Two Marcions?

[yakovzutolmai]

Recently have been convinced of the synoptic gospel authorship occurring in concert, in Rome. Or at least, Matthew and Marcion as proto-Luke using Mark. Or perhaps more simply, Mark, Matthew and Luke co-written by collaborating authors in one single moment. I believe there's evidence John may have been written near this locus as well, with some mention of a named John being present in Rome.

The catalyst for this would have been the Bar Kokhba revolt, which provoked a rise in anti-Jewish sentiment in the Empire, and was directly followed by the schools of Valentinius and Marcion in Rome. The explanation is fascinating.

We would concede that the boundaries between Jews and Christians (or if we must "Jewish Christians") were blurred, and that the primary Christian text was the Septuagint. This was their Bible, and the truth of their master Christ was there in the Prophets. This overlapping with a less committed Jewish sentiment that sometimes agrees with messianic interpretations of the Prophets.

In my interpretation, much of the Jewish world was essentially Christian by this point. The Heavenly High Priest, his harbinger sent to teach truth, then his champion sent to Earth to rule it, described right in the Prophets. It would have been the Pharisaical faction, which seems to be connected to Western Galilean nationalists, which might have protested (the Sadducaical faction all but defunct). Yet, by the time of Bar Kokhba we see a concession to the messianic urge. And so, as a consequence, the Greco-Roman Christians who fail to rise up in support of Bar Kokhba demonstrate that they were never true Jews all along, as suspected. Thus we see a rejection of the worldly, liberal, or otherwise partisan and factional "Jewish Christians" and consequently a rejection by these of Pharisaical Jews.

The Bar Kokhba aftermath induces a separation between these groups, and so some Christians in Rome particularly see the need for an independent Christian canon.

In this milieu we find Marcion, ostensibly a proselyte's child and therefore in effect a "Jewish Christian". And here, a gentile Roman, he finds room for a rejection completely of Jewishness within Christianity. We can even assume the history is correct, that Marcion's brain is the source of the idea that Christ's God is Paul's unknown God and not connected to the Jews.

Yet, in the end, while the Romans were eager for independence from Judaism, Marcion was zealous for it. We can also assume history is correct that Marcion had money, and was a significant patron of this canonization and gospel manuscript writing project. It's all too common in human history for a patron to be led along by his clients, made to believe he is in charge while they spend his money, and then discarded when his money is no longer as useful. I suspect this is as likely an explanation for Marcion's alleged attempt to purchase the "Papal Seat".

Instead of being guilty of bribery, I suspect Marcion was simply misled. Then cast aside as his boorish zealousness went to far. I personally believe the legend of Simon Magus has an origin in Simon Boethus attaining the High Priest's Office in Herod's temple, and that in all likelihood, the legend of Simon Magus was invoked to mischaracterize Marcion's role.

The innocence of Marcion derives from the fact that the gospel writing project itself is a close continuation of a specific evolution of Christianity away from Judaism that Marcion seems to have instigated, and which may have co-occurred with Marcion's effort. So, again, Marcion and the gospel writers were working together with the help of Marcion's money, to consolidate a Christian canon that would give Christians some independence from Jewish canon. Marcion was too zealous, and was discarded, the legend of Simon Magus being used to shame Marcion out of town and paint him as a villain with malicious intent and heretical impulses wholly removed from the glorious correctness of those who remained in Rome.

I still believe that Luke-Acts may have been an Egyptian project close to the Basilidean school. Rome has Peter, Antioch has John, and I believe Alexandria was trying to claim Lukuas of Cyrene as some sort of Christian apostle through whom they could claim apostolic authority during this catholicizing period. Luke-Acts being a kind of resurfacing and rehabilitation of Marcion's gospel.

We can also speculate, given the exile of Flavian Christians to Pontus, whether Marcion arrived in Rome fortuitously with some copy of proto-Mark and Paul in hand, and in some way this was the seed of the concept of a Christian canon, and the writing project. The idea being that Marcion was not this man's name, and Mark-John more pertains to the gospels being developed under the auspices, within the locus of the man from Pontus. Let's call him "Cleetus". We can imagine some longhand manuscript title like "Cleetus Pontus Came Scribal Cohort Master Divine Whence Wrought Gospels Holy of Marcus of Iohannis". Producing some abbreviation like, "Cl.Pont.C.S.C.M.D.W.W.G.H.Marc.Ion." thence "...MARC.ION". Which would be probably in the letterhead of an extant Marcionite Gospel of the Lord. And eventually, totally redacted, but in the intermediary: "DE MARC.ION.".

Either way, let's start with this character and assume he retires forlorn and bereft of fortune, but perhaps content in the Lord back to Pontus.

30 Years pass. Rome finally conquers Nisibis, which remains unincorporated and outside any Roman province, but which features a steady Roman garrison for a century. Previously, this was just beyond the borders of the Empire.

What does Rome literally bring back with it as the soldiers return from campaign? The Antonine Plague. And Tertullian is very explicit in allegorizing Marcionism as equivalent to the Antonine Plague. He also points out a saying among Marcionites that Christ's gospel came to Rome twice, 117 years apart. Pilate bringing the first news, and Marcion restoring its truth later.

This saying is applied upon Christ's death in - believed at the time to be 29 AD - then placing Marcion's arrival in Rome around 150. What if Tertullian is wrong, or engaging in deliberate apologetics?

What if the "second coming of Christ's gospel to Rome" per Marcionites, was 165 AD?

I agree with the belief that Antioch of Acts (Acts being fiction) draws historical elements from an actual Antioch important to the Christians of the James/Peter community. While some argue this is Edessa, I would locate it at Nisibis - Antioch Mygdonia. Here is a very likely place for food aid, coming from Adiabene, to be organized on its way to Jerusalem (rather, money for Egyptian food). Eisenmann's "Land Beyond the Jordan", equated to DSS "Lands Around Damascus" is probably Josephus's home of the Babylonian Jews. And so the Jamesian Christians certain would overlap with the community of Nisibis, and this connection is far from speculative.

When Nisibis was conquered in 165 AD, it's possible that the Romans brought not only the plague back with them, but an exotic and oriental evolution of Christianity. I would admit this is speculative, except for Tertullian's curious analogy. It's a decent and basic analogy, and the plague lines up with the spread of Marcionism's popularity. However, I sense Tertullian's need to correlate this latter movement with Rome's Marcion.

That is, Tertullian cannot simply call out this exotic Christianity for being false (a danger, as the East might hold some credibility the West lacks; the West scraping through the dark to understand and develop their orthodoxy while the East comes in with bold and popular doctrines). Instead, Tertullian can downplay this Christianity by claiming it has long been addressed, considered and thoroughly debunked. This tactic of rhetoric that confuses origins of things and uses argument by authority is commonly seen in politics today ("That's been debunked!").

Instead, Tertullian (he may not have been the first) attacks this Eastern Christianity by conflating it with a much more mild Asian Marcionism.

In the earlier, Roman Marcionism, Marcion is merely arguing for a complete rejection of the Jewish character from the Christian religion, including their god. The need for this would be much less by Tertullian's time, and indeed orthodoxy can be seen as an essentially Marcionite project, a divorce from Judaism but a gentle divorce with a good custody arrangement for the kids.

We can therefore interpret the later Marcionism, if it is indeed a novel perspective from the East come with the plague, as much more theologically divergent than what was ever proposed by the first Marcion.

For simplicity, I assume a 165 AD prophet of sorts brought as a diplomatic prisoner from Nisibis, probably a hostage. The same wagon train that brought the plague back with the legions brought this prisoner from city to city in Asia and Greece. And so, by reason of context, I call this person Ignatius, or his hagiographical inspiration. I would also credit him with a popularization of Christian ideas over and above what extant Christians could accomplish, thereby provoking a scrambled reaction which directly produced the orthodox, anti-Gnostic tradition.

We can imagine that at the heart of this Ignatius's doctrine is a divergent theology. A doctrine that not only claims the Christian and Jewish god are not the same, but boldly declares that the Jewish God as Demiurge is the enemy of the human soul, a devil, and that the true god of Christ, of Gnosis, is salvation. The impetus for this doctrine is easy to find. First, Gnostic esoterics with both Egyptian and Babylonian origins. Including an anti-materialism which would be very comfortable in the East.

Second, a theological rivalry between Jews that defined the Jamesian era. We can assume that the end of the Jewish Wars relegated this doctrine to the East.

Here we have early Jewish confusion about their own deity. The "Two Powers in Heaven" controversy, and divergent evolutions of the Jewish God into different versions of loose monotheism. In one, God is Asshur or Atum, the hidden first principle, the uncreated null behind all divinity. In another, God is Monotheos, a supreme divine essence and first cause of creation, a high form from which others are derived.

I do not think that there is any direct genealogical link between the following myth and later confusions about Jewish theology, but the existence of the great battles between Hadad and Yam, Osiris and Seth, would resonate with Jews who retained elements of their folk traditions. The idea that this battle can manifest even in common era religious debates would probably continue to resonate. We already know that some Jewish sects believed their co-religionists were worshipping the wrong God.

So I see the Ignatius figure as taking an oriental, anti-materialist evolution of the Jewish sectarian opinion about the worship of the temple aristocrats, and applying it to the Judeo-Hellenic model of God. "Your God is a lie who is trapping your soul" would be a completely fresh and deeply psychologically compelling narrative. And Christianity - as an affirmative rejection of Judaism - would be a natural home for it.

IN SUMMARY

The gospel writing project is specifically an effort to cast Christianity as an independent religion from Judaism, where prior to 135 AD it was interpreted as essentially Jewish. An overzealous emphasis on this objective would align with our basic narrative about Marcion. However, Marcion is not rejecting God. He is rejecting the Jewishness of God. And the church does not object to "Marcionites", but rather, merely drives Marcion out of Rome for having too much influence. Perhaps, there remains some sectarian difference of opinion about the Old Testament.

Meanwhile, in the East you have an anti-materialist Jewish Christianity that consciously rejects the former temple's Yahweh, and simultaneously rejects the Hellenic Monotheos. It arrives stupendously in Asia via "Ignatius". It is the source of this notion we have the "Gnosticism" (not a real religion) rejects the Demiurge (only "Marcionite" "Christian" Gnosticism does).

Not only is this later Marcionite theology contrary to Jewish thought, it ALSO represents a fundamental accusation of the West by the East. Think about that. Thus, it is this latter theology that provokes the vigorous reaction leading to the development of orthodoxy.

And what orthodoxy accomplishes is a theological methodology based on textual authority over personal authority and verbal teachings, philosophy (in the form of consistency and precedence) over idiosyncrasy of religious practice. Anti-Gnostic (Marcionite) Christianity is where the methodology that unites religion (therefore spirituality) and philosophy (therefore ethics) is developed.

It is not Christianity that takes the West out of antiquity. It's the technology developed by Christian theologians, by which religion and philosophy are unified, that permits the rise of Western institutions. And it's the anti-materialism of Marcionism, arriving among a struggle over religious and theological authority, which pushed for the development of this technology.

So, fantastical speculation to be sure, but I would propose two Marcions, neither bearing that name. They are incorrectly conflated, and the catholicizers did so out of convenience.

[yakovzutolmai]

On the dating mentioned by Tertullian.

I mistakenly remembered Tertullian's claim and now have already remembered it after hitting "submit". In any event, it's addenda.

Tertullian claims 117 years between Pilate and Antoninus, celebrated by Marcionites as two times Christ's truth comes to Rome. So, using 29 AD as his era's death of Christ, Tertullian finds Antoninus in 150. Thence, he places Marcion's arrival in Rome, pertinent to the Marcionites celebration of this date.

Notice what he accomplishes. The Catholic Encyclopedia would have us believe 150 is the correct dating for Marcion's arrival. But what's the source? As far as I can tell, outside of Catholicism's own historical reckoning, it is Tertullian who provides this dating, I think through the methodology listed.

However, I have some problems with this. First, I do not believe there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who had any interaction whatsoever with Pilate. And if the "Samaritan Prophet" or some such is the echo within history that gets to claim to be the inspiration for passion narratives, still I do not believe that this has any material connection to the theology of the Jewish Christians. Sure, Mark/Luke or whatever might have ripped the Samaritan prophet from the pages of Josephus and used him as their "Jesus" in lieu of a real human behind their divine Christ hinted at through pesher. But that does not imply a historical Pilate who comes back to Rome with things to say about Christianity.

Pre-50 AD, I don't buy anyone in Rome having a thing to say about Christian theology, and even after it's basically Sicarii until at least 70.

Also, there is a compelling case that Marcion's gospel was written in concert with the synoptics in some way. There is evidence of cross-pollination, in that these works were aware of each others' progress while in progress.

Here we notice Tertullian's great trick. If Marcion's gospel is from 150, then even by the third century understanding of history, it absolutely could not have preceded the other gospels.

So, we actually have a strong case that Marcion and the gospel texts are all written in the same locus, and closer to 135 than 150.

What this means is that Tertullian's interpretation of the 117 years is not only false, but maybe a deliberate misrepresentation of what Marcionites were saying in Tertullian's time.

Instead, we can identify Tiberius Alexander as in the proper role of Pilate, dealing with Theudas, James and Simon as persecutor. We can even stretch imagination but remain totally plausible by imagining that beheaded Theudas's skull would have crossed Tiberius's hands, and that the cloth which had once contained it would remain in his possession. And here we have an interesting basis for the mysterious Veronica Icon or Mandylion (since I believe Theudas was Izates, and his remains would be remitted to Adiabene, whose tradition Edessa would try and claim two centuries later).

So Tiberius is also victorious with Titus, returning to Rome after the Jewish War and serving as Prefect of the Praetorian Guard around 75 AD during the heyday of the Flavian Christian cult. There cannot be a more fitting locus for the "Pilate preached the gospel to Romans and made them Christian, having possession of Christ's facial icon and giving it to Veronica (Berenice)". 75 + 117 = 192. The END of the Nervo-Antonine dynasty.

Five emperors later, within the year, the Severans ruled in Rome. The descendants of Sampsiceramus, the very rival of Izates (who vanquished him in Josephus named "Abia of Arsamus"). When Caracalla conquered Arbela, he overturned the royal tombs of Adiabene in search of something. The antipathy between the Severans and the Christians isn't hard identify, and wouldn't you know the Severan period represents the rise of orthodoxy against Marcionism - particularly and acutely observed in Edessa and Nisibis themselves.

So I think the Marcionites with their 117 years are referring to a lost context, an Age of Christ in Rome. From the Flavian Christians with the Vera Icon, until the rise of the Severans and anti-Marcionites. Including both the first and second Marcions.

Well, maybe not. But I believe I've challenged the traditional history in interesting ways, at least.

[yakovzutolmai]

Final note. Abgar the Great is the client king of Edessa responsible for its Christianization and later catholicization. His reign is squarely in the Severan period, particularly his Christian activities. I believe the Severans would be interested in the fate of the Adiabene family in the Arab world, and it's entirely believable that opposition to Marcionism in the East was a deliberate project of the Severans.

In other words, some may have left Marcionism for orthodoxy to avoid Imperial ire. Hmm, have to research this a bit.

Either way, the Abgar legend and Mandylion would be 200 AD frauds attempting to give Edessa an anti-Adiabene, anti-Marcionite character and distance Edessa's Christianity from the family of Adiabene who had been enemies of the Severan forebears DURING the time of Christ. To hope and claim that Edessa's Christianity is unlike that other Christianity so hated by the Emesenes, and Edessa has its own history with Christ independent of Adiabene. In fact, this is eminently believable. It leaves room for Severan indifference, though Edessa would surely be aware of the relevant history.

[MrMacSon]

< . . snip . . >

In this milieu we find Marcion, ostensibly a proselyte's child and therefore in effect a "Jewish Christian". And here, a gentile Roman, he finds room for a rejection completely of Jewishness within Christianity. We can even assume the history is correct, that Marcion's brain is the source of the idea that Christ's God is Paul's unknown God and not connected to the Jews.

< . . snip . . >

IN SUMMARY

The gospel writing project is specifically an effort to cast Christianity as an independent religion from Judaism, where prior to 135 AD it was interpreted as essentially Jewish. An overzealous emphasis on this objective would align with our basic narrative about Marcion. However, Marcion is not rejecting God. He is rejecting the Jewishness of God. And the church does not object to "Marcionites", but rather, merely drives Marcion out of Rome for having too much influence. Perhaps, there remains some sectarian difference of opinion about the Old Testament.

Some scholars say that Marcion came to think that the Jewish god was not a nice god and that the Jewish god and the supreme God were different entities, so he wanted to have a new form of Judaism which he based on [his version of] Jesus Christ and which he termed Christianity (some say Marcion was himself initially or essentially a Jew).

But Marcion's theology and gospel got taken over and the subsequent theology, which became orthodoxy, was both more Jewish based and, at the same time, more anti-Jewish overall.

And there is either increasing consideration or even realisation that Christianity - both Marcion's version and the orthodox version - were and indeed are more pro-Roman than has been previously considered (perhaps as a result of a concerted effort in those times to overcome Roman vs Jewish adversary (of which there had been a lot))

The scholarship on this is likely in very early stages and will likely have a long way to go ...

[yakovzutolmai]

But Marcion's theology and gospel got taken over and the subsequent theology, which became orthodoxy, was both more Jewish based and, at the same time, more anti-Jewish overall.

And there is either increasing consideration or even realisation that Christianity - both Marcion's version and the orthodox version - were and indeed are more pro-Roman than has been previously considered (perhaps as a result of a concerted effort in those times to overcome Roman vs Jewish adversary (of which there had been a lot)(

The scholarship on this is likely in very early stages and will likely have a long way to go ...

Thanks, I had just reviewed material saying this, and it inspired my comment.

For convenience I will summarize my two Marcions.

#1 Proposed an anti-Jewish God, which nevertheless was the Greek Monotheos and Demiurge.

#2 Proposed an anti-materialist, anti-Demiurgic God.

Perhaps, this latter God is an Eastern Jewish memory of a conceit that Jerusalem's temple was worshipping the wrong God. One which evolves by adopting, let us say Eastern, anti-materialist ideas.

So, in response to your comment. This very early scholarship is proposing a Marcion consistent with #1, but which cannot explain the emergence of #2. And yet, "Marcionites" are blamed for the emergence of the latter viewpoint within both Gnosticism and Christianity. Perhaps, that sect was, and that's all there is to the story.

However, my perspective is that Marcion himself (#1) was not very influential after his banishment (I am not sure if excommunication existed, and it was more like a shameful retreat than a banishment). I suppose he would have had a series of texts which endured in an environment where other alternatives existed, but I'm not sure that would have been enough to generate a sect.

Therefore, I do propose - my speculations aside - that there had to have been a discrete catalyst of Marcion #2 in order for those ideas to enter into Christianity.

(I'm now thinking Marcion was present and responsible for helping with Mark and John financially, and he also sponsored his own proto-Luke; Matthew would have been the anti-Marcion response, and Luke itself comes later, by orienting back toward Matthew)

So the greatest violence done against Marcion #1 was to produce Matthew in rebuttal.

[yakovzutolmai]

And there is either increasing consideration or even realisation that Christianity - both Marcion's version and the orthodox version - were and indeed are more pro-Roman than has been previously considered (perhaps as a result of a concerted effort in those times to overcome Roman vs Jewish adversary (of which there had been a lot)

My personal opinion is that this confusion derives from different opinions within Judaism. I have come to believe that most of Judaism had embraced proto-Christianity, and even the holdouts finally did in rallying behind Bar Kokhba (his name gives it away).

Some Jews (obviously those not in Jerusalem, therefore Alexandria) held that the true power of the temple came from its heavenly counterpart, and the Earthly temple was merely allegory to teach of and demonstrate the real redemptive power of the heavenly temple. With such a view, in fact, even holidays and sacrifices were not relevant to redemption. The heavenly high priest himself, through direct spiritual intervention with the individual, could transform sacrifice into forgiveness. I think it's sort of obvious how this connects Judaism to Christianity, and it makes sense why Alexandrian Jews would embrace it as a perspective fitting the diaspora, who are not near Jerusalem.

Then there are Jews who see flesh as corrupt, and have incorporated Babylonian and Egyptian esoterics into their traditions which come from a time before Judaism was monotheistic. And who anticipate an eschatological moment.

I think the general way to define Christianity within Judaism is to highlight a near-divine spirit which prophecy anticipates as an entity bound to fix the problems facing Jews, but then also brings revelation and correction to the world in general. Call it looking past the temple, where some messiah or entity, spirit, king replaces the role of the temple (consistent with his prototype as the heavenly high priest, hence Joshua/Jesus).

It's a broad umbrella and we see with the temple actually destroyed, encompasses many factions perhaps most of the Jews at some point. The rabbinical school does a fantastic job of substituting the verbal recitation of Torah by faithful, ethnic Jews for the temple. In this sense, this will sound odd, rabbinical Judaism "blocks" definitional Christianity from replacing the temple by putting Torah and Jews themselves in the place of messiah and temple. And that's very much what Judaism is, a defense against Christian infiltration and theology.

[MrMacSon]

(I'm now thinking Marcion was present and responsible for helping with Mark and John financially, and he also sponsored his own proto-Luke; Matthew would have been the anti-Marcion response, and Luke itself comes later, by orienting back toward Matthew)

So the greatest violence done against Marcion #1 was to produce Matthew in rebuttal.

The Marcion[ite] gospel would probably be the most Luke-like proto-Luke.

Matthew would have been the most pro-Jewish, anti-Marcion response

Thanks, I had just reviewed material saying this, and it inspired my comment.

For convenience I will summarize my two Marcions.

#1 Proposed an anti-Jewish God, which nevertheless was the Greek Monotheos and Demiurge.

#2 Proposed an anti-materialist, anti-Demiurgic God.

I'm also reviewing (and still deciphering some material) about all this, so I will finish doing that before commenting further. Cheers.

[mlinssen]

Also, there is a compelling case that Marcion's gospel was written in concert with the synoptics in some way. There is evidence of cross-pollination, in that these works were aware of each others' progress while in progress.

Can you name one example?