The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

viewtopic.php?p=39331#p39331

Ben's report of Roth's reconstruction will suffice

What is striking in these last chapters is that none of the Falsifying Fathers accuses Marcion of any falsification except for Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6 - who is either lying or, as Roth states, reading a variant reading

Here's what I think to be more likely though, and this is - for a change - just a broad outline:

Marcion ends at Mark 15:39, the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of God.
Mark has to mitigate the "fact" that Romans killed Jesus at the instigation of Judaics but can't undo it, so he adds up till 16:8 in order to suggest that Jesus lived; the women are put on the scene immediately in 15:40 with the sole goal of their sole role: to take the brunt for no one knowing that "in fact" Jesus did arise from the grave. A pathetically feeble story but at least he tries to make it plausible by conjuring an impartial aid to the scene: Joseph "the disciplest", an allegedly trustworthy source who isn't one of the Twelve nor one of the Judaics.
Then naturally the story develops that the disciples faked his resurrection by hiding his body: Matthew 28:11-15, and by incorporating it into his own gospel Matthew successfully p0wns that.
Matthew then adds an incredibly lengthy narrative to his *Ev copy, Luke, but can't resist letting Peter take credit for being the first to discover the risen Christ by letting him find the bindings - while the women were still unbelieving, Peter isn't! Matthew sticks to the Markan story in his own gospel though, he often uses Luke to go an extra mile while keeping his own narrative pristine

The Falsifying Fathers do comment on Jesus challenging the disciples to check his wounds and such, but they hardly could have let that occasion pass.
Yet the true and ferocious force of *Ev is that it is the Romans and Judaics who kill the god or at least hero of Chrestianity - it would be a silly story with the resurrection without bragging about it.
"Those damn Judaics thought they could kill me huh?!" is an opportunity that really, truly, honestly can't be resisted - and I really fail to see the point in coming up with a first story that narrates about a killed and resurrected protagonist; that just really, really wild

Chrestianity was a source of civil unrest across the Roman Empire but largely went unnoticed because it only targeted Judaics - who received the brunt and got expelled left and right in order to take away the fuel to the fire.
We have fine sources to all of that:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish% ... Roman_wars

The Judaics found themselves caught between a hammer and an anvil: the Chrestians persecuted them and the Romans did nothing to prevent it. After almost a century of war, which was preceded by the first bans of Judaics in Rome around 50 CE, Romans began to rewrite the Chrestian history and Justin is the first attempt there, and so is Paul - but nothing is put into gospel and letter writings until 175-ish CE

Why do we find a Tertullian still writing about Marcion around 210? Because it was a burning, contemporary problem
Stuart
Posts: 768
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by Stuart »

This is wrong.

Tertullian writes about the scene at the tomb. The only suspect thing is bit about eating fish and the risen Jesus saying a spirit has not bone as I have, which looks like a deliberate anti-docetic element the Marcionites never would have added, nor would have kept in their copy. The rest of the attested resurrection story fits Marcionite narrative of Christ crucified and risen after three days. It was a core part of their theology, and well attested.

The passages are noted in Ben's outlined which you link to for your base point. Granted Ben does not do a qualitative analysis of each attestation to determine if it's actually the Marcionite text referred to here or a subtle shift to quoting the main recension (Catholic) text as counter point or if it is uncertain which is referred to at this point.

But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark, with some tale of a post death scene. In Marcionite lore, which we learn in Dialogue Adamantius, Paul wrote the portions of the gospel after Jesus' death. This is not dissimilar from traditional Jewish lore that held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, except that Joshua wrote the ending bit about his death. Obviously neither is true, but such was the way people looked at things, blending good logic with ridiculous lore to speak "truth."
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Stuart wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:32 am This is wrong.
I highly doubt it. There's no reason to trust the Falsifying Fathers, and the shorter ending of Mark is very telling.
The women, the women, the women: from 15:40 till 16:8 they are in every possible place where they can be mentioned, and it is in the typical Markan way.
Mark is creating an excuse and he starts doing so at 15:40

"But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark"

The thing is, if you strip the women and the dumb burial, then you get to *Ev; the end at 15:39 is a beautiful open ending.
Needless to say, the Falsifying Fathers can't be trusted.
But let's suppose, for arguments sake, that *Ev indeed ended at
Mark 15:39 - would they have commented on that, and why?
Would they have made a great show out of Marcion not having the burial and the resurrection?
If so, why - and if not, then why not?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by Charles Wilson »

They DID make a great show of the burial and resurrection:
It's called the Book of John.

Head bandages in the corner (Roman Loan Word "Soudarion"): Galba.
Pierced side death scene: Otho.
Asiaticus Homosexual Motif with the selling of Posca in the Bazaar at Puteoli, reflecting vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick: Vitellius.

Vitellius runs around for three days after declaring he will give up the throne.
Domitian is the "Alpha and Omega", taking on the mantle of emperor before Vespasian arrives:

Alpha:
Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Domitian":

"It was only after the victory that he ventured forth and after being hailed as Caesar...he assumed the office of city praetor with consular powers and in a single day he assigned more than twenty positions in the city and abroad,​ which led Vespasian to say more than once that he was surprised that he did not appoint the emperor's successor with the rest...

Domitian is the "Omega", after (supposedly) poisoning Titus and becoming Caesar again.
I'd say that's making a pretty big show of things...

CW
davidmartin
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by davidmartin »

maybe originally in Mark it was only the women who saw the risen Christ and if the male disciples saw anything it was the empty tomb?
it simply ended with Jesus telling them to proclaim this to the others and the rest of the world and he disappears. this just wasn't acceptable so got reworked. if you think about it, the short ending on it's own where the women flee and say nothing is a non-satisfying ending but does successfully achieve the result of negating their role which just suggests that originally their role was not negated. Of course in that scenario why should it be called "Mark's" gospel? Would make more sense to call it Mary's!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Mon Apr 04, 2022 12:36 am maybe originally in Mark it was only the women who saw the risen Christ and if the male disciples saw anything it was the empty tomb?
it simply ended with Jesus telling them to proclaim this to the others and the rest of the world and he disappears. this just wasn't acceptable so got reworked. if you think about it, the short ending on it's own where the women flee and say nothing is a non-satisfying ending but does successfully achieve the result of negating their role which just suggests that originally their role was not negated. Of course in that scenario why should it be called "Mark's" gospel? Would make more sense to call it Mary's!
Let me just quote it then, perhaps that will refresh your memory

39 And the centurion standing opposite of Him, having seen that He breathed His last, cc thus said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!”
40 And there were also women looking on from afar off, among whom also were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the least and of Joseph, and Salome,
41 who had been following Him and had been ministering to Him when He was in Galilee, and many other ones having come up with Him to Jerusalem.
42 And evening having arrived already, since it was the Preparation, that is, the day before Sabbath,
43 having come, Joseph from Arimathea, a prominent Council member, who was also himself waiting for the kingdom of God, having boldness, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate wondered if already He were dead. And having summoned the centurion, he questioned him whether He had died already.
45 And having known it from the centurion, He granted the body to Joseph.
46 And having bought a linen cloth, having taken Him down, he wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which was cut out of a rock. And he rolled a stone to the door of the tomb
.
47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph dd were watching where He was laid.
Mark 16
1 And the Sabbath having passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that having come, they might anoint Him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb, the sun having arisen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?”
4 And having looked up, they see that the stone has been rolled away; for it was extremely large.
5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe, sitting on the right; and they were greatly amazed.
6 And he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him.
7 But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”
8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had seized them. And they spoke nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.

Mark's addition: 15:40 - 16:8.
The yellow highlighted stuff is NOT about the women, the remainder is. It is undisputed that 16:8 is the original ending of Mark in the earliest manuscripts, but it is of my making that 15:40 - 16:8 is Mark's addition to *Ev, which would be Luke 23:48 ff:

Luke 23:47 And having seen that which had taken place, the centurion began glorifying God, saying, “Certainly this man was righteous.”
48 And all the crowds having come together to this spectacle, having seen the things that had taken place, were returning home, beating the breasts.
49 And all from those who knew Him, and women, those having followed Him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.

And we can see how Matthew reworked *Ev there, and his Joseph piece in Luke is evidently Matthean

Just look at *Ev, and then realise that Mark 15:40-16:8 is not just a feeble ending - on the contrary, it is a giant counter to Marcion.
Jesus doesn't die, he lives! HE FUCKING LIVES!!!

Just imagine that david. Chrestianity has Jesus executed by the Romans, end of story. And why not? It was many decades old if not well over a century, and if we look at the NT we see how inconvenient it is to have important people resurrect from the dead.
What is the point of Jesus defying death? Apart from it being really kewl of course - what really is the bloody point to resurrecting AND NOT PUTTING IT TO ANY FUCKING USE WHATSOEVER?

I'm just trying to hand out the right incentives here, I don't usually swear this much. But perhaps it will get some people to think out loud. No not you, usual suspects - others perhaps, who haven't been so deeply programmed that they can't undo it
davidmartin
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by davidmartin »

Well that's an interesting hypothesis I probably haven't fully grasped what your saying, I always wonder which one out of Luke and Matthew was later, suspecting it was Matthew. Matthew as a reworked Luke makes sense with the Marcion connection fully purged?

One obvservation in theory Paul's gospel doesn't require a physical resurrection at all, ignoring some cruft that was added later it seems Paul is all about a spiritual Christ and seeing visions. He never followed him physically and he never saw him resurrected either. His Christ could have resurrected spiritually and the physical body was of no importance apart from the death on the cross. If so then Marcion could have ended it where you say maybe

But I also think the telling of the resurrection that features the women is then from some other source and they cut it short i think one of the alternative endings (not the standard one) could preserve some of it can't remember which one now. Anyway I recon the appearance of these accounts (gospels, birth narratives, resurrections) was to counter Paul's sin of disregarding the earthly actual man by those who followed him presumably through thick and thin, I mean assuming he existed his followers would have been most irritated by Paul saying he did nothing and said nothing (unlike the apostle - it's all about him all the time). And so the gospels sources came out to correct this situation but they fell into the hands of people who liked to change stuff around
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 12:52 am Well that's an interesting hypothesis I probably haven't fully grasped what your saying, I always wonder which one out of Luke and Matthew was later, suspecting it was Matthew. Matthew as a reworked Luke makes sense with the Marcion connection fully purged?
I'm afraid my point doesn't come across...
How much work would it be to take "Marcion" and turn it into Luke?
Why are there so many debates about Lukan and Matthean priority but none about Markan versus Matthean?
The simple answer is: because it is blatantly evident that Mark precedes Matthew, because Matthew copies so much verbatim from Mark and always, ALWAYS, comes out with a better result, a more grammatically sound one, a better fit, a more adult version.
Luke versus Matthew? It can go either way really, and no one has made any convincing cases for Luke always being later than matthew, or even in the majority of cases

Why wouldn't "Matthew" take *Ev, turn it into Luke, and write his own gospel on the side?
Look at the simulatirites, the fatigue in the ten minas among others, yet also look at the non-Lukan weeping and gnashing of teeth, the true evil that sometimes is in Luke, where it does not belong at all

Matthew wrote Luke as well as Matthew - why is that so hard to grasp?
One obvservation in theory Paul's gospel doesn't require a physical resurrection at all, ignoring some cruft that was added later it seems Paul is all about a spiritual Christ and seeing visions. He never followed him physically and he never saw him resurrected either. His Christ could have resurrected spiritually and the physical body was of no importance apart from the death on the cross. If so then Marcion could have ended it where you say maybe

BOOK OF Romans
Chapter 1 Greeting the Saints in Rome
4 having been declared the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness, by resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord,
Chapter 2 God's Righteous Judgment
Chapter 3 God Remains Faithful
Chapter 4 Abraham Justified by Faith

24 but also on account of us, to whom it is about to be credited, to those believing on the One having raised Jesus our Lord out from the dead,
25 who was delivered over for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification.
Chapter 5 The Triumph of Faith
Chapter 6 Dead to Sin, Alive to God

4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised up out from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united in the likeness of His death, certainly also we will be of the resurrection,
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised up out from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer rules over Him.
11 So also you, consider yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but living to God in Christ Jesus.
13 Neither yield your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but yield yourselves to God, as living out from the dead, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness.
Chapter 7 Release from the Law
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have been put to death to the Law through the body of Christ, for you to belong to another, to the One having been raised out from the dead, so that we should bear fruit to God.
8 But sin, having taken an occasion by the commandment, produced in me all covetousness; for apart from the Law, sin is dead.
Chapter 8 Living in the Spirit
10 But if Christ is in you, the body is indeed dead on account of sin, but the Spirit is life on account of righteousness.
11 And if the Spirit of the One having raised up Jesus out from the dead dwells in you, the One having raised up Christ Jesus out from the deadc also will give life to your mortal bodies, on account of His Spirit dwelling in you. Heirs with Christ
34 Who is the one condemning? For it is Christ Jesus, the one having died, now rather having been raised up, who is also at the right hand of God, and who is interceding for us. More than Conquerors
Chapter 9 Paul's Concern for the Jews
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, so that I might show My power in you, and that My name should be declared in all the earth.”f
Chapter 10 The Word Brings Salvation
7 or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’c (that is, to bring up Christ out from the dead).”
9 that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him out from the dead, you will be saved.
Chapter 11 The Remnant of Israel
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be if not life out from the dead?
32 For God has bound up all in disobedience, that He may show mercy to all. A Hymn of Praise
Chapter 12 Living Sacrifices
Chapter 13 Submission to Authorities

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Now do you desire not to fear the authority? Do the good, and you will have praise from him.
Chapter 14 The Law of Liberty
9 For unto this, Christ died and lived again that He might rule over both the dead and living.
Chapter 15 Accept One Another
9 and for the Gentiles to glorify God for mercy, as it has been written: “Because of this I will praise You among the Gentiles, and will I sing to Your name.”b
11 And again: “Praise the Lord all the Gentiles, and praise Him, all the peoples.”d
Chapter 16 Personal Greetings and Love

Words searched for: rose, raised, risen, resurrect, dead
But I also think the telling of the resurrection that features the women is then from some other source and they cut it short i think one of the alternative endings (not the standard one) could preserve some of it can't remember which one now. Anyway I recon the appearance of these accounts (gospels, birth narratives, resurrections) was to counter Paul's sin of disregarding the earthly actual man by those who followed him presumably through thick and thin, I mean assuming he existed his followers would have been most irritated by Paul saying he did nothing and said nothing (unlike the apostle - it's all about him all the time). And so the gospels sources came out to correct this situation but they fell into the hands of people who liked to change stuff around
Why do people always think that every single writing of the NT served to either counter or support another one?
Haven't you read John? It is just the best they could up with, they just scratched together some scribblings and added their own.
The NT is a miserable collection and witness of carelessness, try outs, multiple and repeated redaction by people who just didn't give a damn about anything because no one was ever going to read all of it anyway, let alone try to make sense of it

Don't you understand that the sheer volume of the NT was a guarantee that it would forever remain a secret that it was just a falsification?

Paul never existed, "he" never had any followers, nor did any Jesus: all these texts were written solely to rewrite history, to read from.
The very moment you see any love for Judaism is when it's too late already, when you are reading Roman falsifications - and Paul blatantly obviously is the main one there and their very first try. Pure, unadulterated Roman rhetoric
davidmartin
Posts: 1053
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by davidmartin »

Well even if whoever formed Matthew wasn't who crafted Luke as well, then they probably believed pretty much the same thing. I take your point they might as well have been the same person

But all those references to Paul and the resurrection are vague about it being physical. Very often they can be taken in a spiritual sense because he is not too clear what he means. If you knew nothing of Jesus you wouldn't assume it was physical and maybe Christ was raised from the dead into heaven with a new spiritual body? If the physical resurrection was key to Paul why doesn't he speak about it, talking about how he was seen and so on?

He says things like "Since then you have been raised with Christ set your hearts on things above"
How are people raised with Christ when they are alive? But if to Paul Christ's resurrection was into heaven then the old dies (his body) and the new life (as a spirit) begins. There's still a resurrection after death but I think you could interpret that he is comparing the pre-conversion life to Jesus's body and after being saved to his spiritual resurrection/ascension

What i'm getting at is, if Marcion wanted to adopt Paul and also if he wanted to not preach a physical resurrection he could easily do it. I'm not saying he did and only pointing out the vagueness in Paul, I don't know enough about Marcion, only that he could have done if he wanted which would fit your Mark ending idea
Paul never existed, "he" never had any followers, nor did any Jesus: all these texts were written solely to rewrite history, to read from.
I see a historical basis that seeded these texts however obscured that might be and no-one had much more idea about it than we do when some of the NT texts were being written, 100 years later. If the original movement survived and didn't change it probably would have been called heretical. I find that so ironic i wouldn't want to miss out on that feeling of existential irony by thinking it was all fiction
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

davidmartin wrote: Tue Apr 05, 2022 2:49 pm Well even if whoever formed Matthew wasn't who crafted Luke as well, then they probably believed pretty much the same thing. I take your point they might as well have been the same person

But all those references to Paul and the resurrection are vague about it being physical. Very often they can be taken in a spiritual sense because he is not too clear what he means. If you knew nothing of Jesus you wouldn't assume it was physical and maybe Christ was raised from the dead into heaven with a new spiritual body? If the physical resurrection was key to Paul why doesn't he speak about it, talking about how he was seen and so on?

He says things like "Since then you have been raised with Christ set your hearts on things above"
How are people raised with Christ when they are alive? But if to Paul Christ's resurrection was into heaven then the old dies (his body) and the new life (as a spirit) begins. There's still a resurrection after death but I think you could interpret that he is comparing the pre-conversion life to Jesus's body and after being saved to his spiritual resurrection/ascension

What i'm getting at is, if Marcion wanted to adopt Paul and also if he wanted to not preach a physical resurrection he could easily do it. I'm not saying he did and only pointing out the vagueness in Paul, I don't know enough about Marcion, only that he could have done if he wanted which would fit your Mark ending idea
Paul never existed, "he" never had any followers, nor did any Jesus: all these texts were written solely to rewrite history, to read from.
I see a historical basis that seeded these texts however obscured that might be and no-one had much more idea about it than we do when some of the NT texts were being written, 100 years later. If the original movement survived and didn't change it probably would have been called heretical. I find that so ironic i wouldn't want to miss out on that feeling of existential irony by thinking it was all fiction
Yes, Paul is very vague. I am sure he was the very first attempt and all he does is merely dropping words - but if anything, when he does talk about resurrection he can only come after Mark, and not *Ev - unless he just tries out the idea and Mark implements it later, or simultaneously, who's to say?
1 Cor 15 is pretty definite though, no vagueness about that

Whatever is heresiological always and only is a matter of dominance: like the tail doesn't wag the dog, the minority doesn't determine that the majority is heresiological

Au contraire
Post Reply