"the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Both?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Secret Alias »

Also I think it highly likely that Papias was a member of the kata-Phrygians, the Montanists. Notice the details about a 'city appearing' which is related to the coming of the end times and the beginning of a second world.
“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
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote:It is difficult to know what to make of the passage but Stuart's myopia regarding Marion is clear. His slavish devotion to his preferred sources - Tertullian and Epiphanius -speaks volumes here. At least Papias might have had some direct evidence about Marcion and/or Marcionites. His preferred sources were working from earlier sources with only indirect knowledge of the phenomenon they were writing about. It's always murky with unreliable evidence like this. I happen to think T and E were using a common source albeit mutated beyond recognition as Patristic texts often were
You have my position quite wrong. I see Marcion, if he existed, as one of many heretical teachers. They only thing that makes him stand out is he had his own Canon, which is useful when trying to examine the origin of the texts. I do not give him primacy. Even his text demonstrates competition between two sects (camps really, with sects within).

What I do put weight on is the work of John Knox in isolating vocabulary differences between attested Marcionite words and those of the Catholic texts. (This is evidence you simply ignore, and it is the strongest there is for the text having been separate.) There are flaws in his work, but it points unquestionably to a separate text. But that is merely on the technical side. I like to work only with the attested text, because that reveals much about the theology, and importantly the conflicts in Christianity. There are distinct differences in the composition of the Church presented in the Marcionite attested text and the Catholic, which include (but not limited to) organizational hierarchy, relations with non-Christians (the material on interfaith marriages and the offspring, as well as initiates and visitors are from a time more than a generation later). To me that difference is what is fascinating and worth study. The theological debate I see as more political than structural - who gets to appoint bishops (another role which shows dramatic evolution over the text).

You also have wrong my view on the origins of Christianity. I see everything before the conclusion of Bar Kokhba revolt as a dark era, prehistoric as far as Christianity goes. There are no Christian texts we can date there. I don't like to waste time on speculating about that prehistoric era. I prefer to focus on the era of the texts, the 2nd century and early 3rd. I find almost all the text can be well explained in that era and with the known conflicting groups (which are more ecclesiastical than congregational) and exclusively in Greek. No need for gimmicks of "mistranslated" words, no need for phantom communities (Quelle studies gave us these in spades).

I prefer to compare the various Gospels to each other to examine the conflicts, the subtle twists in Language (eg, Matthew 23:23, 13 versus Luke 11:46, 52). That conflicts of such fundamental nature, and condemnation of each other (add John versus Matthew as well) are present from the very beginning suggests to me the NT was written as a result of the political (theology the convenient dividing line) competition. Evangelism was also the result. This IMO is why Christianity seems to appear and expand rapidly in the mid-2nd century. It's a repeat of the Puma versus Addidas war for world footwear domination.

My view on the Patristic writers and Christianized historians is similar. They are just as fraught with interpolation and being misplaced temporally by our built in traditional narrative as the NT texts. When I junked the textual narrative, I also junked the historical narrative. Everything needs to be examined with the same critical lens we give the NT. You have to determine their place by internal evidence, and not rely on the traditions of the 4th, 5th or 6th centuries.

My issue with you is an inability to summarize your opinion in anything similar to what I gave above. And your desire to drown out opinion with a flood of meaningless posts that fill the pages of this forum but have little focus. If you were sure of yourself you could say what you think in a single post and let others think what they may, figuring people will eventually get it right.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote:Also I think it highly likely that Papias was a member of the kata-Phrygians, the Montanists. Notice the details about a 'city appearing' which is related to the coming of the end times and the beginning of a second world.
Assuming you are correct on this point - based it appears on internal evidence - that would likely place the writings attributed to him in the early 3rd century, or at best the very end of the 2nd century, roughly contemporary with the writings attributed to Tertullian. This is consistent with exoteric focus.

See the problem yet with your accepting Eusubius' dating? Your own observations conflict with this.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Secret Alias »

I am still unsure why there is a problem accepting that religions like Christianity DID NOT have a distinction between 'inner' and 'outer' teachings.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Secret Alias »

You have my position quite wrong. I see Marcion, if he existed,


So you are open to the possibility that Marcion never existed. That in itself is a positive development.
as one of many heretical teachers. They only thing that makes him stand out is he had his own Canon, which is useful when trying to examine the origin of the texts. I do not give him primacy. Even his text demonstrates competition between two sects (camps really, with sects within).


How does the possible non-existence of Marcion affect your position? If all this assumes Marcion's existence what happens if Marcion DID NOT exist? Which of the Patristic sources do you feel provides us with the best evidence of who/what Marcion/Marcionism was a real historical phenomenon.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Secret Alias »

My issue with you is an inability to summarize your opinion in anything similar to what I gave above. And your desire to drown out opinion with a flood of meaningless posts that fill the pages of this forum but have little focus. If you were sure of yourself you could say what you think in a single post and let others think what they may, figuring people will eventually get it right.
Well aside from the fact that I enjoy dealing with messes (and the situation with Marcion is aptly described 'a [historical] mess') here goes:

I think Marcion was introduced in the late second century by means of Irenaeus's corruption of the Chronicle of Joseph (the Jew). This later work which extended the original episcopal list of Rome to the reign of Soter and Eleuter(i)us became known as 'Hegesippus's Outlines.' For some reason which is difficult for me to understand yet, the heresy associated with 'Marcellina' became transformed into a heretic named Marcion. As I said, how and why this occurred I haven't exactly determined as of yet. Papias's evidence is problematic for my theory given that it would suggest the existence of a historical Marcion and a relationship with a historical 'John.' My assumption is that Marcellina was associated with a philosophically inclined form of Christianity which Joseph the Jew disliked (or some other 'corrector' of Joseph's text before Irenaeus). My guess is that 'Marcellina' or the Marcellians somehow go back to the fabled Roman senator Marcellus memorialized in the Acts of Peter (in written form in the late second century) who seems to have been venerated or memorialized in the Marcionite communities in Osroene (cf the Acts of Archelaus) as something resembling a founder of the tradition. The similarity between the chronological marker 'Anicetus' in the Roman episcopal list to 'Anacletus' allowed for the shift away from "Marcion" being placed in the late first century (Clement of Alexandria, Marutha etc). Marcellus bears some relationship with the Gospel of Mark and its Latin provenance but how/why/what for I haven't got a clue. The memory of Marcellus assisted in the transformation of Marcellina to Marcion but beyond that I haven't a clue why any of this occurred.
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Secret Alias »

On the 'intentional' relationship between the Marcellus of the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Archelaus see Coyle - https://books.google.com/books?id=JQd8b ... 22&f=false
“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
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Secret Alias »

That both Marcion and Marcellus CAN be read as diminutive forms of the Roman name Marcus is likely the underlying connection between the two reports but it is hard to do anything with this information.
“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
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by Stuart »

Secret Alias wrote:
You have my position quite wrong. I see Marcion, if he existed,


So you are open to the possibility that Marcion never existed. That in itself is a positive development.
as one of many heretical teachers. They only thing that makes him stand out is he had his own Canon, which is useful when trying to examine the origin of the texts. I do not give him primacy. Even his text demonstrates competition between two sects (camps really, with sects within).


How does the possible non-existence of Marcion affect your position? If all this assumes Marcion's existence what happens if Marcion DID NOT exist? Which of the Patristic sources do you feel provides us with the best evidence of who/what Marcion/Marcionism was a real historical phenomenon.
This is no change in my position. I always separated legend from title. Paul, James, John, Simon/Peter, etc are all legend. Their stories are "Acts" of which there seem to have been many tales. But I extend this designation it to Papias, Justin, Polycarp, Marcion, Valentinus, and others. Belief in any one of these must be set aside in study. The literature must speak for itself.

The positions of Marcion are best drawn from the text strongly attested to his Canon. (I use Marcion here in the same sense I use Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as "authors", merely for convenience). I take all writings from the church fathers with a large grain of salt when it comes to the beliefs of their opponents. It's like reading some Liberal Democrat describing the positions of Conservative; there might be some points generally correct, but the motivation for the positions is often off the wall. (Note same applies the other way around, neither really gets what truly motivates the other, and so tend to project all sorts of evil reasons; "I'm for good, so anyone opposing me must be for evil.") Also the Church Fathers have not been aggressively subject to higher criticism - especially form criticism - the way the NT has. So I am wary of them. Mechanically Tertullian and to a lesser extend Epiphanius and Adamantius (plus a smattering of others for various verses, including Ambrose) are helpful to identify attested content. Beyond that they are all iffy - it is worth noting the legends they claim, but unlike the text from Luke and Paul we lack that support to vouchsafe them.

In a larger sense Matthew is also a source for the outlines of Marcionite opinion, by its opposition. Similar John is a source for the positions of Matthew in it's opposition to them.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: "the brothers who were in Pontus": Marcion's? John's? Bo

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote:
I think Marcion was introduced in the late second century by means of Irenaeus's corruption of the Chronicle of Joseph (the Jew). This later work which extended the original episcopal list of Rome to the reign of Soter and Eleuter(i)us became known as 'Hegesippus's Outlines.' For some reason which is difficult for me to understand yet, the heresy associated with 'Marcellina' became transformed into a heretic named Marcion. As I said, how and why this occurred I haven't exactly determined as of yet. Papias's evidence is problematic for my theory given that it would suggest the existence of a historical Marcion and a relationship with a historical 'John' ...
It is very unlikely there is a single historical 'John'.


Note, when you wrote,
Secret Alias wrote:
... I think it highly likely that Papias was a member of the kata-Phrygians, the Montanists. Notice the details about a 'city appearing' which is related to the coming of the end times and the beginning of a second world.
that, in turn, Stuart noted
Stuart wrote:
Assuming you are correct on this point - based it appears on internal evidence - that would likely place the writings attributed to him in the early 3rd century, or at best the very end of the 2nd century, roughly contemporary with the writings attributed to Tertullian. This is consistent with exoteric focus.
Post Reply