Evidence that Marcion existed

[MrMacSon]

So if there is anything to Acts 16:6-7, maybe it was because there was Jewish Christian opposition to Paul in these places (which culminated in Paul's expulsion from Jerusalem¹ in Acts 21-23).

¹ Paul may not have been expelled from Jerusalem - Jerusalem could be an interpolation(?)

[MrMacSon]

Was there, then, a possibility that Paul would have faced "prison and hardships" in Bithynia?

That seems to be an interesting idea. Very good observation. Some mentions of "Asia" in Acts point in the same direction.

24:16 So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. 17 Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. 18 While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia— 19 they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. 20 Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, 21 other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.’”

It seems that in Acts the Jews of Asia were the bitterest enemies of Paul.

[John2]

KK wrote:

It seems that in Acts the Jews of Asia were the bitterest enemies of Paul.

Did Paul have much success anywhere in Asia? Even in Galatia he appears to have had issues with Jewish Christians.

Gal. 1:6-9:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

Gal. 3:1-14:

You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness” ... For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

In my view, Paul had issues with pro-Torah Jewish Christians in Galatia who were 'bewitching' Galatians by preaching a "different gospel" and promoting Torah observance.

And then we have 1 Peter, which is addressed to Jewish Christians in provinces that are in Asia ("Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia"), and Revelation, which is also arguably Jewish Christian (and possibly anti-Pauline) and addressed to "the seven churches in the province of Asia" (1:4). So maybe Asia was a stronghold of anti-Pauline Jewish Christianity, like Acts indicates. Paul's other letters (tellingly?) are addressed to places outside of Asia: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon.

And prior to Paul's conversion, Acts 2:5-10 mentions Jewish believers from " Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia

Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven ... Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia ...

But Acts does show Paul preaching in Asia later.

19:8-10:

[In Ephesus] Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.

19:22-26:

He [Paul] sent two of his helpers, Timothy and Erastus, to Macedonia, while he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer ... And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia.

Now I'm confused. How do we square this with Acts 16:6-7?

Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to.

Was Paul only prevented from preaching in Asia for that particular moment in time then?

[John2]

It looks like Acts 16:6-7 is very close to (and thus is possibly a part of?) the "we passages" and Acts 19 is not. I wonder if that could explain the apparent contradiction.

"We passages":

16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16.

Acts 16:6-10:

6Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

[Ben C. Smith]

It looks like Acts 16:6-7 is very close to (and thus is possibly a part of?) the "we passages" and Acts 19 is not. I wonder if that could explain the apparent contradiction.

"We passages":

16:10-17, 20:5-15, 21:1-18, 27:1-28:16.

Of possible interest, the Latin translation of Irenaeus actually cites Acts as starting the "we" passages at 16.8 (Troas) instead of at 16.10 (Macedonia): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2107.

Acts 16:6-10:

6Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

[Ulan]

What I miss in this thread is a serious discussion (beyond Giuseppe's "evidence") of these two critical points. Is there a problem with Bithynia and Asia itself? If so what is the reliable argument that the problem was Marcion?

Note that I don't see any reason to claim the relation to Marcion at this specific point is in any way strong. I just think that we have to look at the situation in this area at the time of the Catholic redactor when we want to discuss points like this.

Of course, this depends a bit from which point of view you come from. I don't think that gLuke made it into the shortlist of the canonical 4 for any other reason than that it was the Marcionite gospel (similar to gJohn which had its origins from another proto-gnostic sect), and if you accept that canonical gLuke and Acts had the same author, you are already halfway there, where you have to consider the reasoning for the Catholic redaction not only behind any part of gLuke, but also of Acts. If you see Acts as the document that was composed to glue disparate streams of Christianity together, all more or less falls into place.

As I said, that doesn't mean the argument with regard to this specific point is particularly strong. Other explanations are still possible, but I don't think a question like "why would this have to do anything with Marcion" is warranted, given the most probable history of this text. If it's Marcion himself you have a problem with, just use Paul instead, who had similar problems with regard to his status as "Catholic".

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Of course, this depends a bit from which point of view you come from. I don't think that gLuke made it into the shortlist of the canonical 4 for any other reason than that it was the Marcionite gospel (similar to gJohn which had its origins from another proto-gnostic sect), and if you accept that canonical gLuke and Acts had the same author, you are already halfway there, where you have to consider the reasoning for the Catholic redaction not only behind any part of gLuke, but also of Acts. If you see Acts as the document that was composed to glue disparate streams of Christianity together, all more or less falls into place.

As I said, that doesn't mean the argument with regard to this specific point is particularly strong. Other explanations are still possible, but I don't think a question like "why would this have to do anything with Marcion" is warranted, given the most probable history of this text. If it's Marcion himself you have a problem with, just use Paul instead, who had similar problems with regard to his status as "Catholic".

That's exactly my interest in this thread. I think if we assume that there is a text in the NT, that was at least redacted with a counter-Marcionite approach, then it will be Acts. Acts may be our best possibility.

[Giuseppe]

More than Acts, I think Matthew is the more directly anti-Marcionite Gospel. Acts served only to secure the likes of Tertullian that "Paul is of ours" not necessarily against Marcion but against all the not-orthodox Paulophiles.