My recreation of the opening of the First Gospel

[Peter Kirby]

This is probably how Marcion went about things.

oh no you didn't

[GakuseiDon]

This is probably how Marcion went about things.

oh no you didn't

I'm being serious. When I look at all the different theories being proposed on this board (including mine), I suspect we are seeing the same processes that created schisms in the early Christian church: "Somehow, the earliest Christians got it wrong, and this is what it should have been." That's what informs me with regards to my own Ebionite-origin for Christianity.

I know we need to take Tertullian with a huge grain of salt on his views of the early heretics, but I think he has a point when he writes in "Prescriptions against heretics":
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ian11.html

Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the AEons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato's school. From the same source came Marcion's better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved...

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."

Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!

Given that Greek philosophy held pride of place in the ancient world, it would have been inevitable that Christianity, assuming it came from Jewish roots, would be strongly influenced by Greek philosophical ideas as it expanded into the Roman world. Gospels would have been rewritten, epistles interpolated, to 'fix' the problems in the originals in line with personal ideas about what really happened.

How is what we are doing on this board any different to what Marcion did, assuming that Marcion was modifying Luke? Or what the proto-orthodox did, assuming they were modifying Marcion?

[Peter Kirby]

This is probably how Marcion went about things.

oh no you didn't

I'm being serious. When I look at all the different theories being proposed on this board (including mine), I suspect we are seeing the same processes that created schisms in the early Christian church: "Somehow, the earliest Christians got it wrong, and this is what it should have been." That's what informs me with regards to my own Ebionite-origin for Christianity.

I know we need to take Tertullian with a huge grain of salt on his views of the early heretics, but I think he has a point when he writes in "Prescriptions against heretics":
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ian11.html

Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the AEons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato's school. From the same source came Marcion's better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved...

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."

Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!

Given that Greek philosophy held pride of place in the ancient world, it would have been inevitable that Christianity, assuming it came from Jewish roots, would be strongly influenced by Greek philosophical ideas as it expanded into the Roman world. Gospels would have been rewritten, epistles interpolated, to 'fix' the problems in the originals in line with personal ideas about what really happened.

How is what we are doing on this board any different to what Marcion did, assuming that Marcion was modifying Luke? Or what the proto-orthodox did, assuming they were modifying Marcion?

It would be foolish to deny that it's a possibility.

It's not a new idea? Celsus already claimed that the gospels were refashioned several times to iron out inconsistencies.

I am starting to wonder if there were some Marcionite modifications to the Apostolikon. It would be strange to assume that all of the so-called perfidy happened on only one side of the aisle. For example, I am starting to wondering whether there were not only an anti-Marcionite interpolation in Romans 1:1-4 (something that I have suspected for a while) but also a couple pro-Marcionite deletions in Romans and Galatians. The classic argument that Marcionites never did anything to the scriptures (they have difficult passages still) isn't entirely convincing.

I am less inclined to give credit to the idea that the Gospel of Luke preceded the gospel used by Marcionites.

[MrMacSon]

I know we need to take Tertullian with a huge grain of salt on his views of the early heretics, but I think he has a point ...

To fix that:

• we need to take Tertullian with a huge grain of salt on his views of the early [Christian, pre-orthodox sects he besmirched as] heretics, [so] he [hardly] has a point [relevant to the true development of early Christianity, especially before his time, other than, like Irenaeus, being a key gate-keeper (and gas-lighter) who changed its course]...

Given that Greek philosophy held pride of place in the ancient world, it would have been inevitable that Christianity, assuming it came from Jewish roots, would be strongly influenced by Greek philosophical ideas

How about:

• Christianity came from Hellenised Egyptian philosophical roots and was Judaised (?)

[Joseph D. L.]

If the first Gospel was Marcionite then let's look at what we know:

1) The Marcionites discounted a biographical Jesus in favour of a purely conceptual Chrestus

2) John the Baptist was highly regarded among them; plus his ultimate fate is unknown

3) Somehow Chrestus usurps the Law of the Jews, and possibly the 12 Tables of Roman law

4) Paul was alone in his promotion as envoy of the Gospel of Chrestus

5) According to Tertullian Marcion had at least two texts, one for private use and the second for public consumption.

With this in mind we can consider the following as belonging to the original edition of the Marcionite text:

It was not a life account of Chrestus's ministry, and as a consequence did not describe in meaningful detail his death and resurrection; it contained edicts of practice that ran contrary to the earthly laws of Jews and gentiles alike; it must have as a means to an end foretold the coming of a Paraclete with an absence of all disciples; John the Baptist was a pre-existing figure in Jewish canon adopted by the text, perhaps even as a central figure announcing the Paraclete.

[Joseph D. L.]

What troubles me the most is what Justin relays about Marcion's teaching:

"And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator."

Is it ever explicitly said in either the Marcionite Evangelion and Apostolikon that the father is 1) alien from the god of the Jews, and 2) is superior to the god of the Jews? If not how then did this teaching get distributed for Justin to know it? Was it merely an interpretation that developed around Marcionite circles that Justin picked up?

Later on Irenaeus and Tertullian make this accusation and lump them in with the likes of Valentinians, but Justin is the first external witness to a teaching from Marcion himself and this teaching is not present in his canon.

[maryhelena]

When I look at all the different theories being proposed on this board (including mine), I suspect we are seeing the same processes that created schisms in the early Christian church: "Somehow, the earliest Christians got it wrong, and this is what it should have been." That's what informs me with regards to my own Ebionite-origin for Christianity.

Did the ''earliest Christians (get) it wrong'' ?

The gospel story being what it is - has allowed multiple interpretations. In other words - heresy. (I don't know the numbers but would be interesting to know if any other religion has as many sects as does Christianity). Hans Kung wrote:

Much more startling than the fact that the young Church was regarded as a 'heresy' is the fact that from the very beginning there were heresies within the Church. This shows that heresy is not a chance historical phenomenon, but something that is bound up with the nature of the Church.

Hans Kung: The Church

So - did the early Christians writers, the church fathers, get it wrong ? Indeed they did. They read the gospel story as a historical story. The gospel figure of Jesus was interpreted as a historical figure. Was this historicists interpretation of the gospel story the intention of the gospel writers ? We don't have any sworn statements to that effect....

What we have is a Jesus story. The gospel writers have left it open to their readers to make their own decisions, their own judgement on that story. How to make an informed decision ? Well, we could heed the advice James McLaren gave towards the writing of Josephus.

It is evident that the narrative of events contained in the gospel texts should not be taken at face value. The interpretative framework as outlined indicates that to distinguish between the comments and the narration of events is not possible. It is not simply a matter of dismissing the gospel interpretations, nor a matter of working out which version of an event is accurate. The interpretative process is more fundamental: it controls the entire choice of subject matter and, therefore, the overall picture that is being conveyed. We must now contend with the possibility that although we can make conclusions and observations regarding what the gospel writers narrates, what we can conclude is, in itself, the product of an interpretation. In other words, the picture being used to understand the first century CE in Judaea may not necessarily provide the reader with a 'full' or 'balanced' representation of what was happening in the territory. In effect, our major resource for examining the period is itself a constructed picture.

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times ? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE. page 67.

(with apologies to James McLaren for the substituting the gospel writers for Josephus)

How to get behind the gospel interpretation of history - read a history book. Read the historical source book. Searching for OT parallels or prophecies, while interesting, are the top dressing - they are not the historical framework of the gospel story.

It's easy to read the Jesus story as being historical - that somehow or another a human man became the vehicle of human salvation. That position simply allows theology to override common sense. No man, however great, can turn water into wine. What man can do is generate ideas that have the potential for human to prosper. Ideas come and they go - some have value and some are useless. Ideas there are a plenty - thanks to that heresy of almost 2 thousand years ago. Intellectual freedom has brought us to where we are - but if we are not careful ideas can enslave as well as liberate. A historical gospel Jesus interpretation (of whatever variant) has enslaved christianity for far too long - it needs to be put on that Calvary cross and allow the light of history to identify a way forward.

[GakuseiDon]

I wasn't trying to promote any particular theory, but imagine a GakuseiDon, or a Giuseppe, or a maryhelena, becoming convinced that their views of the early texts was theologically true, and started a schism based on that. That's a model of what's happening in the OP, and I believe that's what we see in Marcion's development of his beliefs. We are developing theories based on data that is marginal. Because there is so much low-quality data available, we can pick and choose from it to build anything we want. That must have been the case in Marcion's time as well, though he appears to have been building off already established ideas by earlier Christians like Cerdo and Valentnius. By Marcion's time, any firm data about Christianity's origin had probably been lost.

[GakuseiDon]

Did the ''earliest Christians (get) it wrong'' ?

The gospel story being what it is - has allowed multiple interpretations. In other words - heresy. (I don't know the numbers but would be interesting to know if any other religion has as many sects as does Christianity). Hans Kung wrote:

Much more startling than the fact that the young Church was regarded as a 'heresy' is the fact that from the very beginning there were heresies within the Church. This shows that heresy is not a chance historical phenomenon, but something that is bound up with the nature of the Church.

Hans Kung: The Church

It's bound up with the nature of money, IMHO. According to my own 'head canon', Christianity became popular because it worked. Jesus had become a mystery god in heaven whom could be invoked by anyone, with people apparently being healed and devils exorcised. Christianity was a cottage industry run by independent religious entrepreneurs as a money making scheme, in the same way other cults in the Roman Empire did. We have Peregrinus and Alexander the false prophet as examples. Schisms developed because they become prophet-able (pun intended!) They became more profitable if they could tap into already existing beliefs like Greek philosophy and Egytian mysticism.

So - did the early Christians writers, the church fathers, get it wrong ? Indeed they did. They read the gospel story as a historical story. The gospel figure of Jesus was interpreted as a historical figure. Was this historicists interpretation of the gospel story the intention of the gospel writers ? We don't have any sworn statements to that effect....

They didn't care about the historical Jesus. That's pretty obvious from the earliest sources. We care, so we assume they must have cared. But they didn't AFAICS. People only started caring when the Gospels began to become authoritative in the Second Century.

[Joseph D. L.]

By Marcion's time, any firm data about Christianity's origin had probably been lost.

Or hadn't yet emerged.