Hypothetic first narrative about Christ the savior

[davidmartin]

So, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to a lost narrative that was referenced by the writer or writers of the earliest familiar Gospel(s), but is this enough? If such a narrative existed, then wouldn't there be more solid evidence for it? Why does no one mention such a narrative directly? Why has such a narrative not been found?

well RG been focusing on the Odes again and what's interesting is there's a kind of narrative in there that may suggest this group had a kind of teaching based outreach nothing much suggests a familiar gospel. perhaps that idea came along later is what i was wondering that might mean there might have been primitive narratives or whatever but no reliance on them to be seen in this early grouping.

[MrMacSon]

Also, is Simon of Cyrene (the one who carried Jesus' cross) the same as Simon Magus?

The Magus in 'Simon Magus' is a essentially a pejorative, a sneer.

There's a lot of speculation about why Simon of Cyrene appears when he does and in the role he does.

I've just wondered, having recited part of the account of Simon of Samaria, to whom Simon Magus is usually thought to apply, if both names are 'red herrings' / smoke n mirror tactics to further side-line the figure of Simon of Samaria who, by all accounts, was also portrayed as an early first century AD/CE Savior figure.

Note that Peter is first introduced as Simon. Jesus tells Peter to take up his cross and follow him. In the end, Peter abandon's Jesus and a different Simon takes up Jesus' cross and follows him.

Yes, there's lots of smoke n mirrors in the narratives. Coupled with changes of names : splitting, essentially ; entities coming and going, some entities being put center-stage while some are being side-lined, etc.

It's like a grab-bag of delights (or Forrest Gump's box o' chocolates)

[neilgodfrey]

So, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to a lost narrative that was referenced by the writer or writers of the earliest familiar Gospel(s), but is this enough? If such a narrative existed, then wouldn't there be more solid evidence for it? Why does no one mention such a narrative directly? Why has such a narrative not been found?

Hi RG -- Have you read Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity? I have belatedly just completed it now and am feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the experience -- his argument has made it hard for me to doubt that Marcion was the author of the first gospel. Maybe you have read it -- I know I am often late with these sorts of things.

[Giuseppe]

So, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to a lost narrative that was referenced by the writer or writers of the earliest familiar Gospel(s), but is this enough? If such a narrative existed, then wouldn't there be more solid evidence for it? Why does no one mention such a narrative directly? Why has such a narrative not been found?

Hi RG -- Have you read Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity? I have belatedly just completed it now and am feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the experience -- his argument has made it hard for me to doubt that Marcion was the author of the first gospel. Maybe you have read it -- I know I am often late with these sorts of things.

I confess that I am surprised by this your conclusion.

Vinzent's book has surely his merits, however, when I read that book some years ago, the only two lessons I remember to have derived from it are:

• 1) the fact that, without Marcion, then Paul, and with him the emphasis on resurrection, would be today unknown;

• 2) the marcionite feature found in the Gospels and missing in the previous writings, i.e. the so-called "surprise effect" of the question "A new teaching with authority!" et similia.

But are the two points connected between them?

Said otherwise: was really necessary the discovery by Marcion of the resurrection item in Paul to have the "surprise effect" in action in the Gospels ?

[maryhelena]

So, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to a lost narrative that was referenced by the writer or writers of the earliest familiar Gospel(s), but is this enough? If such a narrative existed, then wouldn't there be more solid evidence for it? Why does no one mention such a narrative directly? Why has such a narrative not been found?

Hi RG -- Have you read Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity? I have belatedly just completed it now and am feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the experience -- his argument has made it hard for me to doubt that Marcion was the author of the first gospel. Maybe you have read it -- I know I am often late with these sorts of things.

Perhaps Marcion was the author of the first gospel i.e. at the fountainhead of early christian theology/philosophy.

However, one point to keep in mind for those wanting to move Paul away from the first century (Acts etc.) is that one is placing him within a Marcion timeframe. Questions arise - is Paul another name for Marcion - or - are both these figures ahistorical figures. Names given to a collection of teachings/writings. Viewed that way - viewed from that perspective, Marcion did not mutilate gLuke but the Lukan writer developed the Marcion writings. i.e. all gospel writings demonstrate storyline developments. If the Lukan writer developed Marcion's gospel - then Marcion's gospel was pre Antiquities i.e. first century. The Lukan writer needed a late date for Pilate (and Josephus in Antiquities obliged). That the NT writers chose to place the later teaching/writings of 'Paul' in the first century rather than the teaching/writing known as 'Marcion' simply indicates that the ideas of the second century were placed within the timeframe of the NT origin story. Ideas develop over time - 'Marcion' not the heretic of early church fathers - but an early set of writings that perhaps the church fathers failed to comprehend. And - since gLuke was not the first gospel - that suggests that gMark and/or gMatthew were first century gospels.

Just throwing some ideas out there.....
=========================

For those familiar with Greek. This from: The Text of Marcion's Gospel by Dieter T. Roth (Author)

3:1 [5.1; 6.4.1; 7.4.1; 8.2]—ἐν τῷ {ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ} τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου
Καίσαρος ἐπι τῶν χρόνων Ποντίου Πιλάτου . . 

4  Unattested elements within a verse include those elements that may be unattested due to
simple omission by a source. Even though there may therefore be grounds for positing that
some of those elements were present in Marcion’s text, doing so would involve a, in my estimation,
precarious “drawing conclusions from silence”; nevertheless, citation habits and the
manuscript evidence may occasionally allow a bracketed comment drawing attention to
the likely presence or absence of an unattested element.

ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ (the bracketed words) translate as year fifteen and under; years five and under; year fifteen and below.

So - big question - did the church fathers insert Pilate into the 15th year of Tiberius in the gospel of Marcion - an addition only possible after Antiquities in 93/94 c.e. After gLuke - Pilate is associated with the 15th year of Tiberius (re Josephus). Thus, viewing that Marcion mutilated gLuke = that he used gLuke - church fathers could have viewed Marcion as keeping the chronology of Luke's gospel. However, since gMark, gMatthew and gJohn are able to run a gospel without dating Pilate to the 15th year of Tiberius - there really is no reason, apart from church fathers viewing Marcion as a mutilator of gLuke - for the gospel of Marcion to date Pilate to the 15th year of Tiberius. Thus - the gospel of Marcion could well be a pre 93/94 c.. writing.

Maybe - in the time of Tiberius and Pontius Pilate, Jesus came down from heaven...... a pre gLuke Marcion gospel.....the gLuke 15th year of Tiberius update specifying a new gospel timeframe.

Anyway - maybe something to think about...

[maryhelena]

I wrote in an earlier post:

As far as I'm aware Marcion does not have Herodias married to Philip. Since that story is a big element in Mark and Matthew and is dropped in Luke's gospel... a gospel taking a cue, as it were from Antiquities, I would think Marcion is perhaps a later writing.... unless one wants to argue that the 15th year of Tiberius is the earlier gospel dating structure.
here

Since viewing the above quote from Dieter T. Roth's book - perhaps the 15th year of Tiberius is, if added to the gospel of Marcion, an indication that Marcion's gospel preceded gLuke. I've long thought that Marcion was earlier than NT Paul - i.e. the writing attributed to this name being earlier than writing attributed to a Pauline 'school'.

A few points from an old FRDB thread - 9 years ago.

Justin Martyr: First Apologia (to Antoninus Pius)

Quote:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator.

Marcion alive when First Apologia written? (Antoninus Pius 138 - 161 c.e.) If an earlier, 1st century, date for the figure of Marcion is entertained, then this dating by Justin would have to be viewed in relation to the teaching of Marcion being 'alive', still causing trouble, and not the figure of Marcion (especially so from an ahistorical position on Marcion)

Tertullian: (Adv. Marc. I.19,2)

Quote:
In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar Christ Jesus deigned to pour down from heaven, a salutary spirit. This is at least the way Marcion would have it; in what year of the elder Antoninus his pestilential breeze breathed out from his own Pontus, I have not bothered to investigate. They [the Marcionites] put 115 years and 6 ½ months between Christ and Marcion, which is more or less the period of time from Tiberius to Antoninus.

So? The whole dating of Marcion, that this figure is post Paul, is a numerical formula said to be from the Marcionites! And how does Tertullian work the numbers? From the 15th year of Tiberius to the year 145 c.e. in the rule of Antoninus Pius. What else could he do once Acts is telling him that Paul is prior to 70 c.e. and thus prior to Marcion? He has to use this Marcionite formula to date Marcion late.

But how did the Marcionites use this number formula that Tertullian says resolved around the 15th year of Tiberius? Rather than working 115 years forward from the 15th year of Tiberius - work them backwards - to around 87/85 b.c. The time of Alexander Jannaeus - and all that followed re Hasmonean history. (Jannaeus 103-76 b.c.)

If the 15th year has been added to the gospel of Marcion - it's removal would add to arguments for an early, pre Antiquities, Marcion gospel. If this is so - then dating arguments aside - Marcion's 'theology' could be the next big step in the search for, and understanding of, the roots of what became early christian theology/philosophy.

[maryhelena]

Interesting - it looks as though the 15th year of Tiberius is not so secure a date for the gospel of Marcon...........

3.1 Epiphanius, Pan. 42.11.5; Tertullian, Marc. 1.19.2, 4.7.1; Irenaeus, Haer.
1.27.2; Adam* 2.3, 19; Ps.-Eph A 1; Hippolytus, Ref. 7.31.5. Irenaeus and
Adamantius attest a text reading “now in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
Caesar, at the time of Pilate” (en etei de pentekaidekatō Tiberiou Kaisaros
epitōn xronōn Pilatou). Tertullian ends the quote after “Tiberius,”
omitting “Caesar” and the reference to Pilate. Epiphanius also omits the
reference to Pilate, and opens the passage with different wording for
the date (en tō pentekaidekatō etei in place of en etei de pentekaidekatō).
Hippolytus’ wording on the date is similar to that of Epiphanius, and
characterizes it as the “year of the hegemony of Tiberius Caesar” (etei
pentekaidekatō tēs hēgemonias Tiberiou Kaisaros). Pseudo-Ephrem A (1)
gives only the wording “in the years of Pontius Pilate.”

The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon
Jason D. BeDuhn
page 128

A contested 15th year date for the gospel of Marcoin - well now - that 15th year has consequences for dating the Marcoin writing. i.e. Pilate dated to the 15th year of Tiberius is only possible after Antiquities in 93/94 c.e. If the Marcoin writing did not have 15th year of Tiberius for Pilate - then it is a pre Antiquities writing - and is thus earlier than gLuke.

[lsayre]

Per Wikipedia:

In 19 AD Tiberius ordered Jews of military age to join the Roman Army. He banished the rest of Rome's Jewish population, on pain of enslavement for life.

This would seem to be the logical time of his hegemony from a Jewish perspective.