the marcionite meaning of 'Son of Man'

[Giuseppe]

Tertullian thinks that the locution 'Son of Man' is sufficient to confute Marcion's docetism:

For it must needs strain itself to such a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that (their Christ) is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood; and, on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest they grant that He was the Virgin's son. Since, however, the divine authority and the nature of the case, and common sense, do not admit this insane position of the heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in a veto in the briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ's body, against Marcion's phantoms.

I have written often that I consider the separationism as what Tertullian defined the Gnostic apology "to maintain that (their Christ) is also Son of man in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood" Afterall, it seems that the answer is the same reason why Marcion would have adored Jesus Christ, when ''Jesus'' is a evident allusion to the salvation of the Creator, not to the salvation from the Creator. Clearly I assume that Marcion used the name 'Jesus' as already well placed on the religious market (until to his coming in stage, exclusively of adorers of YHWH).

But could be the same with the locution 'son of man'? I don't think so. Paul never uses the term.

Since He is born of man, being the Son of man. He is body derived from body. You may, I assure you, more easily find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion himself, than without a body, like Marcion's Christ.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm


The evidence seems so supportive for Tertullian here, that I are moved to accept just the more embarrassing thing for the same Gnostics (according to Tertullian's words): that Jesus was lying, by calling himself ''son of man''.

But here is the more strange, patent difference (in my view) between Marcion and Mark about the use of 'Son of Man':

MARCION, 6.22 :

Saying: The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be put to death, and after three days, rise again.

Why does Mark point out the identity of the killers?
Mark 8:31 :

And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again.

MARCION, 21.7.

That it was necessary that the Son of Man should suffer, and be delivered up.

and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles. And they will mock him and spit on him, and flog him and kill him. And after three days he will rise.

(Mark 10:33-34)

For Mark and Luke and Matthew (I call them 'Judaizers' even if some of them may be separationist), 'Son of Man' is probably the Ideal Israel, the allusion to a group, not a individual.

But which was his meaning in Marcion?

It could be the individual, 'this man, I', to mean that Jesus wanted to show the contrast between the his apparent humanity and the great miracles done by him. The same contrast is alluded by Tertullian in reference to 'Hercules of fable':

on what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see. If through a human father, then you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one also, then you make Christ the Hercules of fable;

Hercules shows the same contrast: an apparent man (but really he is son of Zeus) who realizes the 12 Labours, etc.

So we know why the Judaizers added the identity of the killers of Jesus: they want to use the irony of scribes and pharisees who crucify the same Ideal Israel ('Son of Man' = Israel as per Enoch) but the result is the destruction of the old Israel.


In Marcion there was no need of a such irony, being for him 'Son of Man' = the apparent humanity of Jesus, the his 'body' in the eyes of who considered him a human being and a Jew.

I see surprising similarities between the Marcion's Jesus and Heracles:

Zeus made love to her after disguising himself as her husband, Amphitryon, home early from war (Amphitryon did return later the same night, and Alcmene became pregnant with his son at the same time, a case of heteropaternal superfecundation, where a woman carries twins sired by different fathers).[17] Thus, Heracles' very existence proved at least one of Zeus' many illicit affairs, and Hera often conspired against Zeus' mortal offspring as revenge for her husband's infidelities. His twin mortal brother, son of Amphitryon, was Iphicles, father of Heracles' charioteer Iolaus.

Heracles	Marcion's Jesus
he was considered son of a human father, Amphitryon	he was considered son of man, with a mother and brothers
who knew the divine origin of Heracles conspired against him: Hera	who knew the not-human origin of Jesus conspired against him: the demons
but Hera didn't know that Heracles would have won the her attacks	but the demons didn't know that Jesus was son of a higher god, not of the god creator.
Hera is in a dualistic relation with Zeus	The creator is opposed to the true Father of Jesus

It would be interesting to know if the demiurge, differently from the his demons, knew the identity of Jesus in Marcion's Gospel. If the demiurge is allegorized by Pilate, then he could have conspired against Jesus even if he knew that Jesus was from the Good God, since there is evidence that Pilate conspired against Jesus even if he knew the his innocence.

[robert j]

... Marcion's docetism ...

... I assume that Marcion ...

... difference (in my view) between Marcion and Mark ...

... MARCION, 6.22 ...

... MARCION, 21.7...

... But which was his meaning in Marcion? ...

... In Marcion there was ...

... I see surprising similarities between the Marcion's Jesus and ...

... the identity of Jesus in Marcion's Gospel ...

As others have repeatedly pointed out, the problem with all this, and many of your other posts, is that we don't really know what Marcion said, or did, or wrote, or believed. We only know what his doctrinal enemies wrote about him --- almost entirely in their polemics against "heresies". It's one-sided and tainted with bias.

One might as well try to write an accurate history of the Trump presidency, so far, using only his Twitter posts. At least those are his own words.

But I don't have any illusions that you might up-your-game

[Giuseppe]

I am for 80% persuaded that you are correct, that Marcion is definitely lost to us.

But being human curiosity and imagination so strong and connected (I don't know where the first becomes the second and vice versa), please let me dream with the 20% of being correct

[Secret Alias]

Marcion is definitely lost to us

If Marcion is unknown to us ... how are you so certain about the correctness of your thesis? If I am trying to find a lost dog named Marcion and no one has a clue what the dog looks like, what are the odds I am going to find Marcion? I'd have to conclude it's impossible to find this lost little dog. Giuseppe on the other would stumble upon some drunk vagabond who had an elaborate story about what the dog looked like, what kind of food it liked, the tricks it could do and walk away confidently that he knows Marcion and that his rediscovery was imminent. Odd the difference.

[robert j]

... let me dream with the 20% of being correct

I did notice at least some improvement over some other posts where unfounded surety was expressed or implied. I think we all tire of the necessity of using these modifiers at times, and sometimes forget, but IMO, at least a sprinkling of these terms is necessary when presenting arguments about early Christianity in which so much is uncertain and subject to interpretation and opinion.

Tertullian thinks ...

... I consider ...

... it seems that ...

... I don't think so ...

... The evidence seems ...

... (in my view) ...

... It could be ...

.. he could have ...

[Ben C. Smith]

I did notice at least some improvement over some other posts where unfounded surety was expressed or implied.

I noticed that, too. It was so much better than labeling interpretations (whether likely or not) as facts:

For me it is a fact that the 'new' teaching 'with authority', able alone to provoke an upheaval in the society (as per Mark 1:22), is to be considered a pure and simple 'MIRACLE'. And said miracle comes before of any demonic recognition. Is it clear?

And that proto-John had readers who read in a dualist sense his Jesus Son of Father (as not son of the creator) is a simple FACT.

We know as a Fact that the death of Stephan was modelled on the death of Jesus.

You can be free to think what you like about Golgotha as a literary element in a story and the possible reasons of the his presence, but it is a FACT that the more simple explanation of the presence of the same myth* behind both Philip 9/Rev 13:8 is that that same myth was there even before the date Philip 9/Rev 13:8 was written IMHO.

* because it is clearly a myth the idea that someone can be killed before the creation of the world.

[robert j]

I am for 80% persuaded that you are correct, that Marcion is definitely lost to us.

Marcion is not lost to us. Several “somewhat early” Patristics discuss him, his Marcionites, and other heretics.

I think my example of trying to write an accurate history of the Trump presidency only from his Twitter posts is apt. It’s possible to extract some broad strokes. But it’s very difficult to extract reliable information from one-sided and biased writing rife with polemics.

In a similar fashion, one can likely extract some at least partially reliable broad strokes about Marcion from the one-sided polemics of the Patristics. But as one gets more granular, bias and polemics become more of a factor.

[Giuseppe]

I am for 80% persuaded that you are correct, that Marcion is definitely lost to us.

Marcion is not lost to us. ....

”, he hates someone named Hilary

well: Secret Alias is questioning the same fact that Marcion hates the creator.

Beyond this, I interpret your words as a rejection a priori of the same possibility that Marcion's Gospel was the earliest. But my suspicions (that Mcn is earliest) are raised by the same Gospel of Mark: I see real marcionite antithesis in the Parable of Wineskins, for example. Or in the Parable of the Lamp. Or in the "wonderful teaching". Or in the false recognition by demons.

It is more strong than me, really.

For me it is difficult to ignore their marcionite clues and harmonize them in a reconstruction where all the Gospels were written before the 100 CE, when still there is no trace of Marcion and of the his anti-cosmism.

So the best I can do is to open an eye on the traditional dating of the gospels (especially if I have to argue with someone the thesis that Jesus never existed), while I am curious to read future commentaries on Marcion by prof Vinzent, for example. Limiting to correct him when he assumes gratis historicist premises.