Implications of Marcion for early Christianity?

[RandyHelzerman]

was this gospel the first to name the 'wonder-worker- of the Slavonic Josephus story ?

Is Ev dependent on Josephus? Lk, probably, but I'd need more evidence that the Ev cribs from Josephus. Take a look at the opening line of the Ev:

in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, in the times of Pontius Pilate....

and compare with the parallel in Luke:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,

The evangelist of Ev doesn't even seem to know Pontius Pilate's title. I can imagine Luke reading this, heaving a sigh, and thinking that he really needs to beef this up. So he pulls down his copy of Josephus from the shelf, and puts in Pontius Pilate's title. And while he has it down anyways, and open to that section, he might as well include some more references to historical people, just to really say that this story happened on our timeline, in our spacetime.

[RandyHelzerman]

So we can imagine him interpreting this sentence just as literally---"came down" doesn't mean going from north to south, or from uptown to downtown. I literally means "came down". He just descended from the sky and sauntered into the local Synagogue to tell them what's what.

*chuckle* Tertullian makes a thing out of this---if Jesus just now appears in Capharnaum and nobody knows him, why would the let him into the Synagogue and start teaching?? Wouldn't they at least have to know he was circumcised?

But if I saw some guy descending from heaven, I'd sit down and listen to what he had to say.

And the demons sure knew who he was...

[maryhelena]

was this gospel the first to name the 'wonder-worker- of the Slavonic Josephus story ?

Is Ev dependent on Josephus? Lk, probably, but I'd need more evidence that the Ev cribs from Josephus. Take a look at the opening line of the Ev:

in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius in the times of Pontius Pilate....

and compare with the parallel in Luke:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,

The evangelist of Ev doesn't even seem to know Pontius Pilate's title. I can imagine Luke reading this, heaving a sigh, and thinking that he really needs to beef this up. So he pulls down his copy of Josephus from the shelf, and puts in Pontius Pilate's title. And while he has it down anyways, and open to that section, he might as well include some more references to historical people, just to really say that this story happened on our timeline, in our spacetime.

The writer of the gospel in the hands of Marcion did not need Josephus for dating Pilate in Judaea in the 15th year of Tiberius. Philo dated Pilate to the time of Tiberius. 14 to 37 b.c. Prior to the ambiguity in the Josephan dating of Pilate in Antiquities, a gospel writer could utilise all of the Tiberius years.

A gospel wanting to move forward the Slavonic Josephus birth narrative of the anointed one, from prior to the 15th year of Herod, could utilise a late date in the time Tiberius for a crucifixion story. The Tiberius cut off date is 37 c. e. 7 years back and it's around 29/30 c. e. The 15 year of Tiberius.

This 15th year of Tiberius for Pilate has bugged me for some time. I've even used it to suggest that neither Ev or Luke could have used it prior to Antiquities. I now think that approach was wrong. Josephus ambigious Pilate dating allows for an early and a late date for Pilate. One could go with Daniel Schwartz giving Pilate a very long term in Judaea or, my suggestion, Pilate had two terms in Judaea. Either way, a gospel writer did not need to wait for Antiquities to date Pilate to the 15th year of Tiberius. What this does do is allow both Ev and Luke to be dated earlier than Antiquities.
=======
Footnote

If the Pilate Stone is genuine then the name Pontius was associated with Pilate. Hence question of dating an issue ie would the Lukan writer know this prior to Antiquities. If not,
then Luke used Antiquities.... Leaving Ev prior to Antiquities...

[maryhelena]

So we can imagine him interpreting this sentence just as literally---"came down" doesn't mean going from north to south, or from uptown to downtown. I literally means "came down". He just descended from the sky and sauntered into the local Synagogue to tell them what's what.

*chuckle* Tertullian makes a thing out of this---if Jesus just now appears in Capharnaum and nobody knows him, why would the let him into the Synagogue and start teaching?? Wouldn't they at least have to know he was circumcised?

But if I saw some guy descending from heaven, I'd sit down and listen to what he had to say.

And the demons sure knew who he was...

Methinks.... Your more likely to have a heart attack....

[RandyHelzerman]

Methinks.... Your more likely to have a heart attack....

That's ok, Jesus could heal them.

w.r.t. the Josephus stuff, I'm afraid I know hardly anything about Josephus, let alone all the textual differences between the different versions, so I really couldn't speak to any of that.

[maryhelena]

Methinks.... Your more likely to have a heart attack....

That's ok, Jesus could heal them.

w.r.t. the Josephus stuff, I'm afraid I know hardly anything about Josephus, let alone all the textual differences between the different versions, so I really couldn't speak to any of that.

Ah, I slipped up there....the miracle man will raise you up.........

[John2]

For me, Hegesippus makes it clear that Marcion was just another name on a list of gnostics who sprang up after James died.

EH 4.22.4. The same author [Hegesippus] also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord.

Therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses.

5. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it. He also was sprung from the seven sects among the people, like Simon, from whom came the Simonians, and Cleobius, from whom came the Cleobians, and Dositheus, from whom came the Dositheans, and Gorthæus, from whom came the Goratheni, and Masbotheus, from whom came the Masbothæans. From them sprang the Menandrianists, and Marcionists, and Carpocratians, and Valentinians, and Basilidians, and Saturnilians. Each introduced privately and separately his own peculiar opinion. From them came false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who divided the unity of the Church by corrupt doctrines uttered against God and against his Christ.

Marcion wasn't even original, since he developed Cerdo's doctrine (Irenaeus AH 1.127.2: "Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine").

My guess is that Marcionism flourished after the Bar Kokhba war, when Jews and Judaism were in bad repute in the Roman world, as a way of distancing Christianity from its Jewish origin. There's nothing more to see here, as far as I can tell.

[RandyHelzerman]

For me, Hegesippus makes it clear that Marcion was just another name on a list of gnostics who sprang up after James died.

Sure, there were a lot of branches of Christianity back then. An amazing number.

Technically, Marcionites were not gnostics. Gnostics believe that you need special knowledge (gnosis) to escape this cosmic disaster area known as material embodied existence. They also believed that only a small percentage of people even have the capacity to gain this knowledge. Its for the few, not the many.

Marcionism was not like that. Sure, there are two Gods, but the good god accepts everybody. It was explicitly for the many, not for the few. If it hadn't endorsed celibacy, it might very well have swamped all other forms of Christianity. It was by far the most dangerous competition that the proto-orthodox faced.

As far as originality goes, Marcion never claimed to be a religions innovator. He claimed that his Evangelion and his Pauline letter collection were the original, unadulterated versions, and for all we know that might even be true.

Fun fact: As far as apostolic authority goes, Marcion's connection to the apostles is far better known than most proto-orthodox. Marcion was (as you say) a student of Cerdo, who was a student of Simon Magus, who was baptized by Phillip, and who was also a student of Peter. Acts doesn't even condemn Simon Magus as a heretic. Sure, he had to be corrected by Peter, but the same goes for a lot of people in the NT--including Peter.

What's Iraneus's chain of apostolic descent? Why does he tell us all about Marcion's, but nothing about his own??

[John2]

I knew I shouldn't have said "gnostic" for this very reason, but all I meant is "people who are generally called or associated with gnostics"/"people who came after James and corrupted the Church."

And the portrait of Simon Magus in Acts 8 seems fairly harsh to me:

18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money. 19“Give me this power as well,” he said, “so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20But Peter replied, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in our ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent, therefore, of your wickedness, and pray to the Lord. Perhaps He will forgive you for the intent of your heart. 23For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and captive to iniquity.”

24Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me, so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

And that's it. It doesn't go on to say what happens to Simon, and this left the door open for people to blame him (rightly or wrongly) for everything that went wrong with Christianity, because of Peter's harshness towards him.

As for what Simon says at the end, it seems similar to Jer. 37:

Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made Zedekiah son of Josiah the king of Judah, and he reigned in place of Coniaha son of Jehoiakim. 2But he and his officers and the people of the land refused to obey the words that the LORD had spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.

3Yet King Zedekiah sent Jehucalb son of Shelemiah and Zephaniah the priest, the son of Maaseiah, to Jeremiah the prophet with the message, “Please pray to the LORD our God for us!” ...

6Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet: 7“This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says that you are to tell the king of Judah, who sent you to Me: Behold, Pharaoh’s army, which has marched out to help you, will go back to its own land of Egypt. 8Then the Chaldeans will return and fight against this city. They will capture it and burn it down.

[John2]

What's Iraneus's chain of apostolic descent? Why does he tell us all about Marcion's, but nothing about his own??

It's in AH 3.3.4:

4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.