Difficulties With the (Lazy) Marcionite Gospel Reconstruction of Unsurprisingly Lazy Scholars of Marcionism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Difficulties With the (Lazy) Marcionite Gospel Reconstruction of Unsurprisingly Lazy Scholars of Marcionism

Post by Secret Alias »

Here's the problem. The text of Against Marcion, following our (false) Gospel of Luke makes a big deal about the Marcionites claiming that Jesus descended to Capernaum presumably from outer space or heaven or whatever. Because Tertullian says this and argues with an apparent text in front of him of some kind that the gospel says this - he only disputes the Marcionite interpretation of a descent from the wording of the gospel in front of him to mean "flying" or "descending from the heights" - it is taken by scholars of the Marcionite gospel that the Marcionite gospel says this.

Problem 1. The Syriac testimony regarding the Marcionite gospel says explicitly that the gospel begins with a descent to the place where Adam was created - i.e. the red desert sand where the Good Samaritan episode takes place - i.e. the midway point between Jericho and Jerusalem. This would seem to confirm the statement in various Church Fathers that the Marcionites claimed Jesus descended into "Judea" not "Galilee." Also it would confirm the suspicion that many scholars have (because it is hard to prove any of this) that there was no "Jesus being baptized by John" at the beginning of the gospel i.e. the place where the Good Samaritan episode happens is in a desert, there are no bodies of water (used for baptism) in a desert, it is also not near the river Jordan.

So scholars essentially have to choose between what Tertullian and Epiphanius say (which assumes that the Marcionite gospel looks like a variant text of Luke) and what the other sources say which would essentially make the Marcionite gospel take a completely unknown and unknowable shape and NOT SURPRISINGLY (because scholars HAVE TO PUBLISH IN ORDER TO STAY ALIVE) choose the "knowable" option.

Yet the advantages of having Jesus descend where Adam was created makes sense given that the Christian religion is founded on the idea of "the perfect Man" (Jesus) giving us the form that Adam had when he was perfect and divine. This is what Christianity is about. This is why it is successful (people wanted to buy into its ability to re-create us as gods, angels, divine beings. So having Jesus descend to the place where Adam was created makes this purpose explicit. It is also explicit in Origen's retelling of the Good Samaritan myth which would make sense because Origen's patron was a lapsed Marcionites. It would make it plain that beneath his convoluted messaging was a way of preserving Marcionism is a disguised form by cherry picking the falsified scriptures of the orthodox to maintain the original truth of Christianity.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Difficulties With the (Lazy) Marcionite Gospel Reconstruction of Unsurprisingly Lazy Scholars of Marcionism

Post by Secret Alias »

Another problem with the Capernaum option is that Tertullian spends a lot of time arguing on behalf of the appropriateness of a Galilee appearance using various scriptures to "prove" that what appears in the gospel he has in front of "confirms" Christianity is compatible with Judaism. To this end, Galilee is proved by this prophesy, Nazareth another, and so on. Because scholarship has traditionally assumed that Jesus was a historical figure and the gospel narrative was based on a historical occurrence (or "occurrences" perhaps) and then laid out in a "literary narrative" which somehow reflects this "historical occurrence" it was generally assumed that because three gospels confirm (and John doesn't contradict) our inherited narrative that Galilee, Capernaum, Nazareth etc were all laid out in the gospel because "they happened that way" i.e. that the "historical Jesus" actually appeared in Galilee and then followed the chronology laid out in the synoptic gospels.

Yet critical scholars know that Papias makes plain that (1) there were significant differences between "Mark" and "Matthew" as Papias knew them about the "ordering" of the gospel narratives (2) that Luke opens his gospel referencing these differences and Luke, in theory, was created as a response to or in relation to the Marcionite controversies and (3) that Against Marcion itself continually makes reference to the Marcionite gospel being in "bad order," having an "inferior order" or not having the correct order lends me to believe that the differences Papias witnessed between the ordering of "Mark" and "Matthew" were reflections of the differences between the Marcionite gospel and the "Jewish Christian" gospel of the Jerusalem community and that the difference in these gospels is reflected in the narrative from Galatians 2 and the Marcionites (and the orthodox) knew and accepted this paradigm.

But the real problem with the "Galilee according to prophesy" argument that is developed in Against Marcion is that it follows that if:

1. there were major differences in ordering between the Marcionite gospel and the Jewish Christian gospel
and
2. Papias testifies to these differences come down to the latter being according to a better reflection of the "dominical logoi" and that Carlson and I are right about these "dominical logoi" being the Old Testament prophesies which Against Marcion takes to be a reflection of the ordering of the Jewish Christian gospel (and later the synoptics which in essence "chose" their ordering over that of the Marcionite gospel) then:

A. the ordering of the Jewish Christian gospel might have less to do with an actual history (i.e. that Jesus went first to Galilee) rather than a desire to string together a list of "confirmations" of prophesy from a chosen list of Old Testament passages THE PASSAGES WHICH AGAINST MARCION DRAWS UP IN HIS COMMENTARY.
and
B. the effort of Tertullian to draw upon Isaiah, Lamentations and other "Old Testament texts" to confirm that Jesus and Christianity were compatible with Judaism might have all been part of an effort to DENY whatever ordering, whatever "Old Testament texts," whatever stories the Marcionites had in their gospel narrative.

In other words, since Papias and the orthodox took the particular prophesies that they chose to reflect the particular theological outlook that they wanted to reinforce as "dominical" i.e. "of the Lord" the Marcionite effort to establish a different end product was by nature hostile to God, the "true religion" (Judaism) and the Holy Spirit.

Here is the my main point. If, as we have just seen the Marcionite gospel started in Judea rather than Galilee and likely went from the place Adam was created to Jerusalem where Jesus had his first conflict with the authorities in the temple (as the gospel of John) it is very apparent that Marcionism had a negative message about Judaism. The orthodox message from the parallel Galilee ministry was "positive" about Judaism insofar as the Jewish prophets "did not prophesy the destruction of the Jewish religion." If you had two gospels with completely different narratives point for completely different teleological outcomes for Judaism and Christianity there was no way that orthodoxy could combat Marcionism other than to deny the Marcionite narrative and prefer the orthodox one (as Papias seems to have done). But Papias methodology would necessarily only lead to a "to each his own" philosophy as we see with Apelles when confronted by future Pope Callixtus regarding the monarchy.

The only way the orthodox could defeat the Marcionites was by pretending that the Marcionite gospel had the same basic order as the orthodox gospel and that the Marcionites interpreted from these common set of assumptions (i.e. a Galilean start to the narrative for instance) their own peculiar beliefs about Judaism and Christianity. Under this scenario (with the falsified Luke proposition) the Marcionites and their message could be defeated. If the Marcionites were allowed to have a completely different ordering of their gospel it would be a stalemate. In other words, when Tertullian argues that the gospel started with Galilee because of Isaiah and the very wording of cities and place names HE'S RIGHT. The particular placenames and Galilee were chosen because of Galilee. They were put together to confirm the "dominical logoi" in the same way we see the Passion narrative confirm the Psalms. Yet the fact that the gospel was put together according to a pastiche of scriptural passages listed in the Church Fathers this proves that the Marcionite ordering can't have been the same as the Marcionites denied the "dominical logoi" and are unlikely to have adapted a falsified ordering of their narrative in order to argue for their own set of "first principles."

The argument that the Marcionite gospel was a falsified synoptic text was just a falsified testimony to dispose of a group which had already been outlawed by Imperial decree in the period following the Boucolia revolt of 172 - 175 CE. The Imperial government had outlawed Marcionism. Their collection of Pauline writings was outlawed. Irenaeus tells us this same period was a "golden age" for the orthodox. The Marcionite falsified Luke argument could stand because Marcionites by defending their "true gospel" necessarily exposed themselves to belonging to an outlawed association. As such the falsified Luke argument and the arguments contained in Against Marcion have stood ever since.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Difficulties With the (Lazy) Marcionite Gospel Reconstruction of Unsurprisingly Lazy Scholars of Marcionism

Post by Secret Alias »

I am supposed to be collecting $85,000 in receivables but I hate it so here I am again.

Model 1. The orthodox model.

In the orthodox model we close our eyes and imagine the fourfold gospel coming down to Irenaeus. From whence did it come? We don't know. Let's imagine Irenaeus did the collection (no word yet on whether he EDITED the canon too). Irenaeus "collected" four texts. Three happen to agree explicitly with one another and then there is John whose main purpose was to "correct" the idea that Jesus ministered within one calendar year. Whatever. The threefold, fourfold model is confirmed by Celsus who seems know c. 178 CE of the development of the canon and mouths what must be Marcionite rejection of the canon. In Adamantius they refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as forgeries written in the name of people the Marcionites didn't recognize. But the point here is that THERE IS NO HISTORY. The texts just descend into the arms of Irenaeus IN A PERIOD WHERE WE KNOW THE MARCIONITES WERE BEING TORTURED AND KILLED AND THE ORTHODOX WERE BEING FAVORED. We know this from Celsus (who speaks of outlawed Christianity because of Marcionite principles and a "tolerable" form of Christianity). We know this from Marcionite references. We know this from the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs. Eusebius's historical reference to the period. etc. etc.

Model 2. The Marcionite model.

The Marcionite gospel dated from a period before the orthodox model because quite frankly Luke is an anti-Marcionite gospel taken to be the "original Marcionite gospel" before Marcion got his hands on it. We can surmise that the seriousness of the Marcionite textual criticism approach also caused the establishment of four texts as one gospel. The approach is paralleled in some way by Origen's Hexapla efforts with respect to the "Old Testament" and the Mishnah with respect to halakhah (i.e. that only a certain number of opinions were acceptable and this was limited in a canon). The fourfold gospel was the "fence" built around the Marcionite gospel to keep it "out" just as the Mishnah was the fence which kept orthodox "in." But there can be no doubt that the fourfold canon with John and Matthew offering a "outlier" readings that originally belonged to the Marcionites. So John's beginning of the gospel in Jerusalem (which was the Marcionite reading). A crypto-Marcionite (one who "forsook" his native tradition to be rebaptized an "orthodox") would have been horrified to see the false ordering of the orthodox gospel. But he could still pick and choose "moments" where familiar passages appeared albeit in a slightly different form.

The point here is that it can't be coincidence that "Luke" with its explicit references to textual controversies (and specifically Marcionite textual controversies) from a previous age i.e. "true order" just happens to land in the lap of Irenaeus IN A PERIOD WHEN MARCIONISM WAS OUTLAWED AND "ORTHODOXY" WAS BEING FAVORED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT. The fact that Irenaeus also tells us that he will write a thesis where he will use Luke to convict the Marcionites from the portion of Luke "they still retain" called "Against Marcion" which happens to be the explicit formulation of Tertullian's Against Marcion when Tertullian himself is demonstrated to repurpose treatises of Irenaeus AND MOREOVER that at least a few of Epiphanius's readings are derived from this tradition at least confirms that the methodology of Irenaeus was to disprove Marcionism and its gospel by making a four text "gospel" where Luke was the "Marcionite gospel." In short, the actual Marcionite gospel disappeared and was never explicitly cited or mentioned.
Post Reply