The third century orthodox originally claimed:
1. before Marcion there was a fourfold canon
2. Marcion, apparently associated with Rome, knew the four gospels allegedly established there, chose Luke from the four and "falsified it"
3. Justin supposedly knew Marcion and wrote a treatise against him
4. Marcion's falsification of Luke however was only addressed by Irenaeus at the turn of the third century
5. However in an alternative version of Adversus Haereses the Gospel of Mark, not Luke, appears to be linked with Marcion
6. The apparently justification for Marcion "falsification" of the gospel apparently comes from an interpretation of Galatians by the Marcionites where it would appear Paul had a gospel which was falsified by the Jerusalem Church.
7. The gospel most associated with the Jerusalem Church is the Gospel of the Hebrews which Irenaeus identifies as Matthew not Luke
8. Hegesippus, the chronicler of the alleged "Jerusalem Church tradition" is identified by having used the Gospel of Hebrews in Syriac
9. Hegesippus gives a version of Church History where heresies emerge only after the death of James
10. Papias in the early period of the second century seems to infer that Mark was the first gospel but that Matthew improved Mark by making the gospel narrative conform with "dominical logoi" which I and many others identify with the prophesies from the Jewish Writings (the so-called "Old Testament")
Given that (5) there was a version of Irenaeus which identified Mark, rather than Luke, as the gospel of the Marcionites (10) Papias's identification of the apparently "Judaizing" of Mark coincides with (6) the Marcionite understanding of the "Judaizing" of the Marcionite gospel.
The story of Marcion falsifying Luke is a later development perhaps developed from the spirit of ecumenism and to break the deadlock of two communities divided between two gospels. The Marcionite "gospel of Mark" does not have to be (and is unlikely to be) canonical Mark. But shared features and the writing habits of Mark. Justin's identification of his gospel as a "Memoir" essentially leaves the door open for a more polished version of the text which isn't referenced by the author in the same way the letters of Paul aren't mentioned by Justin even though it is almost universally acknowledged that he had to have used Paul especially if he is identified with the heretic Justinus in the same source Marcion is identified as using Mark. In other words, Justin implicitly witnesses two lengths of the gospel, one in the form of ἀπομνημονεύματα, not only in my mind coincides with Clement's use of Peter and Mark writing ὑπομνήματα, but necessarily a more polished version of the gospel which he didn't explicitly reference which could stand beside the Torah and perhaps even be superior to it. It would be hard to imagine the Christian community was founded on the belief of the superiority of an unpolished manuscript to the work of God's own divine hand.
In any event, the existence of ἀπομνημονεύματα/ὑπομνήματα and the implicit assumption of an expanded more polished "perfect" text of the gospel necessarily justified the emergence of Luke which is clearly an expansion of Mark even as they are arranged in the canon. The question that has puzzled me for decades is how did Christians justify the production of ever new gospels. How could they have allowed Luke to stand beside either Mark or Matthew when in former generations it was Mark OR Matthew. Clearly the community of Justin and Marcion already had a second gospel. Once we see that there wasn't ABSOLUTE UNITY with texts, once we see there wasn't one gospel from the beginning it was possible to make 2 or 3 or even 4. In Judaism the existence of two Torahs, the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy served as the justification for the manufacture of Joshua and then the rest of the Writings in Judaism.
Μαρκίων could be the name of an individual (Μαρκίωνος). Μαρκίων could also be a diminutive (i.e. Marcian) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9C%C ... F%89%CE%BD. It might signify a group admonished by Justin for only adhering to the shorter lengthened version of Mark which as noted came in two lengths and so Luke was created as a replacement (a fake) for the original longer length version of Mark rejected by the Marcionites. The point here of course is that Adversus Marcionem assumes the existence of a sect which:
1. did not accept a longer version of their gospel and turned around an accusation that they shortened the longer version to make their shorter version
2. instead of arguing that their version of Mark was "a lesser Mark" (implicit in their name Μαρκίων) Irenaeus developed the accusation that they shortened his gospel of Luke.
3. his argument that he will argue against the sect from the portions of Luke they retain would make sense if they used a "short Mark" as Luke is an expansion of Mark.
Doesn't mean that the portions he cites as allegedly being shared by both sects is accurate. Misinformation abounds in ancient inter-sectarian polemics. The Samaritans are not fairly reported or explained by the Rabbanites nor vice versa. The Sadducees and Samaritans are said to deny the Resurrection of the Dead and various other things which isn't true. As with Qumran and the piecing together of any dead sect WE HAVE TO BELIEVE that the surviving information is entirely accurate which we know deep in our hearts is absolutely unlikely as ancient people no less than modern partisans are inherently dishonest.
How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
The problem with Marcion is that
a) people want to dismiss Marcion
b) it's easy to dismiss Marcion because we have nothing besides one archaeological bit as evidence for the group and a bunch of third and fourth hand testimonies
c) since Marcion is a dead carcass we can pick and choose what we want to remember
I think my assessment above is a pretty fair assessment of the situation with Marcion and a plausible reconciliation of all the data. Better IMHO than the "professional Marcionites" who exaggerate the reliability of the Patristic witnesses (which I have already noted are third and fourth hand testimonies at best).
a) people want to dismiss Marcion
b) it's easy to dismiss Marcion because we have nothing besides one archaeological bit as evidence for the group and a bunch of third and fourth hand testimonies
c) since Marcion is a dead carcass we can pick and choose what we want to remember
I think my assessment above is a pretty fair assessment of the situation with Marcion and a plausible reconciliation of all the data. Better IMHO than the "professional Marcionites" who exaggerate the reliability of the Patristic witnesses (which I have already noted are third and fourth hand testimonies at best).
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
What's this? More details please.5. However in an alternative version of Adversus Haereses the Gospel of Mark, not Luke, appears to be linked with Marcion
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
The Philosophumena.
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
aka The Refutation of All HeresiesThe Philosophemena
(Greek: Φιλοσοφούμενα ή κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος;* Latin: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium)
whose attribution to Hippolytus of Rome or an unknown "Pseudo-Hippolytus" is disputed (Litwa calls the author 'the Refutator')
The first book, a synopsis of Greek philosophy, circulated separately in several manuscripts and was known as the Φιλοσοφούμενα - Philosophoumena - "philosophical teachings" - a title which some extend to the whole work
Books IV-X were recovered in 1842 in a manuscript at Mount Athos, while books II and III remain lost
eta
For 'Φιλοσοφούμενα ή κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος,' Deepl gives 'Philosophy or control of all heresies'
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
It is UNIVERSALLY acknowledged that the author of the Philosophumena read Irenaeus's account of the Marcosians and - responding to criticisms by the Marcosians about Irenaeus's account of their sect - completely purged the original account especially of negative comments. The change from "Marcion used Luke and the letters of Paul" is also changed to Marcion used Mark and the letters of Paul. How can that not be a similar correction based on better information?
Are you referring to the account of Markos the Valentinian in book 6, sections 39ff and/or the account of Marcion in book 7?
39.1. ... Markos was an expert in magic. He deceived many people by practicing some feats by trickery, and others by demons. This fool used to declare that there was in him the “Greatest Power” from the “invisible and unnamable Places.”
2. he would often take a chalice as though offering the Eucharist. After far extending the formula of invocation, he would make the mixture appear purple, and then red. Consequently, it seemed to his dupes that a certain “Grace” had descended and supplied a bloody power to the drink ...
40.1 after mixing a chalice handed over by an assistant, he would give it to a woman to say the eucharistic formula while he stood alongside. Then he would take hold of a different chalice, empty and larger than the first. When the deceived woman had said the eucharistic formula, he would take the smaller chalice and tilt it toward the larger. Then, after many times pouring one into the other, he would pronounce over her the following words:
41.3. Through trickery, they suppose that they retain their listeners.
When they consider them to be approved and able to preserve what has been entrusted to them, they conduct them to this bath.
But they are not satisfied by this alone. They even promise something else so as to control them with hope, so that they never break away. 4. They mutter something in an inaudible voice, laying their hands on the one who received redemption. They claim that what they whisper cannot be blithely declared unless one be “super-approved” ...
42.1. Indeed, the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, attacking them quite boldly in his refutation, also presented these sorts of washings and redemptions and spoke more fully about their practices. When they read this, some of them denied that these were their traditions, because they are taught always to deny it. So the thought occurred to me to investigate more accurately and to research in detail what they pass on as tradition in the “first bath” (as they call it) and in the second bath, which they call “redemption.” 2. Not even their “unspeakable mystery” escaped my notice—but let this be relinquished to Valentinus and to his school.
Now Markos, in imitation of his teacher, also fabricated a vision, supposing that in this way he would be glorified. For in fact, Valentinus claims that he saw a child, an infant recently born. When he inquired to find out who he was, the child replied that he was the Word. Then, by adding a tragic myth, Valentinus wanted to establish from it his own trumped-up heresy.
3. Daring the likes of this man, Markos says that the Tetrad descended to him in the shape of a woman—since, he says, the world was not able to bear her male form—and disclosed both her identity and the origin of all things, which she had never before revealed either to gods or to human beings. To him alone she described it, speaking as follows:
7.31.5. Closely adhering to these doctrines, Markion entirely rejected the birth of our Savior, supposing it absurd that the Word that strives together with Love (that is, with the Good) be born in subjection to the bodily formation of destructive Strife. Rather, without birth “in the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar,”169 the Word—a being between evil and good—descended from above and taught in the synagogues.170 6. Since the Word is an intermediate between good and evil, he says, he is freed from all evil nature. Yet the Artificer is evil, Markion claims, along with his products.
For this reason, Jesus came down unborn, he says, to be free from all evil.
But he was also free, he says, of the good nature so as to be in between, as Paul declares,171 and as Jesus himself agrees: “Why do you call me good (ἀγαθόν;)? One is good (ἀγαθός).”172
7. These are the views of Markion, by which he deceived many. By using the theories of Empedokles and by adapting the philosophy invented by that man to his own theory, he concocted a godless heresy. 8. ... When they claim Christ’s disciples as their teachers, they slander them!
171. cf. 1 Tim 2:5: εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων (“and there is one mediator between God and human beings”). Marcovich suspects a lacuna here and was tempted to fill it with a quote from Gal 3:20: ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν (“but a mediator does not mediate one party”). cf. Clem. Alex., Exc. 53.2.
172. Mark 10:18 par.; cf. Ref. 5.7.26 (Naassenes); Origen, Princ. 2.5.1.
But since it seems to me that I have sufficiently presented his views, let us see what Karpokrates affirms.173
32.1. Karpokrates says that the world and its contents were made by angels far subordinate to the unborn Father, and that Jesus was born from Joseph, substantially the same as other human beings, although he was more just. This is because his soul, born vigorous and pure, remembered what it saw when it circled round with the unborn God. For this reason, the Unborn sent down a power to his soul, so that through it Jesus’s soul might escape the makers of the world [cf. Seneca, Ep. 41.5]. He also sent the power down so that, when Jesus’s soul had passed through all, and had been freed from all, it might rise again to him, along with the souls that cling to what is similar to the soul of Jesus.
173 Our author’s account of Karpokrates is taken with modifications from Iren., Haer. 1.25.1–3, with bits from 1.25.4–5. Cf. Epiph., Pan. 27.1.1–6.11; Ps.-Tert., Adv. omn. haer. 3. See further Pétrement, Separate God, 347–50; Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 319–20.
2. They say that the soul of Jesus, although lawfully trained in Jewish customs, despised them. For this reason, he accomplished miracles. Through these miracles, he disabled the violent emotions attached to human beings that were designed for their punishment.176
3. They say that the soul, empowered in the same way as the soul of Christ, despises the world-making rulers and receives equal power to perform the same actions. Consequently, they have stooped to such a pitch of pride as to say that some of their followers are equal to Jesus himself, while others are still more powerful than he, and some are even superior to his disciples—like Peter and Paul and the rest of the apostles!
4. These people do not in any respect fall short of Jesus. This is because their souls have come here from the superior authority.177 For this reason, they too despise the world makers, are worthy of the same power as Jesus, and in the future advance to the same state as Jesus.178
176. Healing was associated with rooting out negative emotions (cf. Corp. herm. 1.27; 1.32; 13.7–9 [Festugière and Nock]; Porphyry, Abst. 4.16).
177. Irenaeus reads “from the same revolution” (ex eadem circumlatione); cf. Epiph., Pan. 27.2: ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς περιφορᾶς.
178. For the account of the soul’s equality to Jesus, see Tert., An. 23.2. For Karpokratians, Jesus is not an inimitable God but a fellow soul who pioneers a path of enlightenment that others can follow ...
39.1. ... Markos was an expert in magic. He deceived many people by practicing some feats by trickery, and others by demons. This fool used to declare that there was in him the “Greatest Power” from the “invisible and unnamable Places.”
2. he would often take a chalice as though offering the Eucharist. After far extending the formula of invocation, he would make the mixture appear purple, and then red. Consequently, it seemed to his dupes that a certain “Grace” had descended and supplied a bloody power to the drink ...
40.1 after mixing a chalice handed over by an assistant, he would give it to a woman to say the eucharistic formula while he stood alongside. Then he would take hold of a different chalice, empty and larger than the first. When the deceived woman had said the eucharistic formula, he would take the smaller chalice and tilt it toward the larger. Then, after many times pouring one into the other, he would pronounce over her the following words:
- 2. May Grace, who exists before the universe, who is inconceivable and unspeakable, fill your inner person and multiply in you the knowledge of her, as she implants the mustard seed into good soil!
41.3. Through trickery, they suppose that they retain their listeners.
When they consider them to be approved and able to preserve what has been entrusted to them, they conduct them to this bath.
But they are not satisfied by this alone. They even promise something else so as to control them with hope, so that they never break away. 4. They mutter something in an inaudible voice, laying their hands on the one who received redemption. They claim that what they whisper cannot be blithely declared unless one be “super-approved” ...
42.1. Indeed, the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, attacking them quite boldly in his refutation, also presented these sorts of washings and redemptions and spoke more fully about their practices. When they read this, some of them denied that these were their traditions, because they are taught always to deny it. So the thought occurred to me to investigate more accurately and to research in detail what they pass on as tradition in the “first bath” (as they call it) and in the second bath, which they call “redemption.” 2. Not even their “unspeakable mystery” escaped my notice—but let this be relinquished to Valentinus and to his school.
Now Markos, in imitation of his teacher, also fabricated a vision, supposing that in this way he would be glorified. For in fact, Valentinus claims that he saw a child, an infant recently born. When he inquired to find out who he was, the child replied that he was the Word. Then, by adding a tragic myth, Valentinus wanted to establish from it his own trumped-up heresy.
3. Daring the likes of this man, Markos says that the Tetrad descended to him in the shape of a woman—since, he says, the world was not able to bear her male form—and disclosed both her identity and the origin of all things, which she had never before revealed either to gods or to human beings. To him alone she described it, speaking as follows:
- 4. When the Father, who is inconceivable, beyond substance, and neither male nor female, first willed his unspeakable nature to be spoken, and the invisible to take shape, he opened his mouth and emanated a Word similar to himself. He, standing alongside him, showed to him what he was, having become manifest as the form of the Invisible.
7.31.5. Closely adhering to these doctrines, Markion entirely rejected the birth of our Savior, supposing it absurd that the Word that strives together with Love (that is, with the Good) be born in subjection to the bodily formation of destructive Strife. Rather, without birth “in the fifteenth year of the rule of Tiberius Caesar,”169 the Word—a being between evil and good—descended from above and taught in the synagogues.170 6. Since the Word is an intermediate between good and evil, he says, he is freed from all evil nature. Yet the Artificer is evil, Markion claims, along with his products.
For this reason, Jesus came down unborn, he says, to be free from all evil.
But he was also free, he says, of the good nature so as to be in between, as Paul declares,171 and as Jesus himself agrees: “Why do you call me good (ἀγαθόν;)? One is good (ἀγαθός).”172
7. These are the views of Markion, by which he deceived many. By using the theories of Empedokles and by adapting the philosophy invented by that man to his own theory, he concocted a godless heresy. 8. ... When they claim Christ’s disciples as their teachers, they slander them!
171. cf. 1 Tim 2:5: εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων (“and there is one mediator between God and human beings”). Marcovich suspects a lacuna here and was tempted to fill it with a quote from Gal 3:20: ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν (“but a mediator does not mediate one party”). cf. Clem. Alex., Exc. 53.2.
172. Mark 10:18 par.; cf. Ref. 5.7.26 (Naassenes); Origen, Princ. 2.5.1.
But since it seems to me that I have sufficiently presented his views, let us see what Karpokrates affirms.173
32.1. Karpokrates says that the world and its contents were made by angels far subordinate to the unborn Father, and that Jesus was born from Joseph, substantially the same as other human beings, although he was more just. This is because his soul, born vigorous and pure, remembered what it saw when it circled round with the unborn God. For this reason, the Unborn sent down a power to his soul, so that through it Jesus’s soul might escape the makers of the world [cf. Seneca, Ep. 41.5]. He also sent the power down so that, when Jesus’s soul had passed through all, and had been freed from all, it might rise again to him, along with the souls that cling to what is similar to the soul of Jesus.
173 Our author’s account of Karpokrates is taken with modifications from Iren., Haer. 1.25.1–3, with bits from 1.25.4–5. Cf. Epiph., Pan. 27.1.1–6.11; Ps.-Tert., Adv. omn. haer. 3. See further Pétrement, Separate God, 347–50; Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 319–20.
2. They say that the soul of Jesus, although lawfully trained in Jewish customs, despised them. For this reason, he accomplished miracles. Through these miracles, he disabled the violent emotions attached to human beings that were designed for their punishment.176
3. They say that the soul, empowered in the same way as the soul of Christ, despises the world-making rulers and receives equal power to perform the same actions. Consequently, they have stooped to such a pitch of pride as to say that some of their followers are equal to Jesus himself, while others are still more powerful than he, and some are even superior to his disciples—like Peter and Paul and the rest of the apostles!
4. These people do not in any respect fall short of Jesus. This is because their souls have come here from the superior authority.177 For this reason, they too despise the world makers, are worthy of the same power as Jesus, and in the future advance to the same state as Jesus.178
176. Healing was associated with rooting out negative emotions (cf. Corp. herm. 1.27; 1.32; 13.7–9 [Festugière and Nock]; Porphyry, Abst. 4.16).
177. Irenaeus reads “from the same revolution” (ex eadem circumlatione); cf. Epiph., Pan. 27.2: ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς περιφορᾶς.
178. For the account of the soul’s equality to Jesus, see Tert., An. 23.2. For Karpokratians, Jesus is not an inimitable God but a fellow soul who pioneers a path of enlightenment that others can follow ...
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
I am referring to what some Finnish scholar has suggested about the Philosophumena. He's right. The account of the Marcosians has been stripped of original hostility from Irenaeus after, the author of the Philosophumena notes, the Marcosians raised objections about Irenaeus's "coverage" of the sect.
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8619
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
Name?Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:04 pm I am referring to what some Finnish scholar has suggested about the Philosophumena. He's right.
-
Peter Kirby
- Site Admin
- Posts: 8619
- Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
- Location: Santa Clara
- Contact:
Re: How Could the Gospel of Marcion NOT be Older?
I think you have a good point.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2024 6:30 am In any event, the existence of ἀπομνημονεύματα/ὑπομνήματα and the implicit assumption of an expanded more polished "perfect" text of the gospel necessarily justified the emergence of Luke which is clearly an expansion of Mark even as they are arranged in the canon. The question that has puzzled me for decades is how did Christians justify the production of ever new gospels. How could they have allowed Luke to stand beside either Mark or Matthew when in former generations it was Mark OR Matthew. Clearly the community of Justin and Marcion already had a second gospel. Once we see that there wasn't ABSOLUTE UNITY with texts, once we see there wasn't one gospel from the beginning it was possible to make 2 or 3 or even 4. In Judaism the existence of two Torahs, the Tetrateuch and Deuteronomy served as the justification for the manufacture of Joshua and then the rest of the Writings in Judaism.
Μαρκίων could be the name of an individual (Μαρκίωνος). Μαρκίων could also be a diminutive (i.e. Marcian) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%9C%C ... F%89%CE%BD. It might signify a group admonished by Justin for only adhering to the shorter lengthened version of Mark which as noted came in two lengths and so Luke was created as a replacement (a fake) for the original longer length version of Mark rejected by the Marcionites. The point here of course is that Adversus Marcionem assumes the existence of a sect which:
1. did not accept a longer version of their gospel and turned around an accusation that they shortened the longer version to make their shorter version
2. instead of arguing that their version of Mark was "a lesser Mark" (implicit in their name Μαρκίων) Irenaeus developed the accusation that they shortened his gospel of Luke.
3. his argument that he will argue against the sect from the portions of Luke they retain would make sense if they used a "short Mark" as Luke is an expansion of Mark.
Attempting to build on this a bit: A diminutive name (IMO) can refer to the name itself ("Mark" here) and then add something that is descriptive. This could also be something that is specifying (that Mark), but it doesn't have to be specifying and distinguishing one "Mark" from another "Mark." It could also just be describing "Mark." A description of "Mark" as little / lesser / short just makes sense. Every text that has gone under the name "Mark" is shorter than the synoptic gospels known to be more popular among the orthodox, Matthew and Luke.
Your point about "memoirs" and more-finished texts also makes sense to me (not sure if it's necessarily proven but I like it). If the Marcionites are claimed to use "Mark" (Hippolytus/ps-Hippolytus), and if Justin claims to use a "memoir of Peter" that sounds a bit like canonical Mark, and if canonical Mark can be said to have this kind of quality about it in any case, this would provide a context where what ends up going into the canon under the name "Mark" was based on the rougher text.
A text that is "The Gospel," likewise, makes sense as "the" finished text, possibly before any competitors to be the finished text. So perhaps there was both a rough text and a more-finished text that were both being associated somehow with the name "Mark."
I may have taken this in unintended directions. I'm not quite sure if I did. If so, that's fine. That just makes it a productive idea.