Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

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

Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

I just assumed - perhaps naively - that the Marcionites believed that a god named "Jesus" came down from heaven at the beginning of their gospel. But if you look at the paltry information on the subject Tertullian seems to stress that the god's name was "Christos" or more likely "Chrestos"
'Yes, but our god,' the Marcionites rejoin, 'though not re-
vealed from the beginning, or by virtue of any creation, yet has
by his own self been revealed in Christ Jesus.' One of my books1
will have reference to Christ and all that he stands for: for the
divisions of our subject have to be kept distinct, so as to receive
more complete and orderly treatment. For the time it must suffice
to follow up bur present argument so far as to prove, and that in
few words, that Christ Jesus is the representative of no other god
than the Creator. 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ
Jesus vouchsafed to glide down from heaven, a salutary spirit.'
In what year of the elder Antoninus the pestilential breeze2 of
Marcion's salvation, whose opinion this was, breathed out from
his own Pontus, I have forborne to inquire. But of this I am sure,
that he is an Antoninian heretic, impious under Pius. Now from
Tiberius to Antoninus there are a matter of a hundred and fifteen
and a half years and half a month. This length of time do they
posit between Christ and Marcion. Since therefore it was under
Antoninus that, as I have proved, Marcion first brought this god
on the scene, at once, if you are in your senses, the fact is clear.
The dates themselves put it beyond argument that that which
first came to light under Antoninus did not come to light under
Tiberius: that is, that the god of Antoninus' reign was not the
God of the reign of Tiberius, and therefore he who it is admitted
was first reported to exist by Marcion, had not been revealed
by Christ.
I am increasingly convinced the Marcionites were merely some sort of adoptionists.
“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: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

Interestingly the actual name "Jesus" rarely appears in book 1 (4x) and always as part of "XC IC."
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Giuseppe »

I agree about the fact that IF only Jesus was a later addition to a Christos, then the mythicist case would be proved beyond any doubt more easily. The name 'Jesus' is really a problem for mythicists: too much allusive to a historical man with the reference, in the name, to the concrete action of the Creator in the real History. And I say this even if in the night of times the hero Joshua was an euhemerized pre-israelite god.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

No you're not getting my point. Tertullian doesn't actually say that Jesus floated down from heaven. The context implies only that Christ came down from heaven. This might be the vestige of a reference to the John baptism or an allusion to Christ coming down from heaven. I tend to think the former just for simplicity sake.
“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
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Giuseppe »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:52 am No you're not getting my point. Tertullian doesn't actually say that Jesus floated down from heaven. The context implies only that Christ came down from heaven. This might be the vestige of a reference to the John baptism or an allusion to Christ coming down from heaven. I tend to think the former just for simplicity sake.
Yes, thanks for that. So the marcionite adoptionism simplifies very much the problem of why the earthly recipient of that heavenly Christ had (and could) to be called ''Jesus''. The spiritual Christ was using a part of the creation against the Creator.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

No reference to 'Jesus' in Book Two.

Here is the reference to Jesus in Book 4:

chapter 7

Exclamat ibidem spiritus daemonis, Quid nobis et tibi est Iesu?

Tantum quod synagogam introgressus, et nec sermone operatus aliquid adversus creatorem? Sicut ergo quem ignorabat nullo modo poterat Iesum
et sanctum dei agnoscere, ita quem norat agnovit. Nam et prophetam meminerat sanctum dei praedicasse, et Iesum nomen dei4 esse in filio Nave. Haec et ab angelo exceperat secundum nostrum evangelium: Propterea quod in te nascetur vocabitur sanctum, filius dei: et, Vocabis nomen eius Iesum. Sed et habebat utique sensum aliquem dominicae dispositionis (licet daemon tamen), magis quam alienae et nondum satis cognitae. Nam et praemisit, Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu?5 non quasi in extraneum, sed5 ad quem pertinent spiritus creatoris. Nec enim dixit, Quid tibi et nobis? sed, Quid nobis et tibi? se deplorans et sorti suae exprobrans; quam iam videns adicit, Venisti perdere nos. [13] Adeo iudicis et ultoris et, ut ita dixerim, saevi dei filium agnoverat Iesum, non optimi illius, et perdere et punire nescientis. Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus ? Ut Iesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum et a semetipso non alium confirmatum quam creatoris. Atquin, inquis, increpuit illum Iesus. Plane, ut invidiosum, et in ipsa confessione petulantem et male adulantem; quasi haec esset summa gloria Christi, si ad perditionem daemonum venisset et non potius ad hominum salutem, qui nec discipulos de subactione spirituum sed de candida salutis gloriari volebat. [14] Aut cur eum increpuit? Si quasi mentitum in totum, ergo non fuit Iesus, nec dei sanctus omnino: si quasi ex parte mentitum, quod eum Iesum quidem et sanctum dei, sed creatoris, existimasset, iniustissime increpuit hoc sentientem quod sciebat sentiendum, et hoc non existimantem quod ignorabat existimandum, alium Iesum et alterius dei sanctum. [15] Quodsi verisimiliorem statum non habet increpatio nisi quem nos interpretamur, iam ergo et daemon nihil mentitus est, non ob mendacium increpitus; ipse enim erat Iesus, praeter quem alium daemon agnovisse non poterat, et Iesus eum confirmavit6 quem agnoverat daemon, dum non ob mendacium increpat daemonem.

chapter 8

Sufficit interim mihi generalis repromissio. Quodcunque curaverit Iesus, meus est. Veniemus tamen et ad species curationum.

chapter 9

Argumenta enim figurata utpote prophetatae3 legis adhuc in suis imaginibus tuebatur, quae significabant hominem quondam peccatorem verbo mox dei emaculatum offerre debere munus deo apud templum, orationem scilicet et actionem gratiarum apud ecclesiam per Christum Iesum, catholicum patris sacerdotem.

chapter 10

Nominum communio simplex, si forte, videri potest, et tamen nec Christum nec Iesum vocari debuisse defendimus diversitatis condicionem tenentes.

Nec alius erit capacior utriusque quam qui prior et nomen sortitus est Christi et appellationem filii hominis, Iesus scilicet creatoris.

chapter 11

Et tamen per Iesum tunc quoque concussum est sabbatum, ut et hoc in Christum renuntiaretur.

chapter 13

two references to the Patriarch Joshua

chapter 20

Lege ex sorte1 familiae dirimendae in transitu eius Iordanis machaeram fuisse, cuius impetum atque decursum plane et Iesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare. Quid ad haec?

Cuius autem dei filium Iesum legio testata est?

Sed enim quia mentiti non erant, quia deum abyssi et suum cognoverant, ita eum se et ipse confirmavit quem cognoverunt daemones, Iesum iudicem et ultoris dei filium.

chapter 27

Iesus autem etiam interpretatus est ei legem, dicens illos calicis et catini exteriora emundare, interiora autem ipsorum plena esse rapina et iniquitate, ut significaret vasculorum munditias hominum esse intellegendas apud deum

chapter 36

Iesus autem Marcionis (et natus non dubitaretur qui homo videbatur) utique, qua non natus, nullam potuerat generis sui in publico habuisse notitiam, sed erat unus aliqui deputandus ex iis qui quoquo modo ignoti habebantur. [9] Cum igitur praetereuntem illum caecus audisset, cur exclamavit, Iesu, fili David, miserere mei! nisi quia filius David, id est ex familia David, non temere deputabatur per matrem et fratres, qui aliquando ex notitia utique annuntiati ei fuerant?

Non tamen confirmator erroris, immo etiam detector creatoris, ut non prius hanc caecitatem hominis illius enubilasset, ne ultra Iesum filium David existimaret. Atquinne patientiam eius infamaretis, nec ullam rationem dissimulationis illi affigeretis, nec filium David negaretis, manifestissime confirmavit caeci praedicationem et ipsa remuneratione medicinae et testimonio fidei. Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit. [11] Quid vis caecum credidisse? Ab illo deo descendisse Iesum ad deiectionem creatoris, ad destructionem legis et prophetarum? non illum esse qui ex radice Iesse et ex fructu lumborum David destinabatur, caecorum quoque remunerator? Sed nondum, puto, eiusmodi tunc caeci erant qualis Marcion, ut haec fuerit caeci illius fides qua crediderit in voce, Iesu fili David. [12] Qui hoc se et cognovit et cognosci ab omnibus voluit, fidem hominis etsi melius oculatam, etsi veri luminis compotem, exteriore quoque visione donavit, ut et nos regulam simulque mercedem fidei disceremus. Qui vult videre Iesum, David filium credat per virginis censum.

chapter 37

Consequitur et Zachaei domus salutem. Quo merito? Numquid vel ille crediderat Christum a Marcione venisse? Atquin adhuc in auribus erat omnium vox illa caeci, Miserere mei, Iesu fili David, et omnis populus laudes referebat deo, non Marcionis, sed David.

chapter 39

Olim constitit de nominum proprietate ei illam (competere)1
qui prior et Christum suum in homines annuntiaret et Iesum
transnominaret. Constabit itaque et de impudentia eius qui mul-
tos dicat venturos in nomine ipsius, quod non sit ipsius, si non
Christus et Iesus creatoris est, ad quem proprietas nominum
pertinet, amplius et prohibeat eos recipi quoram et ipse par sit,
ut qui proinde in nomine venit alieno: si non ipsius erat a men-
dacio nominis praevenire discipulos, qui per proprietatem nominis
possidebat veritatem eius. [2] Venient denique illi dicentes, Ego sum
Christus. Recipies eos, qui consimilem recepisti. Et hic enim in
nomine suo venit. Quid nunc, quod et ipse veniet nominum
dominus, Christus et Iesus creatoris?

chapter 42

Delectatus est denique Herodes viso Iesu, nec vocem
ullam ab eo audivit.

chapter 43

Bene autem quod incredulitas discipulorum
perseverabat, ut in finem usque defensio nostra consisteret Chri-
stum Iesum non alium se discipulis edidisse quam prophetarum.

conclusion

Exhibuimus Iesum Christum prophetarum doctrinis, sententiis, affectibus, sensibus, virtutibus, passionibus, etiam resurrectione, non alium quam creatoris; siquidem et apostolos mittens ad praedicandum universis nationibus, in omnem terram exire sonum eorum et in terminos terrae voces eorum, psalmum adimplendo praecepit. Misereor tui, Marcion, frustra laborasti. Christus enim Iesus in evangelio tuo meus est.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

And here is what I think is so stupid about Marcionite studies. If you used the logic that is typically employed from this text Adversus Marcionem, you'd have to say that 'Jesus' doesn't appear as a confirmed name i.e. that the main protagonist of the gospel is named 'Jesus.' Very, very few references in AM. Two references. But does that necessarily correlate to the Marcionite gospel? Were there only two references to Jesus in the Marcionite gospel? Can we say based on AM that 'Jesus' was 'cut out' of the Marcionite gospel? Can we say there were less 'Jesus' references?
“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: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

Very few 'Jesus' references - about 8 or 9 - in Book 5.
“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
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by MrMacSon »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:32 pm

'Yes, but our god,' the Marcionites rejoin, 'though not revealed from the beginning, or by virtue of any creation, yet has by his own self been revealed in Christ Jesus.'

One of my books1 will have reference to Christ and all that he stands for: for the divisions of our subject have to be kept distincta, so as to receive more complete and orderly treatment.

For the time it must suffice to follow up bur present argument so far as to prove, and that in few words, that 'Christ Jesus is the representative of no other god'b than the Creator
  • 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus vouchsafed to glide down from heaven, a salutary spirit.'
In what year of the elder Antoninus, the pestilential breeze2 of Marcion's salvationc, whose opinion this was, breathed out from his own Pontus, I have forborne to inquire. But of this I am sure, that he is an Antoninian heretic, impious under Piusd.

Now from Tiberius to Antoninus there are a matter of a hundred and fifteen and a half years and half a month. This length of time do they posit between Christ and Marcion. Since therefore it was under Antoninus that, as I have proved, Marcion first brought this god on the scene3, at once, if you are in your senses, the fact is clear.

The dates themselves put it beyond argument that that which first came to light under Antoninus did not come to light under Tiberiusf1: that is, that the god of Antoninus' reign was not the God of the reign of Tiberiusf2 and, therefore, he who it is admitted was first reported to exist by Marcion, had not been revealed by Christg.

Adv. Marc. [Against Marcion] Bk 1, chap 19. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03121.htm

a. 'the divisions of our subject' suggests two components. Why is Tertullian saying this?

b. nb. - 'a representative of a god' --- 'a' god, not the God

c. Why is Tertullian saying Antoninus saved Marcion??

d. Does this rhyme in Greek? or Latin?
  • impious
    • showing a lack of respect for God or religion.
    • (of a person or act) wicked
e. 'Marcion first brought this god on the scene' !!!

f1. 'that which first came to light under Antoninus did not come to light under Tiberius'
  • f2 "the god of Antoninus' reign was not the God of the reign of Tiberius'
g. He reported ''to exist'' by Marcion had not [previously] been revealed by Christ

---------------------------------------------

That reads like talk of a new deity

-----------------------------------------

Tertullian goes on

Now, to prove clearly what remains of the argument, I shall draw materials from my very adversaries. Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself. He therefore could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03121.htm
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Marcion Isn't a Slam Dunk for Mythicists

Post by Secret Alias »

I found the use of XCIC in the passage quite surprising. That it means 'Christ Jesus' is of course the orthodox solution. When I was flying recently I was wondering whether XCIC might have meant something else originally.
“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
Post Reply