again, they exhorted each other, saying, Let us make man after our image and likeness. Genesis 1:26 He was accordingly formed, yet was unable to stand erect, through the inability of the angels to convey to him that power, but wriggled [on the ground] like a worm. Then the power above taking pity upon him, since he was made after his likeness, sent forth a spark of life, which gave man an erect posture, compacted his joints, and made him live. He declares, therefore, that this spark of life, after the death of a man, returns to those things which are of the same nature with itself, and the rest of the body is decomposed into its original elements.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103124.htm

Where is the evidence that Basilides precedes Marcion there? It is evident that Irenaeus is describing two streams of heretical tradition:

• Saturninus and Menander, in the docetist field (Jesus descended from above already adult, and remember that the complete line is: Simon Magus ---> Saturninus ---> Menander ---> Cerdon ---> Marcion).

• Basilides in the separationist field.

In my view, Mills should corroborate more the his point that Basilides preceded temporally Marcion, rather than insist again and again the too much obvious fact that Basilides used canonical Luke.

[Ken Olson]

In my view, Mills should corroborate more the his point that Basilides preceded temporally Marcion, rather than insist again and again the too much obvious fact that Basilides used canonical Luke.

I will take the rare step of agreeing with you there. I think that Basilides knew and used canonical Luke and that he died during the reign of Hadrian.

Now, how do we established the date of Marcion?

(The matter is further complicated if we accept Klinghardt's theory that the Evangelion was a work already in circulation that Marcion adopted, rather than being marcion's own work).

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

Mills's argument is particularly ineffective when he insists on the anti-demiurgist use of canonical Luke as corroborating the his view:

The received text of Luke was not the special province of monotheists insisting on the continuity between Jewish scripture and the Jesus movement. On the contrary, some of the earliest evidence for the reception of Luke comes from Basilides and the disciples of Valentinus.

(p. 264)

At contrary, the wide diffusion of the canonical Luke even among radical anti-demiurgists proves the fortune of the euhemerization of the god Jesus: these anti-demiurgists were so inclined to accept the news about the "historical" Jesus that they gave up even to test the Judaizing provenance of the gospel (canonical Luke) adopted by them.

[Ken Olson]

Mills's argument is particularly ineffective when he insists on the anti-demiurgist use of canonical Luke as corroborating the his view:

The received text of Luke was not the special province of monotheists insisting on the continuity between Jewish scripture and the Jesus movement. On the contrary, some of the earliest evidence for the reception of Luke comes from Basilides and the disciples of Valentinus.

(p. 264)

At contrary, the wide diffusion of the canonical Luke even among radical anti-demiurgists proves the fortune of the euhemerization of the god Jesus: these anti-demiurgists were so inclined to accept the news about the "historical" Jesus that they gave up even to test the Judaizing provenance of the gospel (canonical Luke) adopted by them.

I do not see what you are arguing here.

[Giuseppe]

The fact that a lot of anti-demiurgists (=Christians who hated YHWH) accepted passively canonical Luke (where YHWH is apparently adored as supreme god and Jesus is recognized as a circumcised pious Jew) is evidence that they were eager to accept the growing new vulgata about the identity of Jesus (as a pious Jew crucified by Pilate), even if their belief was against the views found in this gospel. In other terms, also the anti-demiurgist separationism and adoptionism were a reaction to anti-demiurgist docetism and mythicism.

It is not evidence of the priority of canonical Luke over *Ev.

[Ken Olson]

The fact that a lot of anti-demiurgists (=Christians who hated YHWH) accepted passively canonical Luke (where YHWH is apparently adored as supreme god and Jesus is recognized as a circumcised pious Jew) is evidence that they were eager to accept the growing new vulgata about the identity of Jesus (as a pious Jew crucified by Pilate), even if their belief was against the views found in this gospel. In other terms, also the anti-demiurgist separationism and adoptionism were a reaction to anti-demiurgist docetism and mythicism.

It is not evidence of the priority of canonical Luke over *Ev.

Two points here:

1) You haven't shown that it's proof of the priority of *Ev over canonical Luke.

2) You do seem to be allowing that anti-demiurgists might accept canonical Luke ... even if their belief was against at least some of the views found in his gospel.

Could Marcion be one such? He would not be passively accepting Luke, but cutting out parts of it.

[Giuseppe]

Mills has made it clear that the separationists adopted canonical Luke (and Mark).

The docetists (and Marcion was one) seem to have adopted *Ev (or proto-John).

The separationism seems to be a compromise between docetism and ebionism: the spiritual possessor comes from above but the human recipient is a pious Jew.

[Ken Olson]

Mills has made it clear that the separationists adopted canonical Luke (and Mark).

The docetists (and Marcion was one) seem to have adopted *Ev (or proto-John).

The separationism seems to be a compromise between docetism and ebionism: the spiritual possessor comes from above but the human recipient is a pious Jew.

Hold on a moment. Are you saying that Mills thinks Marcion, or docetics, adopted *Ev or pro-John?

Is this passage from his dissertation the basis for your claim:

Halfway through the third volume of Against Heresies, Irenaeus gives a catalog of
heretics who mistreat the gospels: Ebionites use only Matthew, Marcion mutilates Luke, docetic
Christians prefer Mark, and Valentinians support their cosmogenic speculations with John
(3.11.7). In response, Irenaeus declares that there are “neither more in number nor fewer” than
four gospels (3.11.8).[Mills, Rewriting the Gospels, 43]

If not, what is?