Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by MrMacSon »

robert j wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:44 am
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 9:16 am Justin may only have known the Evangelion or he and Marcion may only have had theological conversations before it was written
Perhaps Justin and Marcion shared a theological conversation over a meal of someone’s liver, with fava beans and a nice Chianti.
Hah! I was being charitable on the basis that there apparently were civil, written theological (and perhaps philosophical) conversations between them eg. there's apparently at least a lost To Marcion letter or treatise by Justin
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by robert j »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:07 am
... Marcion knew ipso facto also the Evangelion + the Apostolikon + the Antitheses.
How do you know that a Marcionite Evangelion and Apostolikon were distinct and separate texts from the Marcionite opus the Antitheses?

BeDuhn makes this admission (highlighting mine) ----

Although few have questioned that Tertullian had direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon, we cannot be absolutely sure. A couple of features of his discussion invite caution. First, he frequently comments on Marcion’s interpretation and application of a particular verse, as if he is looking at Marcion’s Antitheses and drawing scriptural quotations from it, rather than directly from the Evangelion and Apostolikon. Second, Tertullian’s selective quotations from the Apostolikon possess a kind of running logic, as one quoted verse follows upon another in what has the appearance of a connected argument; yet that argument is not Tertullian’s. Rather, by selectively skipping over intervening material, a cogent Marcionite reading of Paul comes sharply into focus, which Tertullian does his best to disarticulate and refute. This impression is subjective, of course, and may be an illusion. But if Tertullian relied completely on the quotations of scripture in Marcion’s Antitheses, and did not have direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon , any comment he makes about passages missing from these texts would be suspect, the result of mere supposition on his part based on Marcion’s failure to quote them. (BeDuhn, The First New Testament, p. 35-36)

It is possible that the so-called Evangelion and Apostolikon, as reconstructed, are actually reconstructions of the respective portions of the Antitheses in which the Marcionites cited passages from narrative "Gospel" sources and from Paul's letters, and that the passages in the Antitheses were interspersed with running Marcionite commentary. Is that not possible?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by Giuseppe »

robert j wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:00 pm actually reconstructions of the respective portions of the Antitheses in which the Marcionites cited passages from narrative "Gospel" sources and from Paul's letters, and that the passages in the Antitheses were interspersed with running Marcionite commentary. Is that not possible?
in that case, the narrative "Gospel" sources would be quoted from the Evangelion.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by DCHindley »

robert j wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 1:00 pm
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 2:07 am
... Marcion knew ipso facto also the Evangelion + the Apostolikon + the Antitheses.
How do you know that a Marcionite Evangelion and Apostolikon were distinct and separate texts from the Marcionite opus the Antitheses?

BeDuhn makes this admission (highlighting mine) ----

Although few have questioned that Tertullian had direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon, we cannot be absolutely sure. A couple of features of his discussion invite caution. First, he frequently comments on Marcion’s interpretation and application of a particular verse, as if he is looking at Marcion’s Antitheses and drawing scriptural quotations from it, rather than directly from the Evangelion and Apostolikon. Second, Tertullian’s selective quotations from the Apostolikon possess a kind of running logic, as one quoted verse follows upon another in what has the appearance of a connected argument; yet that argument is not Tertullian’s. Rather, by selectively skipping over intervening material, a cogent Marcionite reading of Paul comes sharply into focus, which Tertullian does his best to disarticulate and refute. This impression is subjective, of course, and may be an illusion. But if Tertullian relied completely on the quotations of scripture in Marcion’s Antitheses, and did not have direct access to the Evangelion and Apostolikon , any comment he makes about passages missing from these texts would be suspect, the result of mere supposition on his part based on Marcion’s failure to quote them. (BeDuhn, The First New Testament, p. 35-36)

It is possible that the so-called Evangelion and Apostolikon, as reconstructed, are actually reconstructions of the respective portions of the Antitheses in which the Marcionites cited passages from narrative "Gospel" sources and from Paul's letters, and that the passages in the Antitheses were interspersed with running Marcionite commentary. Is that not possible?
Yes, I've also expressed in earlier threads this very possibility. It is one reason why I do not work myself into a froth over whether passages from canonical Luke are "attested" or "not attested." There really is a lot in the Adamantius story and in Eznik to put together the principals that Marcion taught formed the basis of the universe, and his charge that the God of the Judeans truly was the God who formed this material world, but was ignorant of the fact that he was not one of the principals of the cosmos, but a bad feedback loop that made his material reality defective.

It is my understanding that Marcion's Antithesis was a commentary of the NT based on statements in the NT that appeared antithetical. The portrayals of the way God thinks in the NT books vary widely from an angry but very just god to one that transcends all that anger, relaying grace which is selfless love, the exact opposite to an angry vindictive god. He decided that this graceful selfless divinity is the more authentic one. When Jesus arose and presented his concepts about the true god, he must have been revealing that he was sent by that good god to effect a rescue mission to redeem souls trapped in the Judean god's just but angry universe. It is a shame that all proto-orthodox "heresiologists" jumped on him and spun his realization of a higher god than the Judean god into a string of bizarre commentaries built on reconstructions of what Marcion MUST HAVE published. IMHO, they basically invented a straw man to knock down.

He may have believed that Paul had also preached this previously unknown god. The christological statements, as well as others that I would attribute to my Diaspora Jew who loved his gentile friends but didn't know Jesus, do preach an exalted redeemer figure and messages of love respectively.

DCH
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why Justin ignored deliberately Paul (and Celsus knew nothing about Paul) according to Walter Bauer

Post by Giuseppe »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 8:41 pm It is my understanding that Marcion's Antithesis was a commentary of the NT based on statements in the NT that appeared antithetical.
replace "appeared" in the quote above with "are" and you have a true proposition.
Post Reply