Reconstructions of Marcion's Antitheses?

[Secret Alias]

That easy. How disappointing. More proof life REALLY isn't like a movie.

[Ken Olson]

Is there a scholarly reconstruction of Marcion's Antitheses more recent (and/or better) than Harnack's? Preferably one that cites its sources for each item in the reconstruction. (I'm aware of the discussion of the Antitheses in chapter 10 of Judith M. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (2015) 270-289).

Thanks,

Ken

I don't know about a full reconstruction. This is a good discussion, however:

Marcion's Antitheses and the Isagogic Genre, Eric W. Scherbenske
Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2010), pp. 255-279 (25 pages)

Thanks! I saw that cited in Lieu but it sounded a bit esoteric. Will take a look.

Best,

Ken

[Ken Olson]

will you guys give it a rest about Marcion? half the posts started are Marcionite

I sort of agree. I'd love to be able to concentrate on the Farrer vs. Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis issue, but you can't discuss the synoptic problem on this forum without Marcion (or Thomas) coming up.

When in Rome ...

[Peter Kirby]

will you guys give it a rest about Marcion? half the posts started are Marcionite

I sort of agree. I'd love to be able to concentrate on the Farrer vs. Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis issue, but you can't discuss the synoptic problem on this forum without Marcion (or Thomas) coming up.

When in Rome ...

It should be said that most problems, including this one, still have a mirror image if Marcion comes up. For example, even if some *Ev came before Luke, it's still possible that Matthew came after Luke. There's an implicit Farrer-ite assumption in most approaches to the synoptic problem when including Marcion that isn't intrinsic but, I think, mostly reflects the influence of Farrer, Goulder, and Goodacre themselves.

Likewise, even if *Ev came before Luke, it's still possible that the very out of favor hypotheses, the Augustinian or the Griesbach, were true in some form. Matthew could have been the first gospel that *Ev reduced. Or perhaps Mark could have been the last, which epitomized Matthew and Luke. There are many different conjunctions of hypotheses that can be remixed with a fourth text in the synoptic problem.

Obviously the existing four document synoptic diagrams, without just three simple lines of influence, all could receive more light from the inclusion of the text of such a fourth synoptic. Traditional ideas about Q could instead apply to a different source behind Matthew and Luke, not simply hypothetical, i.e. *Ev. Various hypotheses of a deutero-Mark or proto-Luke may also have had interesting things to say.

The gospel used by Marcion was a synoptic gospel, and discussion of the synoptic problem must include it. With no more justice could we omit Luke because it was third, nor omit Matthew because it was third, than we could omit this gospel.

[Secret Alias]

But Marcion is the ghost in the machine. He is Ezra. You can talk about "Moses" writing the Pentateuch but everyone knows (or knew) it was Ezra. You can talk about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but let's face it, the counter proposal was Marcion. That's why Marcion matters.

What is Christianity all about? On some level we all know that it was about the twilight of two powers theology. We know this because the opponents of the rabbinic authorities sound like early Christians and Justin's Dialogue and Tertullian Against Marcion sound like the mirror of the Mekilata. The modern theologians want to make Christianity about "the man Jesus." But it wasn't that. We all know it. Christianity and the proto-rabbinic tradition were locked in a battle for the identity of "Israel" in the second century. We get glimpses of this understanding from both sides. Marcion and Abuyah. Abuyah's disciple Meisha (later "Meir") went on to draft the first Mishnah, the first "canon" of acceptable halakhah. Neo-Marcionites must have dominate the orthodox Christian ranks to. There was this strange parallel development in Judaism and Christianity in the late second century which leads to monotheism on both sides (paradoxical for Christianity as the religion involves a "Father" and a "Son"; to make that tradition about "one power" was more than miraculous).

Marcion is important. Marcion is everything.

[Peter Kirby]

I also share the feeling that Marcion isn't everything, and we can suffer a poverty of understanding by not giving attention to other material.

[Secret Alias]

Everything else is pseudepigraphal.

[davidmartin]

Marcion is not "everything", he just comes along and joins Paul to a Jesus gospel and everyone copied that idea
Once you let go of Marcion all your problems are solved

I can think for hours about Christian origins without ever thinking of him at all
plenty of other directions / paths to take

everything really is up in the air is what i'm hearing
well, in that case is it possible to read 1 and 2 Thessalonians as a pre-Christian sect that didn't know Jesus?
when it talks about 'the day of the Lord' hasn't come, it means the heavenly redeemer hasn't physically come, it doesn't know Jesus at all.. but he is added into it later after initially opposing the Jesus movement
I've always thought the epistles/Paul may be a radical offshoot of the Jesus movement that wasn't in harmony with it, but it's also possible that this 'radical offshoot' existed already in another form and appropriated Jesus as the atoning sacrifice.. either way.. the origins of the Jesus movement stop at the epistles.. you can't go back further without abandoning them and by extension Marcion... and looking, yes at the synoptics but also John and all the other sources as well, Thomas, Odes, Shepherd, the fathers, gnostics.

[maryhelena]

will you guys give it a rest about Marcion? half the posts started are Marcionite

I sort of agree. I'd love to be able to concentrate on the Farrer vs. Matthean Posteriority Hypothesis issue, but you can't discuss the synoptic problem on this forum without Marcion (or Thomas) coming up.

When in Rome ...

--snip..

The gospel used by Marcion was a synoptic gospel, and discussion of the synoptic problem must include it. With no more justice could we omit Luke because it was third, nor omit Matthew because it was third, than we could omit this gospel.

Finding a place for the 15th year of Tiberius gospel, that was in Marcion's possession, is only part of the Marcion 'problem' for today's NT scholars. That gospel did not warrant labeling Marcion a heretic. The bigger problem for NT scholars is the Marcion Antithesis. Yes, one relies on the early church fathers writings. But if their words are a reflection of their thinking about Marcion then we need to consider where they are, so to speak, coming from. A historical gospel Jesus position would cloud their thinking on the Antithesis. A Pauline celestial christ position would go some way to understand what Marcion was about. A clash of course, still with us today - the Jesus historicists vs the Jesus mythicists/ahistoricists. History verse theology/philosophy. The church fathers opted for a historical Jesus rather than opting for Jewish history. Pauline theology/philosophy getting watered down (rulers of the age become earthly rulers) - along with Marcion's Antitheist. (Marcion's 'evil' god became a god of justice..) Instead the early church fathers played one synoptic gospel against another - just as today Marcion's gospel is still largely viewed as a mutilated copy of Luke.

(Basically - there are two crucifixion stories in the NT - the gospel earth based story and the Pauline vision/secret hidden wisdom story. Perhaps, in order to bring these two stories together - the Marcion Antithesis has a role to play...)