Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2314
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by StephenGoranson »

"Do you know about the drunk who lost his car keys and only looks for them near the street lamp, because the light is really good over there?"

For analysis of the history of that saying:

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/01/15/stats-drunk/
davidmartin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by davidmartin »

what about the pastorals as a reaction to Marcion?
i read yesterday about the suspicious use of the word 'antithesis' ἀντιθέσεις in 1 Timothy 6:20
So some suggest this pastoral at least is a reaction to Marcion which would make a lot of sense with Marcion known to reject (or perhaps not know) them and the content of the pastorals anti-Marcionite (are they?)
The problem I see with this is that the pastorals lack any knowledge of a gospel as far as i know and seem more likely to oppose them - that surely cannot be a position possible very far into the 2nd century, outside perhaps of a purist Pauline branch of the church perhaps that still resists the gospels
Then again the dates for Cerdo/Marcion are not really known and could be earlier than the 140's maybe?

To summarise this perhaps idiotic conclusion -
If the pastorals are a reaction to Marcion then the gospels were not fully accepted in his time, which could be as late as the mid 2nd century
If this seems unlikely then either Marcionism is earlier than that or the pastorals come from a certain wing of the church that did not use gospels

Anyone got a feel for this?

One last thought. How suspect are the gospels to the church fathers?
Luke - connected to Marcion
John - not fully accepted by some (as reported kind of late) and connected to the controversy in 1 John. Known to be the Valentinians favourite!
Mark - i recall somewhere a controversy around Mark in early fathers as used by heretics and 'low opinion'. I fail to remember the details
Matthew - the golden boy of the church as if by magic appears!
Gospel harmonies - at least 2 known produced by orthodoxy - if the gospels were so great then why?
All the heretical gospels - enough said
Why doesn't Acts relate the writing of the gospels? It relates everything else

We are inheritors of the 'Ireanean' view of the four gospels - there's no reason to think his view was standard prior to his time as regards acceptance of any gospels which i think explains all the variations and contradictions. I propose the gospels originated in the fringes outside of Pauline based orthodoxy, and the Pauline silence that dominates on the historical Jesus is simply an artifact of the evolution of orthodoxy. I don't know how to express this any better

PS For Ben this might be up your street - guy tries to date Matthew as post Marcion. What you think?
http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2 ... ip-of.html
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by perseusomega9 »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:42 am The problem I see with this is that the pastorals lack any knowledge of a gospel as far as i know and seem more likely to oppose them -
can you unpack the bolded part?
davidmartin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by davidmartin »

Sure,
For there are also many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, For this cause, reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn away from the truth
The circumcision party are Jewish Christians and the Jewish fables is their gospel and literature?
As I exhorted you to stay at Ephesus when I was going into Macedonia, that you might charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes
Those with a different doctrine had gospels
God was revealed in the flesh,
Justified in the spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
And received up in glory

But refuse profane and old wives' fables.
This doesn't come from any gospel, it's Paul's Gospel. The most your going to get from them is this on Jesus (only heavenly/present Christ)
The old wives fables are gospels, especially since some contain Mary's testimony on seeing Jesus
If anyone teaches a different doctrine, and doesn't consent to sound words, the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness
I think in all the pastorals the only place "words of our Lord Jesus Christ" are mentioned. It's an interpolation
Paul's gospel had no historical words of Jesus only what Paul said he said to him
Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel
That is, Paul's gospel-free Gospel
Hold the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, guard through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us.
Here we go, only what is heard from Paul is acceptable. It mentions nothing else received or heard elsewhere
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my Gospel ..
Remind them of these things, charging them in the sight of the Lord, that they don't argue about words
"Don't argue about words" like those found in the gospels only look to Paul's gospel
From infancy, you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction
Boom, the only sacred writings he means are the Hebrew scriptures
For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables
He means to the gospels which are now becoming more popular
The particular party of folk who wrote the pastorals lost and were swept away by the mid 2nd century. But because they were early-ish and from 'Paul' they got included in the canon. These guys clearly never had any kind of gospel, so why wouldn't they oppose them?

I should add, later yes some gospels were modded to be more acceptable/accepted and got their Pauline influence added then, not to mention the possibility some gospels were intentionally made to be acceptable before they were accepted and received their final forms. But originally - no gospel was accepted among Paul's church descendants as per these pastorals
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:27 am
From infancy, you have known the sacred writings which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus. Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction
Boom, the only sacred writings he means are the Hebrew scriptures
What about this?

1 Timothy 5.18: For the scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while he is threshing” (= Deuteronomy 25.4), and, “The worker is worthy of his wage” (= Matthew 10.10 = Luke 10.7).

davidmartin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by davidmartin »

I think that's a good interpolation candidate Ben. Once the officialised gospels were treated as scripture then someone thought they would add something in from Matthew or Luke. I think the context of these quotes is pretty strange. Double honour? What does that mean. Is a financial benefit implied which the Jesus quote accentuates? I see a motive here

The case for a historical Jesus grows stronger if it's an interpolation...
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:05 amDouble honour? What does that mean.
Well, it could just mean exactly what it says: honor all the brethren, but especially the elders. But I bet the exact formulation derives from scripture: the double portion due to the firstborn son in Jewish law.
Is a financial benefit implied which the Jesus quote accentuates? I see a motive here.
Oh, almost certainly. Church leaders like to be paid, too.

But I am wondering as to your methodology for these interpolations. It goes without saying that, if you eliminate all positive references to the gospels, what remains will not be positive toward the gospels. Without assuming your conclusion, then, what marks out an interpolation in the Pastorals?
davidmartin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by davidmartin »

The methodology isn't simply one of suspicion. If the thesis is the church of the pastorals has no gospels then the mountain to climb is all the gospel references found in them. But it's not a mountain, it's a mole hill. A few brief items that if removed don't even change the flow of the text.
I see nothing in any of Paul's writings or these pastorals to indicate they used a gospel or had a collection of Jesus's words. Do you?

Here's the thing. If these are the guys who mythicists say invented the gospels then wouldn't they have begun that process early and filled their other works with their creation? But we're supposed to believe suddenly they decided to craft the gospels and not talk about them?
Yes i think the chronology of gospels existing from late 1st century is reasonable but they were not accepted till later after all this stuff got written
Only this makes sense to me what i'm seeing. I might be seeing wrongly or have a blind spot i'm just saying what i see!

i think other branches of Christians probably did have gospels and used them and that doesn't exclude ones that also accepted Paul. That's another question separate from whether the big shot Pauline based churches did (assuming the author's of the pastorals are big shots), and the relationship between these branches means it isn't going to be a simple answer but you have to start somewhere
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidmartin wrote: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:38 am The methodology isn't simply one of suspicion. If the thesis is the church of the pastorals has no gospels then the mountain to climb is all the gospel references found in them. But it's not a mountain, it's a mole hill. A few brief items that if removed don't even change the flow of the text.
I see nothing in any of Paul's writings or these pastorals to indicate they used a gospel or had a collection of Jesus's words. Do you?
Well, yes. I see a quotation of Luke 10.7 as scripture and a reference to Jesus suffering under Pontius Pilate. You are correct that there are not many such references to remove, but what tells us to remove them?
Here's the thing. If these are the guys who mythicists say invented the gospels then wouldn't they have begun that process early and filled their other works with their creation?
I doubt that the authors of the Pastorals are exactly the same people who wrote the gospels. One can use gospel texts without having written them. I am not sure I understand you on this point.
But we're supposed to believe suddenly they decided to craft the gospels and not talk about them?
I think that the gospels served a certain range of purposes in earliest Christianity, and those purposes were limited in scope. The notion that if anybody knew the gospels they would automatically cling to them and refer to them all the time is a fallacy.

The genuine Pauline epistles I do think predate the gospels as we have them, but that is because I think that the genuine epistles (once interpolations are removed, which is not an easy process) predate 70 while the gospels postdate 70. Absolute dating in action. The rest is mostly relative dating for me, and I think that the Pastorals postdate several gospel texts. So does the epistle of Barnabas, which quotes Matthew (or something like it) as scripture. So do the Johannine epistles, which probably know something like our Mark.
davidmartin
Posts: 1596
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Johannine epistles as reaction to Marcionism?

Post by davidmartin »

thanks Ben
Well, yes. I see a quotation of Luke 10.7 as scripture and a reference to Jesus suffering under Pontius Pilate. You are correct that there are not many such references to remove, but what tells us to remove them?
Only if removing them helps solve a problem i guess that's true for flagging of all interpolations?

the problem i think it solves it how come there is such limited evidence for the gospel Jesus outside of the gospels, by suggesting the gospels were not widely accepted at first within the Pauline based churches (which are a primary component of Hellenistic orthadoxy?), thus they were not inheritors of the historical traditions to begin with

so it's part of a thesis i'm exploring which does require that Paul and the Pastorals in their original forms contained no gospel references whatsoever
I doubt that the authors of the Pastorals are exactly the same people who wrote the gospels. One can use gospel texts without having written them. I am not sure I understand you on this point
I just meant that if you are preaching that the son of God came to earth and worked salvation, there surely is a reason to speak of his earthly life and tell us something about him. What he said. What he did.
Logically this should precede the kind of theological treatises like the pastorals
But we don't see that (or where is the evidence they know the gospels?) and my question is why
Why should a Jesus myth be created later on and not before right at the start?

I think that the gospels served a certain range of purposes in earliest Christianity, and those purposes were limited in scope. The notion that if anybody knew the gospels they would automatically cling to them and refer to them all the time is a fallacy
ah i was waiting for that one. Let's line this up
The literal son of God walks the earth and whilst here says and does things. How can these not be the most important words ever spoken?
Yet outside the gospels in essence none of his words are mentioned! Is that really believable?
That doesn't make any sense to me if there's a historical figure, unless the transmission of the historical tradition struggled to make itself known among the varieties of Christianity that were emerging

I think the sources behind the gospels in their earliest forms do predate 70 but were heavily revised spawning multiple gospels over a long period. They are very hard to properly date
Post Reply