Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence?

[maryhelena]

In my experience, maryhelena, generally, there's no pay for an article.
For a book, depends on publisher and/or sales.

One example: I was co-author of
Origin of Kibosh: Routledge Studies in Etymology
(All serious libraries should have a copy!)
So far, royalties amount to less than the price of one copy.

I did get paid for an article in Bible Review:
"7 vs. 8: The Battle Over the Holy Day at Dura-Europos"
https://people.duke.edu/~goranson/Dura-Europos.pdf

Thanks for info.

I have used inter library in the past. For books or photo copy of articles.. but it takes time... and instant gratification means... I want it Now...

[RandyHelzerman]

But Marcion may well not be the first to write a book about Jesus and a book (largely) about Paul.

True, but:

The author of Luke-Acts may have preceded him.

That's literally the first time I heard anybody, anywhere, posit that Luke-Acts may have been written before the letters of Paul. I would be very curious as to why you think that might be the case.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Matthew, Luke, and John were not writing their works to be read alongside their predecessors and carry equal weight with them. I think they are correcting their predecessors and meant to supercede them.

Surely. E.g. Luke vs the Evangelion---no matter how you think the hookie-pokey went, whether Luke put it in or Marcion took it out, the birth narrative is obviously written in reaction to Mark's lack thereof, and IMHO even to the Evangelion's lack thereof.

Nevertheless....the author of Matthew must have gotten a copy of Mark from somewhere....and more than likely, he sent a copy of his gospel back that way. Did Matthew write his gospel to be read alongside of Mark?

I don't think the issue was settled with Irenaeus. He was the first we know of to list exactly the 27 books generally recognized as inspired and authoritative by almost all Christians sects today, but I think some of those books continued to be disputed in churches outside the Latin and Greek speaking world.

(perhaps you mean Athanasius?)
For sure. Even Luthor wanted to cut out Jude.

[Secret Alias]

Another good reason for thinking the Marcionites are first. In some ways Marcion stands closer to Justin than Irenaeus, his supposed "successor." It just naivete to take everything the Church Fathers say about the situation at the end of the second century at face value.

[RandyHelzerman]

Interesting developments re the NT canon. My interest is basically digging into the gospel Marcion had ie its role in the developing gospel Jesus story. I'll be crossing fingers Klinghardt can move the dial.....

Marcion is having his moment. I'm not as plugged into the scene...is Klinghardt expected to publish something cool?

Why do we pretend that this forum ...

You ok bro?

[Ken Olson]

But Marcion may well not be the first to write a book about Jesus and a book (largely) about Paul.

True, but:

The author of Luke-Acts may have preceded him.

That's literally the first time I heard anybody, anywhere, posit that Luke-Acts may have been written before the letters of Paul. I would be very curious as to why you think that might be the case.

I am not suggesting that Luke-Acts was written before Paul's letters. I'm suggesting that Luke may have published a book about Jesus and a book about Paul before Marcion published a book about Jesus (the Evangelion) and a book, the Apostolikon, in which the letters of Paul were gathered

I think at least 7 of the letters of Paul preceded Acts, and the author of Luke-Acts may have known some of them.

It seems obvious (at least to me) that Matthew, Luke, and John were not writing their works to be read alongside their predecessors and carry equal weight with them. I think they are correcting their predecessors and meant to supercede them.

Surely. E.g. Luke vs the Evangelion---no matter how you think the hookie-pokey went, whether Luke put it in or Marcion took it out, the birth narrative is obviously written in reaction to Mark's lack thereof, and IMHO even to the Evangelion's lack thereof.

I think Luke's birth narrative is written in reaction to Matthew's birth narrative, though the John the Baptist material in it is meant as a correction to Mark. Luke does not have John baptize Jesus.

Nevertheless....the author of Matthew must have gotten a copy of Mark from somewhere....and more than likely, he sent a copy of his gospel back that way. Did Matthew write his gospel to be read alongside of Mark?

No, I think he probably intended for his work to replace Mark's. By some estimates Matthew has 85% of Mark's content. I think it's slightly more.

I don't think the issue was settled with Irenaeus. He was the first we know of to list exactly the 27 books generally recognized as inspired and authoritative by almost all Christians sects today, but I think some of those books continued to be disputed in churches outside the Latin and Greek speaking world.

(perhaps you mean Athanasius?)
For sure. Even Luthor wanted to cut out Jude.

Yes; I meant Athanasius, not Irenaeus, in the Festal Letter of 367.

Perhaps you meant Luther?

Best,

Ken

[Secret Alias]

Here's the blind spot about Marcion. Ken wrote:

I'm suggesting that Luke may have published a book about Jesus

"Published" implies a public transmission of the gospel. I don't think THE gospel of the Marcionites was EVER published. That's what Secret Mark taught me. The Orthodox defeated the heresies by making it all about publication i.e. putting the works in the libraries of the Empire. The Marcionites kept their gospel hidden and obscure hence the appearance of Luke being before Marcion.

This:

I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ113 ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time114 condemned.

This says it all. The world only get's the Orthodox's side of the issue. Why? Because the Marcionite gospel was not "published." EVER. Amazing that no one in this idiotic debate has ever noticed this before. And this:

And so throughout this passage he makes it
plain which God's wisdom he is speaking among them that are
perfect—his in fact who has taken away the wisdom of the wise,
and made the prudence of the prudent of none effect, who has
made foolish the wisdom of the world, by choosing its foolish
things and ordaining them for salvation. This wisdom which he
says was kept secret is that which has been in things foolish and
little and dishonourable, which has also been hidden under
figures, both allegories and enigmas, but was afterwards to be
revealed in Christ who was set for a light of the gentiles by that
Creator who by the voice of Isaiah promises that he will open up
invisible and secret treasures.a For that anything should have been
kept hidden by that god who has never done anything at all under
which one might suppose he had hidden something, is incredible
enough: he himself, if he did exist, could not have remained
hidden: far less could any mysteries of his. The Creator however
is himself as well known as those mysteries of his which in Israel
ran in open succession, though in the shade in respect of what
they signified, mysteries in which was hidden that wisdom of God
which in its own time was to be spoken among those that were
perfect, but had been ordained in the purpose of God before the
ages. And whose ages, if not the Creator's?

[Secret Alias]

Again all these debates about the Marcionite gospel are stupid. It's stupid in the way that porn is stupid and never shows women rejecting sex which is 100% of the experience of most men in reality. Making the debate about a "published" Luke and an unpublished or "secret" Marcionite gospel and then pretending that the debate in antiquity was fair is reckless. Reckless fucking scholarship. Let me say it again RECKLESS FUCKING SCHOLARSHIP. It's like taking porn to document the reality of the sex lives of men in America. These debates are a fantasy world created by scholars where the truth is obvious, the facts were obvious and agreed upon and everything makes sense. No it wasn't. No one a thousand years from now should take porn to document the sex lives of Americans. No one should mistake the fantasy world of the Church Fathers as reality either.

[maryhelena]

Interesting developments re the NT canon. My interest is basically digging into the gospel Marcion had ie its role in the developing gospel Jesus story. I'll be crossing fingers Klinghardt can move the dial.....

Marcion is having his moment. I'm not as plugged into the scene...is Klinghardt expected to publish something cool?

Not aware of any new publications expected. Just hopefully. Last year saw publication of the book below plus a Greek and English edition of his reconstruction of the gospel in the hands of Marcion.



Kindle version available.

[Secret Alias]

Got a copy of that for free from David Trobisch a few months back. Meh.

[RandyHelzerman]

I think at least 7 of the letters of Paul preceded Acts, and the author of Luke-Acts may have known some of them.

Ah. gotcha.

Luke does not have John baptize Jesus.

Wait, what? < quickly reads the beginning of Luke > Wow......it's written such that the orthodox would jump to "the right" conclusion (which, apparently, I have been doing for 50 years), but ambiguous enough to not be so objectionable to an ortho-curious Docetic....and sidesteps the whole why-is-John-baptising-Jesus thing. Thanks for pointing that out!

No, I think he probably intended for his work to replace Mark's. By some estimates Matthew has 85% of Mark's content. I think it's slightly more.

Fair enough.

Perhaps you meant Luther?

Touche'!!!!!!