Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesus?
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.6.2:
... Et bene Iustinus in eo libro qui est ad Marcionem ait: Quoniam ipsi quoque domino non credidissem, alterum deum annuntianti praeter fabricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum. sed quoniam ab uno deo, qui et hunc mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit et omnia continent et administrat, unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, firma est mea ad eum fides, et immobilis erga patrem dilectio, utraque deo nobis praebente.
In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.
Sorry, my mistake. It is the creed of Justin.
Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.
... Et bene Iustinus in eo libro qui est ad Marcionem ait: Quoniam ipsi quoque domino non credidissem, alterum deum annuntianti praeter fabricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum. sed quoniam ab uno deo, qui et hunc mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit et omnia continent et administrat, unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, firma est mea ad eum fides, et immobilis erga patrem dilectio, utraque deo nobis praebente.
In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us.
Sorry, my mistake. It is the creed of Justin.
Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
One of these questions that's misleading and which no one knows the answer with any certainty. The evidence clearly shows that:
1. like all early Christians Jesus passed through a crowd in that scene now relegated to Luke and likely caused the Jews in the synagogue or religious house of worship to die passing over the precipice.
2. in the same scene in the gospel of (Justin) and Tatian and the like, Jesus flies.
Tertullian's defense is to look at the language in Luke and assume that Jesus was 'buffeted' somewhat so that proves that Jesus had flesh. But a correct reading of the evidence demonstrates that Jesus must have been viewed as having the ability to become immaterial or only seemed to have flesh.
Also the evidence seems to suggest that Jesus was crucified and Christ wasn't in the crucifixion narrative. I take the evidence applied to 'those prefer to Mark' to apply to all heretical groups because they frequently have the charge of being 'docetic' leveled against them. Also the so-called 'Patripassian' controversy seems to be wrapped up with adoptionism of some sort meaning that Christ was the Father and Jesus was the Son. To this end (and this likely applies to Jesus was somehow crucified 'in the flesh' while the Father (= Christ) wedded to the soul of Jesus 'escaped.'
The condemning of 'the flesh' to death seems to have had great theological significance. The idea here is that matter is evil (a point which seems to be connected with Marcionism) and only the soul is redeemed by the spirit.
How do reconcile all these points? It is very difficult. On the one hand, if you follow my logic that Jesus is god who walked in the garden in Genesis (= a 'cosmic proto-man' whom Adam was made in the likeness of) the fact that that god can 'walk' necessarily implies that he too had some sort of material substance. Christ on the other hand appears to be wholly spiritual. The baptism of converts must be based on an alternative baptism narrative where Jesus (= proto man) is made fully spiritual not in the flesh but by having the soul wedded to the spirit of the Father. This is why the heretics were likely condemned for both (a) holding that Jesus and Christ were distinct (= another Christ, another god in Tertullian) and moreover their emphasis that matter was evil and soul occupied a middle position and spirit was good.
Remember that in Marcionism the Devil = matter = evil (god)
the Demiurge = soul = just(ice)
Christ = spirit = good (god)
I don't think substantive efforts have been to tease the proper understanding out of Marcionism. Tertullian's commentary is a three times corrupt version of earlier lost documents.
1. like all early Christians Jesus passed through a crowd in that scene now relegated to Luke and likely caused the Jews in the synagogue or religious house of worship to die passing over the precipice.
2. in the same scene in the gospel of (Justin) and Tatian and the like, Jesus flies.
Tertullian's defense is to look at the language in Luke and assume that Jesus was 'buffeted' somewhat so that proves that Jesus had flesh. But a correct reading of the evidence demonstrates that Jesus must have been viewed as having the ability to become immaterial or only seemed to have flesh.
Also the evidence seems to suggest that Jesus was crucified and Christ wasn't in the crucifixion narrative. I take the evidence applied to 'those prefer to Mark' to apply to all heretical groups because they frequently have the charge of being 'docetic' leveled against them. Also the so-called 'Patripassian' controversy seems to be wrapped up with adoptionism of some sort meaning that Christ was the Father and Jesus was the Son. To this end (and this likely applies to Jesus was somehow crucified 'in the flesh' while the Father (= Christ) wedded to the soul of Jesus 'escaped.'
The condemning of 'the flesh' to death seems to have had great theological significance. The idea here is that matter is evil (a point which seems to be connected with Marcionism) and only the soul is redeemed by the spirit.
How do reconcile all these points? It is very difficult. On the one hand, if you follow my logic that Jesus is god who walked in the garden in Genesis (= a 'cosmic proto-man' whom Adam was made in the likeness of) the fact that that god can 'walk' necessarily implies that he too had some sort of material substance. Christ on the other hand appears to be wholly spiritual. The baptism of converts must be based on an alternative baptism narrative where Jesus (= proto man) is made fully spiritual not in the flesh but by having the soul wedded to the spirit of the Father. This is why the heretics were likely condemned for both (a) holding that Jesus and Christ were distinct (= another Christ, another god in Tertullian) and moreover their emphasis that matter was evil and soul occupied a middle position and spirit was good.
Remember that in Marcionism the Devil = matter = evil (god)
the Demiurge = soul = just(ice)
Christ = spirit = good (god)
I don't think substantive efforts have been to tease the proper understanding out of Marcionism. Tertullian's commentary is a three times corrupt version of earlier lost documents.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
I think there were three possibilities:
Under the hypothesis of historicity, the answer to your question is yes.
Under the hypothesis of myth, the answer is no, but he invented the death of Jesus in this world because in this way a more strong link is made between this world and the archontic territory (that was sub-lunary territory in the previous myth) so to condemn precisely this world and his creator god.
There is a third possibility, described by Choucoud. To invent a terrextrial Jesus was neither Marcion nor the proto-catholics, but the same Pagans:
They, hearing about a crucified celestial Christ by Christians, associated him to a crucified Jew in Israel (even if that Jew never existed). In the long run, the idea was taken up by Christians themselves, and Marcion took the ball on the fly to embroider on a story.
This image comes back to 85 CE, according to some scholars:
THerefore it would be evidence that the Pagans,
laughing at the folly of Christians, euhemerized the mythical Christ even before the same evangelists.
What is more probable? I think that the rise of docetism is more expected under the myth, because we have no examples in all the human history where a human being is seen ''docetically'' as lacking flesh and blood. Maybe only Buddha, and Buddha is a myth.
In addition, a contradiction rises under historicity: how could Marcion believe in the equation 'gospel = a new radical message' ('new' in function anti-old-scriptures) when previous gospels were already meant partially as 'remembered history' (and therefore these gospels were not new, but old) ? I don't see how the gospel of Marcion can be meant as 'remembered history' even by him himself. While I see evident marcionite influence on the our canonical gospels when the latter describe the message of Jesus as surprising and amazing (and no reason is given why his message is surprising and amazing):
That our Gospels betray marcionite influence while at the same time the Gospel of Marcion does not betray proto-Catholic influence is expected more under the myth than under the historicity.
Under the hypothesis of historicity, the answer to your question is yes.
Under the hypothesis of myth, the answer is no, but he invented the death of Jesus in this world because in this way a more strong link is made between this world and the archontic territory (that was sub-lunary territory in the previous myth) so to condemn precisely this world and his creator god.
There is a third possibility, described by Choucoud. To invent a terrextrial Jesus was neither Marcion nor the proto-catholics, but the same Pagans:
They, hearing about a crucified celestial Christ by Christians, associated him to a crucified Jew in Israel (even if that Jew never existed). In the long run, the idea was taken up by Christians themselves, and Marcion took the ball on the fly to embroider on a story.
This image comes back to 85 CE, according to some scholars:
THerefore it would be evidence that the Pagans,
laughing at the folly of Christians, euhemerized the mythical Christ even before the same evangelists.
What is more probable? I think that the rise of docetism is more expected under the myth, because we have no examples in all the human history where a human being is seen ''docetically'' as lacking flesh and blood. Maybe only Buddha, and Buddha is a myth.
In addition, a contradiction rises under historicity: how could Marcion believe in the equation 'gospel = a new radical message' ('new' in function anti-old-scriptures) when previous gospels were already meant partially as 'remembered history' (and therefore these gospels were not new, but old) ? I don't see how the gospel of Marcion can be meant as 'remembered history' even by him himself. While I see evident marcionite influence on the our canonical gospels when the latter describe the message of Jesus as surprising and amazing (and no reason is given why his message is surprising and amazing):
(Mark 1:27)The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.”
That our Gospels betray marcionite influence while at the same time the Gospel of Marcion does not betray proto-Catholic influence is expected more under the myth than under the historicity.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
Supply sources. No one with credibility I personally know states anything anywhere near that date you provided.Giuseppe wrote:This image comes back to 85 CE, according to some scholars:
.
beginning of the 3rd century thought to be the most likely
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
Generally thought they denied the human nature of Christ.earlydude wrote:Anyone know?
It is complex and dynamic and the above statement offers a direction to look at, more so then a statement of certainty in their belief and faith.
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
There has been recent commentary that the Evangelikon is not "based on Luke with parts removed", but Luke is based on Marcion's Evangelikon -Huon wrote: Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered 'the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings'. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.
- Joseph B Tyson (2006), in 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle', University of South Carolina Press, makes a case for Luke & Acts being written or developed as a response to Marcion, rather than Marcion's gospel being a rewrite of Luke.
Matthias Klinghardt (2008), in 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion' Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27, deduced that the 'Gospel Marcion' influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
Vinzent M (2014), in 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters, asserts that Marcion’s Gospel preceded all the canonical Gospels.
Judith M. Lieu (2015), in Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century, Cambridge University Press, covers "a wide range of controversial issues: the nature of God, the relation of the divine to creation, the person of Jesus, the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of salvation ..."
Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien
Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher
title translation:
- The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants
Volume 1 contains Klinghardt's investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel [Marcion's], and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs.
- The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants
Whether Paul is 'the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings' could be contested too.
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Tue Mar 08, 2016 2:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
Yes, docetism goes hand in hand with concepts of a celestial being, yet I'd say several OT books portray figures as either lacking flesh or blood or being portrayed as vague angel -man-Lord chimeras, or both.Giuseppe wrote: What is more probable? I think that the rise of docetism is more expected under the myth, because we have no examples in all the human history where a human being is seen ''docetically'' as lacking flesh and blood. Maybe only Buddha, and Buddha is a myth.
I think you make an interesting point here (with editing) -
Giuseppe wrote: ... While I see evident [evidence of] marcionite influence on the ..canonical gospels when the latter describe the message of Jesus as surprising and amazing (and no reason is given why 'his' message is 'surprising and amazing'):
That our Gospels betray Marcionite influence while at the same time the Gospel of Marcion does not betray proto-Catholic influence is expected more under the myth than under the historicity.The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, “What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to impure spirits and they obey him.” (Mark 1:27)
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
As it stands now however, Luke has primacy.MrMacSon wrote: There has been recent commentary that the Evangelikon is not "based on Luke with parts removed", but Luke is based on Marcion's Evangelikon -
Who has ever said Paul taught jesus message correctly?Whether Paul is 'the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings' could be contested too.
Re: Did Marcion originally believe in a flesh and blood Jesu
Stands where? By whom?outhouse wrote:As it stands now however, Luke has primacy.MrMacSon wrote: There has been recent commentary that the Evangelikon is not "based on Luke with parts removed", but Luke is based on Marcion's Evangelikon
JB Tyson (2006), in 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle', argues Luke & Acts were written or developed as a response to Marcion;
M Klinghardt (2008), in 'The Marcionite Gospel & the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion' Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27, deduced that
- the 'Gospel Marcion' influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien
---- title translation: The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants
- Volume 1 contains Klinghardt's investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel [Marcion's], and a model for the development of the Gospels.