Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

[Secret Alias]

Note the argument in Adv Haer 3.10 - 11. Irenaeus originally makes the argument that:

This, therefore, having been clearly demonstrated here (and it shall yet be so still more clearly), that neither the prophets, nor the apostles, nor the Lord Christ in His own person, did acknowledge any other Lord or God, but the God and Lord supreme: the prophets and the apostles confessing the Father and the Son; but naming no other as God, and confessing no other as Lord: and the Lord Himself handing down to His disciples, that He, the Father, is the only God and Lord, who alone is God and ruler of all; -- it is incumbent on us to follow, if we are their disciples indeed, their testimonies to this effect.

His next task is to go through each gospel and show that at the beginning of each gospel each author uses the Jewish scriptures which Irenaeus believes are rooted in monotheism. So in the very next line he writes:

For Matthew the apostle -- knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham ...

He then proceeds to discuss the beginning of Matthew and its use of an angel from the Jewish god then the beginning of Luke (oddly) and its reference of an angel from the Jewish god and then proceeds to discuss the beginning of Mark:

Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, which shall prepare Thy way. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make the paths straight before our God." Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord; Him, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who had also made promise to Him, that He would send His messenger before His face

In each of the previous sections dealing with Matthew and Luke the emphasis is on the appearances of angels who come from the Jewish god. One would expect that the argument here would be that Mark too is speaking about the coming of an angel of the Jewish god but the text suddenly changes and a later editor likely adds the following:

... who was John, crying in the wilderness, in "the spirit and power of Elias,"(1)"Prepare ye the way of me Lord, make straight paths before our God." For the prophets did not announce one and mother God, but one and the same; under rations aspects, however, and many titles. For varied and rich in attribute is the Father, as I have already shown in the book preceding this; and I shall show [the same truth] from the prophets themselves in the further course of this work.

Indeed in order to correct the change (i.e. the introduction of John the Baptist in a later version of Mark) the author is forced to go to the end of the gospel and the longer ending (which again was added by Irenaeus most certainly):

Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God; "(3) confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool."(4) Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.

We know that the original argument of Irenaeus was that all the 'starts' to the gospel make reference to an angel who belonged to the Creator because immediately following the discussion of the beginning of Matthew, Luke and Mark he goes on to discuss the angel - the Word - at the beginning of John:

John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks, by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that "knowledge" falsely so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also continued impossible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WOrd was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.(5) What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."(6) "All things," he says, "were made by Him;" therefore in "all things" this creation of ours is [included], for we cannot concede to these men that [the words] "all things" are spoken in reference to those within their Pleroma. For if their Pleroma do indeed contain these, this creation, as being such, is not outside, as I have demonstrated in the preceding book;(7) but if they are outside the Pleroma, which indeed appeared impossible, it follows, in that case, that their Pleroma cannot be "all things:" therefore this vast creation is not outside [the Pleroma].

2. John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, "He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not."(8) But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. For he (Soter) caused such similitudes to be made, after the pattern of things above, as they allege; but the Demiurge accomplished the work of creation. For they say that he, the Lord and Creator of the plan of creation, by whom they hold that this world was made, was produced from the Mother; while the Gospel affirms plainly, that by the Word, which was in the beginning with God, all things were made, which Word, he says, "was made flesh, and dwelt among us."(9)

3. But, according to these men, neither was the Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour (Soter), who was produced from [the joint contributions of] all [the Aeons]. For they will have it, that the Word and Christ never came into this world; that the Saviour, too, never became incarnate, nor suffered, but that He descended like a dove upon the dispensational Jesus; and that, as soon as He had declared the unknown Father, He did again ascend into the Pleroma. Some, however, make the assertion, that this dispensational Jesus did become incarnate, and suffered, whom they represent as having passed through Mary just as water through a tube; but others allege him to be the Son of the Demiurge, upon whom the dispensational Jesus descended; while others, again, say that Jesus was born from Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ from above descended upon him, being without flesh, and impassible. But according to the opinion of no one of the heretics was the Word of God made flesh. For if any one carefully examines the systems of them all, he will find that the Word of God is brought in by all of them as not having become incarnate (sine carne) and impassible, as is also the Christ from above. Others consider Him to have been manifested as a transfigured man; but they maintain Him to have been neither born nor to have become incarnate; whilst others [hold] that He did not assume a human form at all, but that, as a dove, He did descend upon that Jesus who was born from Mary. Therefore the Lord's disciple, pointing them all out as false witnesses, says, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us."

The point again is that the development of the canonical gospels was gradual. Irenaeus makes reference to things in Mark which now no longer appear in Mark. One may imagine a twenty or thirty year period for the gestation of the texts as we have them and that variety to be reflected in the surviving commentaries or fragments of older commentaries.

[Secret Alias]

Interestingly Harnack and many others have been puzzled by Marcion's mention in the section about John. My answer would be of course that Luke was inserted into this discussion which originally developed from a threefold gospel (Matthew, Mark and John). There was no specific 'anti-Marcionite gospel - i.e. Luke hadn't been invented yet. This is why Marcion figures in discussions of the virgin birth in Matthew and here in a discussion of the introduction to John. Matthew-Mark-John was the original front line against Marcion. That's why Celsus makes reference to a 'threefold and fourfold' splitting of the gospel (he read treatises which reflected both scenarios as the canon developed c. 170 - 200 CE). Mark didn't have a birth narrative but the use of Malachi 3:1 was deliberately ambiguous it could be read as either an allusion to the coming of the angel which inseminated Mary or the Marcionite understanding of an angel. John clarifies that the angel was the Word. But Matthew that the angel made Jesus incarnate in Mary's womb. When this medicine wasn't strong enough to deter Marcionism Luke was developed.

[Giuseppe]

You are playing with the notion of Jewish-hater, clearly (removing the clear difference between someone who hates the god of Jews per se and someone who hates the Jews per se).

Have you ever met anyone who hates 'Allah' and 'the Koran' who doesn't also hate Muslims? Please think about what you are saying.

You seem completely ignore the clear difference between to hate Allah as an atheist and to hate Allah while believing in his existence.

Marcion did hate the god of Jews and he did believe in his existence, and therefore he did consider the Jews as his poor victims (at best), as blind puppets (at middle), as his willing servants (at worst).

You can't deny this evidence. And the fact that you deny the historicity of man ''Marcion of Sinope'' is the spy who betrays your clear apologetical difficulty in accepting this clear evidence (that Marcion did hate the god of Jews even when he did commiserate the Jews).

[Secret Alias]

You seem completely ignore the clear difference between to hate Allah as an atheist and to hate Allah while believing in his existence.

You obviously don't live in America. And with respect to antiquity do you think the negative portraits and references to the Jewish god outside of Marcion (allegedly) reflect the kinds of people who might like Jews? Where do you see examples of 'hate the god/love the worshippers'? I would suggest you read the so-called Acts of the Pagan Martyrs and the desire of pagans to kill Jews while insulting their religion or the account of Philo around the same time. Again it all starts with reading and familiarizing yourselves with primary sources and get out from the influence of 'personal beliefs.' I know it's hard but y'all should try it some time.

[Secret Alias]

Another piece of evidence Eznik says somewhere in his Against the Sects that the Marcionites rejected the LXX and preferred the Hebrew text. There was even a Marcionite Targum a Greek translation of the Jewish writings). Marcion is often confused or indistinguishable from the most famous Targumist Aquila. The list goes on and on but first you have know what the sources are (I've just done that) and then - the hardest part - listen to what the sources say and decide on what they mean reigning in your person beliefs. I don't think you're capable of that buddy.

[Giuseppe]

Where do you see examples of 'hate the god/love the worshippers'?

For example, the fact that Marcion thought that the pious Jews only had to wait their human Messiah, and not the (Marcionite) Christians. He didn't call the Messiah expected by the Jews an ''anti-Christ''. Proto-catholics did.

Another piece of evidence Eznik says somewhere in his Against the Sects that the Marcionites rejected the LXX and preferred the Hebrew text.

This is an example of religious tolerance: the Jews had to be Jews, while the Christians had to be Christians: total separation. Old with old. New with new.

listen to what the sources say and decide on what they mean reigning in your person beliefs. I don't think you're capable of that buddy.

Surely I no, but prof Vinzent yes. And he doesn't seem to think as you about this topic. He is clear when he says that Marcion didnt' like the creator god.

[Secret Alias]

Read, Giuseppe, read and learn. Books often contain great ideas:

[img]

Indeed%20the%20confusion%20and%20similarity%20between%20Marcion%20and%20Aquila%20may%20account%20for%20the%20understanding%20of%20his%20birth%20in%20Sinope.%20%20As%20Harnack%20notes%20"the%20latter%20was%20an%20exact%20contemporary%20of%20Marcion;%20indeed,%20if%20one%20may%20trust%20Epiphanius,%20this%20Aquila%20too%20was%20born%20in%20Sinope%20(Iren.%20in%20Eus.%20HE%20V%208.10;%20Epiph.,%20de%20mens.%20et%20pond.%2014f.).%20%20It%20is%20remarkable%20that%20from%20this%20city%20there%20emerged%20simultaneously%20the%20sharpest%20adversary%20of%20Judaism%20and%20the%20most%20scrupulous%20translator%20of%20the%20Jewish%20sacred%20scriptures.%20Here%20one%20would%20like%20to%20learn%20something%20more%20in%20detail%20about%20the%20propaganda%20of%20Judaism%20and%20its%20antithetical%20effects,%20but%20the%20tradition%20is%20silent%20on%20this%20point.%20Marcion%20and%20Bible%20translator%20Aquila%20are%20not%20after%20all%20antithetical%20in%20every%20respect;%20there%20rather%20exists%20a%20certain%20affinity%20between%20them.%20Marcion%20too%20proposes%20to%20take%20nothing%20away%20from%20the%20letter%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament,%20and%20in%20his%20way%20he%20is%20as%20literal%20as%20Aquila.%20His%20ecclesiastical%20opponents%20indeed%20noted%20this%20about%20him%20and%20held%20it%20against%20him.%20%20The%20question%20suggests%20itself%20as%20to%20whether%20Marcion%20had%20not%20at%20some%20time%20been%20closely%20related%20to%20Judaism.%20One%20detects%20nothing%20of%20the%20Hellenistic%20spirit%20in%20him,%20the%20Jewish%20expositions%20of%20the%20Old%20Testament%20are%20well%20known%20to%20him,%20and%20his%20entire%20and%20his%20entire%20attitude%20toward%20the%20Old%20Testament%20and%20Judaism%20can%20best%20be%20understood%20as%20one%20of%20resentment.%20In%20the%20Neue%20Studien%20zu%20Marcion%20(p.%2015)%20I%20have%20already%20proposed%20the%20hypothesis%20that%20Marcion%20or%20his%20family%20came%20out%20of%20Judaism;%20Jewish%20proselyte%20status%20preceded%20the%20conversion%20to%20Christianity,%20a%20step%20which%20is%20not%20indeed%20surprising%20but%20was%20rather%20the%20rule%20in%20the%20conversions%20of%20the%20earliest%20period.%20%20https://books.google.com/books?id=1ixKAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&dq=%22studien+zu+Marcion+(p.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhqKjMp5vMAhUP2mMKHa_KD5UQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22studien%20zu%20Marcion%20(p.%22&f=false

[/img]

[Secret Alias]

Read, Giuseppe, read and learn. Books often contain great ideas. Indeed the confusion and similarity between Marcion and Aquila may account for the understanding of his birth in Sinope. As Harnack notes:

"the latter was an exact contemporary of Marcion; indeed, if one may trust Epiphanius, this Aquila too was born in Sinope (Iren. in Eus. HE V 8.10; Epiph., de mens. et pond. 14f.). It is remarkable that from this city there emerged simultaneously the sharpest adversary of Judaism and the most scrupulous translator of the Jewish sacred scriptures. Here one would like to learn something more in detail about the propaganda of Judaism and its antithetical effects, but the tradition is silent on this point. Marcion and Bible translator Aquila are not after all antithetical in every respect; there rather exists a certain affinity between them. Marcion too proposes to take nothing away from the letter of the Old Testament, and in his way he is as literal as Aquila. His ecclesiastical opponents indeed noted this about him and held it against him. The question suggests itself as to whether Marcion had not at some time been closely related to Judaism. One detects nothing of the Hellenistic spirit in him, the Jewish expositions of the Old Testament are well known to him, and his entire and his entire attitude toward the Old Testament and Judaism can best be understood as one of resentment. In the Neue Studien zu Marcion (p. 15) I have already proposed the hypothesis that Marcion or his family came out of Judaism; Jewish proselyte status preceded the conversion to Christianity, a step which is not indeed surprising but was rather the rule in the conversions of the earliest period. https://books.google.com/books?id=1ixKA ... 22&f=false

[Secret Alias]

It's like having a discussion about what it's like to be married with 3 year olds. You simply have no expertise in these matters. Haven't read the necessary books. Only being interested in furthering your own agenda without doing the hard work.

[Secret Alias]

More from the same page from Harnack (taking a breath from work):

A further argument for this view is the fact that he explains the messianic prophecies in the same way as do the Jews.” Thus his Christianity is built upon a resentment towards Judaism and its religion.

I could go on. But the point is that most people here in the forum have what we might call a 'thumbnail' understanding of Marcion. That develops from the idea that:

1. Judaism was always like it was today
2. Paul sought 'freedom' from this Judaism whereas
3. Marcion 'hated' the Jews, Judaism and the god of the Jews.

It's not that simple. Judaism of that period was in transition and our understanding of Paul has been shaped by a corrupt collection of writings in his name. Even if we don't accept the Pastorals as genuine they influenced most of our earlier commentators. We have to give the benefit of the doubt that Marcion had rational reasons for believing in what he believed and these came principally from established texts, like our inherited opinions about Paul were entirely shaped by writings. Why the different conclusions? The respective canonical writings of the Marcionite and Orthodox faiths were radically different. That's how they arrived at radically different conclusions about Paul.