Re: What was Marcion's Gospel?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2021 5:34 am
There were Marcionites in Armenia.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
It's a quicky, version 0.5. Got to walk the dog now, enjoy. The picture is just for fun, there's a PDF attached as well. No guarantees about the major details, help is appreciatedmlinssen wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 4:36 amIt was his own gospel, there's nothing of Thomas in it.davidmartin wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 4:09 am Marcion would have no desire to be a Thomas fanboy. Marcion clearly asserted himself as proclaiming the true gospel (stand in line Marcion there's a queue). If he distributed his own gospel it would have been to further promote his agenda and separate himself from other gospels. The re-writing of it into Luke is literally the embracing of Marcionite Christians back into the fold and they can keep their favoured gospel after it's fixed, the same goes for John and Matthew. what Ireneaous does is deny any origins in these four to sectarian reasons and state it was the divine plan all along
In essence there's no difference in Marcion creating a gospel out of Thomas and the canonicals copying that, than Mark creating his gospel out of Thomas
Marcion is Luke, there's no rewriting at all but some adding and dropping of stuff. There was no fold to be embraced back into, if Marcion started it all.
Let me spell out it once again, I'll make a picture for you
1) No link to Judaism - that's their biggest beef with Marcion:that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation
Marcion's IS was "a Gentile" so to say, and indeed definitely not an "Israelite", and what Mark was all about was to undermine the story of Marcion with a very fat layer of Tanakh prophecy fulfilled, embedding Marcion's IS in a concrete footing of Messianic prophecy fulfilledMarcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," ----in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite
Seriously, all of Christianity is a pile of lies from its very inception, and ironically it is the Church fathers who demonstrate that. Everything is refutation upon refutation and lie upon lie, and it is easy to distill Marcion out of what they say; it is exactly like Paul saying "I swear to Gawd I don't lie" - it's what kids doThe Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow; " even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod
I am positive that this is a confusion of the Coptic word ϩⲏⲧ , https://coptic-dictionary.org/results.c ... e&lang=any which can mean heart/mind, or be an adjective of "before" and often gets translated with "in midst" or "among", and this would point to a Coptic text where IS "went straight into their hearts" - yup, nothing to go on there and wild speculation, but the scene in Marcion must have been as simple as that: IS speaks, just somewhere, and the people are so impressed that his words go straight into their heart.I cannot help drawing a conclusion respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a phantom, since it was capable of being touched and even violently handled, when He was seized and taken and led to the very brink of a precipice
He passed through the midst of them, that is, escaped out of their hands
Lovely how obvious it becomes that the Church fathers were Romans, and how all of this is a Roman creation. Needless to say that this prophecy is not a bad fit yet needs to get twisted and turned like everything else - and they don't even bother with the real Hebrew underlying it all.He was therefore the very Christ of Isaiah, the healer of our sicknesses. "Surely," says he, "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." Now the Greeks are accustomed to use for carry a word which also signifies to take away
Apparently it wasn't their idea to have the demon expelling stuff, but they couldn't not accept that inheritance, and that is the very essence of all this copy-pasting by everyone. And again it is hilarious to see how they take the opportunity to once again stress that it really is Da Gawd himself that Marcion talks about. Yet I doubt that Marcion even mentions the word, he must have had the Father and nothing more, perfectly sticking to Thomas.To liberate men, then, from evil spirits, is a cure of sickness. Accordingly, wicked spirits (just in the manner of our former example) used to go forth with a testimony, exclaiming, "Thou art the Son of God," ----of what God, is clear enough from the case itself
Has anyone ever read this hilariously preposterous pile of lies? Read the Church fathers, please do, and it becomes undeniable that they are born liars, and will do anything to try to justify their plagiarismBy saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold, "Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them," that is, men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him, understanding that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had declared. It is quite another case, when he affected to choose from the college of shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion his apostle
The first paragraph is a fine example of an interpretation by the Church fathers, but it makes clear that Marcion has this passage very differently.Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment
'One said unto him, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He replied, Call not thou me good. One is good, God.' Marcion added, 'the Father,' and instead of, 'Thou knowest the commandments,' says, 'I know the commandments.' .... 52. Marcion falsified, 'He took unto him the twelve, and said, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered and killed, and the third day he shall rise again.' He falsified the whole of this.
You are very right here, look at Justin Martyr, and the proto evangelism of James / Jacobdavidmartin wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 1:49 am just to make sure that everyone dislikes me, about that birth narrative in Luke...
I do not see this as a simple insert job to align with the almah / virgin bearing a son, ie a prophecy box ticking exercise
No, if you look at Ephrem he creates an entire universe out of the symbology of it, it's a powerful concept and he riffed on it like Tommy Iommi
I'll bet this virgin birth idea was around before Luke ever got it's final polish
So there was a Marcion (Pauline) camp that had nothing to do with it, and some other camp that was already preaching it, so i recon the birth narrative is just a restating of this concept again in a nice and clear orthodox way. Heck Luke as a 'physician' may as well be 'midwife' reference, don't they deliver babies? "If the doctor says it, it must be true you deceived Marcionites!"
Anyway since the virgin birth idea predates Marcion its yet another occasion an earlier stream gets adopted by what came later, sort of in reverse, same as the Thomas like sayings
The ultimate freaking heresy is someone that doesn't change when people around you innovate. If you don't change then you are now the heretic and you did nothing! The suspicion of this occuring in the development of Christianity is high.
yeah that's true he wasWhy do you think the birth story predates Marcion? Ephrem was born 300 CE
Mistress Pege, the great Sun has sent me to make the announcement to you, and at the same time to serve you in your giving birth—as he produces blameless offspring with you, who are becoming mother of the first of all ranks of being, bride of the single divinity with three names. And the child born without seed is called the Beginning and the End: the beginning of salvation, and the end of destruction
The females say to the males, disparaging the matter, Pege is she who was loved; for it was not Hera, was it? She espoused a carpenter.' And the males say, 'She has rightly been called Pege, we admit. But her name is Myria; for she bears in her womb, as in the sea, a vessel conveying a myriad. And if she is also Pege, let it be understood thus: This stream of water sends forth a perennial stream of spirit; it contains but a single fish, taken with the hook of divinity, and with its own flesh sustaining the whole world, while it dwells there as though in the sea. You have well said, "She has a carpenter"—but not a carpenter whom she bears from a marriage-bed. For this carpenter who is born, the child of the chief carpenter, framed by his most sagacious skill the triple-constructed celestial roof, and established by his word this dwelling with its triple habitations
Now why would this imaginary Marcion follower deny the crucifiction? The only plausible scenario is that Marcion denied it, that is to say that he didn't have any of itI was arguing once with some of his disciples, some Marcionite or other, and remarking how it says in the Gospel that the Spirit took Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And he asked me, 'How could Satan tempt the true God, who is both greater than he and, as you say, his Lord, Jesus his Master?' (c) With God's help I received a flash of insight and answered him, 'Don’t you believe that Christ was crucified?' 'Yes,' he said, and did not deny it
The "prophecies" get rather confusing at times. Was Jesus a son of himself now? Or do they mean that Yahweh was honoured with the lips? And would that somehow logically relate to Jesus being betrayed with a kiss?The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss, for He was the Son indeed of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people
Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all (from his Gospel), for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They parted my garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture." You may as well take away the cross itself!
69 reminds me of Socrates' trial, but it would seem that Marcion has put his IS on trial! Yet the addition in 70 is unlikely, although well attested to:Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6: <ξθ>. Προσέθετο μετὰ τό «τοῦτον εὕρομεν διαστρέφοντα τὸ ἔθνος» «καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας». <ο>. Προσθήκη μετὰ τό «κελεύοντα φόρους μὴ δοῦναι» «καὶ ἀποστρέφοντα τὰς γυναῖκας καὶ τὰ τέκνα». / 69. After, 'We found this fellow perverting the nation,' Marcion added, 'and destroying the Law and the prophets.' 70. The addition after 'forbidding to give tribute' is 'and turning away the wives and children.'
Now why would Marcion have said that?For falsifying something that is written, but adding something that is not, is an example of the utmost rashness, wickedness, and unsafe travel—especially in the Gospel, which is forever indestructible. (b) And the additions themselves have no place in the Gospel and contain no hidden meaning. Jesus did not turn wives or children away; he himself said, 'Honour thy father and mother,' and, 'What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' (c) But even though he did say, 'Except a man leave father, and mother, and brethren, and wife, and children and the rest, he is not my disciple,' this was not to make us hate our parents. It was to prevent our being led to follow the teaching of another faith at our fathers' and mothers' command, or to behaviour contrary to the Saviour's teaching.
It is passages like these that seemingly throw everything overboard again, as obvious a lie as the bold part is. Can nothing be trusted of what these liars say? How could Marcion teach something that is not in any text, not even any of the NT?Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17: <Σχόλιον> <οα>. «Καὶ ἐλθόντες εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Κρανίου τόπος ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος». <Ἔλεγχος> <οα>. Δόξα τῷ ἐλεήμονι θεῷ, τῷ συνδήσαντί σου τὰ ἅρματα, ὦ Φαραὼ Μαρκίων, καὶ βουλομένου σου ἀποδρᾶσαι καταποντώσαντι αὐτὰ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ. προφασιζόμενος γὰρ τὰ πάντα οὐχ ἕξεις ἐνταῦθα οὐδεμίαν πρόφασιν. ὁ γὰρ μὴ σάρκα ἔχων οὔτε σταυρωθῆναι δύναται. πῶς οὐκ ἔφυγες τὸ μέγα τοῦτο ῥητόν; πῶς οὐκ ἐπεχείρησας κρύψαι τὴν μεγάλην ταύτην πραγματείαν, τὴν λύσασάν σου πᾶσαν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς μεμηχανημένην κακοτροπίαν; εἰ γὰρ ὅλως ἐσταυρώθη, πῶς οὐ βλέπεις τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἁφὴν ἔχοντα καὶ ἥλοις τὰς χεῖρας πηγνύμενον καὶ πόδας; οὐκ ἂν δὲ ἠδύνατο δόκησις τοῦτο εἶναι ἢ φάντασμα, ὡς σὺ λέγεις, ἀλλὰ σῶμα ἀληθῶς, ὃ ἐκ Μαρίας εἴληφεν ὁ κύριος (σάρκα φύσει τὴν ἡμετέραν καὶ ὀστέα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα), ἐπειδὴ ὁμολογεῖται καὶ παρὰ σοὶ σταυρῷ προσπαγεὶς ὁ κύριος. <Σχόλιον> <οβ>. Παρέκοψε τό «σήμερον μετ' ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ». <Ἔλεγχος> <οβ>. Καλῶς τοῦτο καὶ ἁρμοδίως παρέκοψας, ὦ Μαρκίων· ἀπῆρες γὰρ ἀπὸ σεαυτοῦ τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ παραδείσου. οὔτε γὰρ σὺ εἰσελεύσῃ οὔτε τοὺς σὺν σοὶ ἐάσεις. φύσει γὰρ τῷ ὄντι μισοῦσι τὸ ἀγαθὸν οἱ πλανῶντες καὶ πεπλανημένοι. / Scholion 71. 'And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull, they crucified him and parted his raiment, and the sun was darkened.' (a) Elenchus 71. Glory to the merciful God, who fastened your chariots together, Marcion, you Pharaoh, and though you hoped to escape, sank them in the sea! Though you make all possible excuses you will have none here. If a man has no flesh, neither can he be crucified. (b) Why did you not evade this great text? Why did you not try to conceal this great event, which undoes all your evil which you have devised from the beginning? (c) If he was really crucified, why can you not see that the Crucified is tangible, and his hands and feet are fastened with nails? This could not be an apparition or phantom, as you say, but was truly a body which the Lord had taken from Mary—our actual flesh, bones, and the rest. For even in your teaching it is admitted that the Lord was nailed to a cross! Scholion 72. Marcion removed the words, 'Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.' (a) Elenchus 72. You removed this rightly and suitably, Marcion, for you have removed own entry into paradise. You will neither enter yourself nor allow your companions to enter. For by their very nature both deceivers and deceived hate what is good.
Well, it would seem that Marcion does have a death and a resurrection, although there's no refutation of his material there - only here, for the first time after the garment scene.77. He falsified what Christ said to Cleopas and the other when he met them, 'O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not he to have suffered these things?' And instead of, 'what the prophets have spoken,' he put, 'what I said unto you.' But he is shown up since, 'When he broke the bread their eyes were opened and they knew him.'
And so forth. It is now more than likely that Marcion had a death, as he has the resurrection[7] Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him----I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text. Thus, in the passage before us, he would have the words, "A spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have," so transposed, as to mean, "A spirit, such as ye see me to be, hath not bones; "that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, "A spirit hath not bones, even as you observe that I have not?" [8] Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination----limbs which consist of bones----if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, "Know that it is I myself," when they had before known Him to be corporeal?
i see it the other way round. instead of Marcion not teaching it, it's about recognising the crucifixion (done by the power of the enemy) nullified the Marcionite's claim Jesus couldn't have been tempted (ie if he can be crucified he can be tempted) - it seems more likely to me Marcion didn't have the temptation" 'Don’t you believe that Christ was crucified?' 'Yes,' he said, and did not deny it"
"Pass the spliff!" was my first thought when I read thisdavidmartin wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 3:40 amyeah that's true he wasWhy do you think the birth story predates Marcion? Ephrem was born 300 CE
i base it partly on the record Rhufinus (i think) left who writes of an ancient missive received at a pagan temple relating to Christ, as the pagans were attempting to show they too had heard of Christ. They referred back to the birth story. I recon this was normal back then. Was early Christianity able to express itself that way, sure why not, some of the apologies says the God of Christians was the same as Zeus or Apollo or whatever. But this is mega obscure so for whatever it's worth...
Mistress Pege, the great Sun has sent me to make the announcement to you, and at the same time to serve you in your giving birth—as he produces blameless offspring with you, who are becoming mother of the first of all ranks of being, bride of the single divinity with three names. And the child born without seed is called the Beginning and the End: the beginning of salvation, and the end of destruction
The females say to the males, disparaging the matter, Pege is she who was loved; for it was not Hera, was it? She espoused a carpenter.' And the males say, 'She has rightly been called Pege, we admit. But her name is Myria; for she bears in her womb, as in the sea, a vessel conveying a myriad. And if she is also Pege, let it be understood thus: This stream of water sends forth a perennial stream of spirit; it contains but a single fish, taken with the hook of divinity, and with its own flesh sustaining the whole world, while it dwells there as though in the sea. You have well said, "She has a carpenter"—but not a carpenter whom she bears from a marriage-bed. For this carpenter who is born, the child of the chief carpenter, framed by his most sagacious skill the triple-constructed celestial roof, and established by his word this dwelling with its triple habitations