No "Descending" - The Myth About Marcion's Incipit

[DCHindley]

Ken,

Apparently, just holding the opinion that there may have been a flesh and blood Jesus who served as a nucleus around whom the legend of Jesus accreted, makes one an "apologist." Joe Wallack used to call me that too, for similar reasons. Just let it roll over you like water off of a duck's back.

[Ken Olson]

Ken,

Apparently, just holding the opinion that there may have been a flesh and blood Jesus who served as a nucleus around whom the legend of Jesus accreted, makes one an "apologist." Joe Wallack used to call me that too, for similar reasons. Just let it roll over you like water off of a duck's back.

Did someone call me an apologist? I don't really keep track of that kind of thing anymore. Too much substantive stuff with which to concern myself.

But thanks,

Ken

[DCHindley]

Ken,

Apparently, just holding the opinion that there may have been a flesh and blood Jesus who served as a nucleus around whom the legend of Jesus accreted, makes one an "apologist." Joe Wallack used to call me that too, for similar reasons. Just let it roll over you like water off of a duck's back.

Did someone call me an apologist? I don't really keep track of that kind of thing anymore. Too much substantive stuff with which to concern myself.

But thanks,

Ken

It was somewhere where G had said that he thought K had sold out to "apologists" but defines this as those who advocate a 1st century CE Nazareth, "and their friends." I got the impression that he was painting you with that same brush.

Of course, I agree that none of that apologist stuff matters. I consider articles by anyone who hypes the heck out of little things and uses colorful language when plain ol' language will do the trick to give the message some spin, as being in it for unhealthy reasons.

Regards,

DCH

[mlinssen]

Ken,

Apparently, just holding the opinion that there may have been a flesh and blood Jesus who served as a nucleus around whom the legend of Jesus accreted, makes one an "apologist." Joe Wallack used to call me that too, for similar reasons. Just let it roll over you like water off of a duck's back.

Did someone call me an apologist? I don't really keep track of that kind of thing anymore. Too much substantive stuff with which to concern myself.

But thanks,

Ken

It was somewhere where G had said that he thought K had sold out to "apologists" but defines this as those who advocate a 1st century CE Nazareth, "and their friends." I got the impression that he was painting you with that same brush.

Of course, I agree that none of that apologist stuff matters. I consider articles by anyone who hypes the heck out of little things and uses colorful language when plain ol' language will do the trick to give the message some spin, as being in it for unhealthy reasons.

Regards,

DCH

I think you got it from

• 1) Marcion precedes Luke (easy proof, only apologists deny it so I don't care about them)

[Peter Kirby]

Ken,

Apparently, just holding the opinion that there may have been a flesh and blood Jesus who served as a nucleus around whom the legend of Jesus accreted, makes one an "apologist." Joe Wallack used to call me that too, for similar reasons. Just let it roll over you like water off of a duck's back.

Did someone call me an apologist? I don't really keep track of that kind of thing anymore. Too much substantive stuff with which to concern myself.

But thanks,

Ken

It was somewhere where G had said that he thought K had sold out to "apologists" but defines this as those who advocate a 1st century CE Nazareth, "and their friends." I got the impression that he was painting you with that same brush.

Of course, I agree that none of that apologist stuff matters. I consider articles by anyone who hypes the heck out of little things and uses colorful language when plain ol' language will do the trick to give the message some spin, as being in it for unhealthy reasons.

Regards,

DCH

I think you got it from

• 1) Marcion precedes Luke (easy proof, only apologists deny it so I don't care about them)

Porque no los dos?

(which is to say, there is more shame in throwing around this word than in being called it)

[Giuseppe]

Never called Ken an apologist, even if I would call willingly so one who continually begs the plausibility of a historical kernel etc etc. Moreover in a thread where the Marcionite incipit is discussed.

[Giuseppe]

"The last possibility is the most likely" as kind concession to apologists, isn't it?

Kunigunde, do you believe really that Klinghardt isn't doing here a timide concession to apologists to exorcise suspicions about a possible "hidden agenda" behind his research on Marcion ?

I have slightly changed my opinion on the Klinghardt's agenda. He is obliged to believe in the descent from Nazaret, and not from heaven, for the reason well described by me here.

[DCHindley]

About "descending," hasn't Marcionite metaphysics come up here before (not necessarily on this thread)?

It was in relation to Plato's metaphysical views which Philo, Clement & Origen had adopted. Plato had a model where the earth is like the lake or seabed, full of water and muck, sand and debris. As one looks at the regions above the sea floor the properties get less dense, such as air, and that even higher up, the air is rarified, above that aether, but "above" that all is a region which has no physical presence, time or space. I think that Plato saw it as possible to rise from the bottom and rise up into the upper regions of the world, but I do not think that the entities he saw in the supercelestrial realm would "descend" from it, as it had no spatial dimensions. That could mean for Marcionites, depending how closely they adhered to Plato's model, that the actions of the redeemer christ were occurring in the physical world only, almost as projections of qualities in the supercelestrial realm. If there were reverberations occurring in the upper heavens of the physical world, that would be where any ascending or descending would be happening.

This is all part of my speculation that Tertullian (or his source, Justin or Irenaeus?) were making stuff up to diss perceived opponents. Look at internet ads trying to make us love Russia & hate Ukrainians, and vice versa. A modern example of craziness gone wild was the news from the Spanish civil war. Every battle, no matter how it went tactically, was claimed by both sides as "great victories."

I'll have to look up that Platonic cosmology again ...

[Secret Alias]

If people look at ACTUAL PATRISTIC TEXTS about Marcion they will see the "Jewishness" of the descent. From Ephrem:

And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he would remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him ? But perhaps the Maker [p. 91.] said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, 'If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up without Thy consent ?'

So there is this descent for the purpose of carrying off the souls of those who belong to the Creator - i.e. "purchase" - them. But how did the descent occur? In the very next lines after what we just cited:

And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn) ? Can it be |lxii (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

Over and over again it is said that there is a mountain which extends from the earth to the heavens and presumably at the very summit there is Paradise. This is the means by which Jesus "descended" to the earth. Just look how many times the "mountain" is mentioned here and elsewhere. This is a descent down a "high mountain." I see fifteen references in a few paragraphs:

These [two, why] were they sent ? For the Maker had myriads [l. 46.] of angels, if to make war [He desired] ... Or were they with [P. 89.] him to say to him (i.e. to Isu) : "If thou art really buying, in order to buy mankind,29 what is the price of mankind ? And if thou art taking mankind, why didst thou beforehand take the Twelve and the Seventy -two from the [flock] 30 of another ? . . . 31 Or can it be that thou art taking mankind [l. 12.] hence ? And art thou not, lo, he that said that before the foundation of the world thou knewest them ? 32 Why then didst thou not take them before, when as yet [thou didst not intend to [1. 27.] buy ?]"... If again they returned and said to him "[As for] mankind, because thou art about to buy them, if thou didst take them beforehand, nothing hinders (?) : this mountain that thou hast gone up—and why ?—was this mountain also really required for thee ? And if it is required for thee, give |lxi the price of it, seeing thou hast gone up ; and if it is not intended by thee to buy the mountain, get down off it; why wilt thou stir up enmity for thyself with the Maker about nothing ? But the price of mankind will not be found by thee to give to the Maker, for He has given no pledge." If such words were [P. 90.] put forward (lit. were in the midst), and things similar to them, [then] it was for war that they had come to him. But if Isu came to (wage) war, he was not a good Being, for he did not purchase ... it would not be right for a good Being to injure, [l. 14.] much less those whom he had not yet even purchased ! And were it not that our Maker is good and there is no end to his kindness, He would surely, not have trusted the Stranger so as to give him men to accompany him, when as yet he had not paid their price to Him. Or was there, forsooth, a bargain ? And did Isu say to the Maker, 'Give me men, and I will not depart from Thy house, that is, Thy creation, until I pay Thee their price ' ? And did not the Maker learn from the descent of Isu that he was also to ascend, so that as there was no one who perceived him when he came down, in like manner he would remove those whom he wished to purchase and carry (them) off without any one perceiving him ? But perhaps the Maker [p. 91.] said to him these very things, and Isu returned answer to Him and said to Him, 'If I carry (them) off, as Thou thinkest, in virtue of that which I did when coming down, those souls which I am purchasing from Thee, how can I take them up without Thy consent ?'

And that we may not explore too far into the perverse tale of Marcion, this pact that Moses, etc., agreed on with the Stranger in the mountain,—the glory moreover, which He shewed them in the mountain, for what purpose (was it shewn) ? Can it be |lxii (that it was done) in order that He might shew them that what He gave was greater than what He received ? Then also Moses, etc., sold themselves to Him there, on account of that surpassing glory which they saw. And perhaps Isu too shewed them that glory on the mountain in order to incite Moses, etc., so that because Moses and Elijah were accustomed to that surpassing vision of the Maker Isu shewed them that (his glory) surpassed that of the Maker, in order that they might desire it eagerly on [P. 92.] account of its surpassing character. Well, then, in short, they made a bargain with him, because they had loved him.

And if thou sayest that neither for a sale nor for a bargain had Moses, etc., come to Him, then why had they come to Him ? Can it be that they had come to fight ? And very likely It is that men would come to fight against God ! And which of them is it who strikes (the blow), or which is it who is struck ? Or did he on this account take his Apostles with him and cause them to ascend (the mountain), in order that they might wage war with the Prophets ? And which of the sides conquered there or lost ? But that battle, what was it for ? Can it have been on account of the love of their Gods ? And why would not those Gods themselves contend for the love of mankind ? For if the Gods are at peace, why do they contend about mankind ? . . . [l. 39.] For if created things are from One, unadvisedly did Isu [1.42.] interpose, ... If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . . [P.93.] against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' 33 [for] He had sent only two against them.

[1.10.] But [if] they say, ' If . . . is it not clear that because he was very strong on that account he did not overcome [him ? How] could two men [overcome] three ? [Were they just] two men — and not [both] alive, but one alive and one dead — to fight [a God] ! Was the Maker then really afraid to come, and on that account indeed did not come ? So that if He had come, He would have been killed ! Or can then a Divine Nature suffer pain, either |lxiii the Maker's or the Stranger's ? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him ? Or can it be that He really knew that Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come ? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear that he really perceived that they were stronger than he, and on that account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered] 34 after men, why was he [lo,] unable to [P. 94.] create this ? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God ! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' whom did He wish to cause to hear (it) ? Can it be that He was calling to Moses, etc., that He might make them His disciples ? Or that He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Isu) ? And from which heavens did He call ? Was it from the heaven of the Maker ? And why did He descend to it ? If, as it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be that the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven ? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes ? But if (the voice) came that it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo ! seeing that the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us that he is [P. 95.] not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain (were the prophets) of the Maker ?

For if the voice had come from the heaven of the Stranger perhaps it would have been reasonable for us to think that in order that mankind might not be mistaken, owing to the mountain and the cloud and Moses, etc., on that account the voice was coming to them from the heaven of the Stranger, so as to overthrow the opinion which they had concerning Isu. But if even the voice |lxiv which came was from the heaven of the Maker, it did not by any means disown him (by asserting) that he was not the Son of the Maker, but it actually confirmed it that he is the Son of the Maker, and the servants of his Father's house, who had come to do him honour, were witnesses (thereto).

So if Jesus "descended" the place had to be near a mountain. Is Capernaum near a mountain?

https://elevation.maplogs.com/poi/caper ... 63463.html

No mountains near Capernaum. It's actually -200 meters below sea level.

The place where the Syriac testimony on Marcion says Jesus descended (500 m above sea level)

https://elevation.maplogs.com/poi/ma_al ... 65861.html

Mount Zion 700 meters elevation

https://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=89868

Mount Gerizim the so-called "high mountain" of the Samaritan tradition 938 m (the tallest mountain in the world according to Samaritans because the invisible portion of the mountain reaches into the heavens:

https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5706/

Samaritans say that Mount Gerizim is spiritually the highest mountain in the world, even though Mount Ebal is physically much higher. The temple itself makes the location legally higher than any surrounding hill. It takes a little imagination to call Zion a mountain at all. Samaritans claimed that Gerizim was the holiest mountain, the place of the True One's presence, the house of God, the gate of heaven (Memar Marqah 2 #10), the place of the glory of God, the dwelling place of angels, and the place of blessings. This mountain is so high that the waters of the flood did not reach it (Memar Marqah 3 #4).

[Irish1975]

This movie sucks.

Now I know for sure Marcion wasn’t Jewish. He was a Samaritan.