Rome 135 Then Later Alexandria

[yakovzutolmai]

I have found the argument compelling, that Marcion's Gospel, Matthew, and even John were co-written in Rome around 135. The Bar Kokhba War is the catalyst to distance Proselyte Judaism (of the Alexandrian or Ananian variety) from the Jews.

Both Marcion, the Hebrew Christians and the Iohannite community each had their own agenda. However, they collaborated and borrowed from each other in the process of writing. This is one explanation for gospel interdependence. We assume Mark or proto-Mark pre-existed.

Flash forward to Luke-Acts. I find the most remarkable character of Luke-Acts to be Lucas of Cyrene himself. He is placed in Antioch at 48 AD. The other characters mentioned are consistent with Eisenmann's Babylonian Jews (I hold that Antioch here first meant Nisibis, and as Eisenmann says, Simon Niger is the son of Helena of Adiabene; which is why I think of Manaean as Munbaz). Lukuas of Cyrene is one and a half generations early.

The Basilidean school of Alexandria thanks to Glaucias (suspiciously close to Andreas and Lukuas - the physician - invoking the Therapeutae as well), carries the torch of the movement until the rise of Clement of Alexandria. In Alexandria, there is an affinity for Lukuas.

Lukuas is infamous. His zealots burned Alexandria and slaughtered its inhabitants. The record gives the impression that the wasting was total, at least in terms of the entire population having to flee. How could a figure like this be remembered well?

I have two theories. First, Lukuas was not the leader of the Kitos War zealots. Rather, he was their spiritual figurehead. The Romans attribute the mess, ignorantly, to him. Locals know that he was a mere sage, not a leader of rebels.

Second, the time distance between the Kitos War and the rise of the Basilidian school was long enough for infamy to be forgotten. It seems that, in the ancient world, one generation makes history into rumor, a half generation more turns rumor into myth. The Kitos war ended 117, so add 30 years and by - let's say - 150AD, Lukuas might as well be the last apostolic link to the Chrestians of the Jewish War. Assuming the apostolic, Iohannite or Petrine successions for Asia and Rome respectively, haven't been fully realized. Lukuas is the apostle for Egypt and Cyrene.

If Matthew, Marcion and John were made in 135 in Rome, then I would assume that Luke-Acts is made around 150 in Alexandria (from Marcion's gospel). I believe the timing and geography support this sequence of events.

This also explains the hagiography of Mark. This Luke-Acts era is where proto-Mark is updated into its current form. Mark becomes a figure of Alexandria. We could even argue that the gospel of Mark before that was not so named.

For example, it was called "The Gospel of Jesus Christ". Marcion called his "The Gospel of the Lord". Matthew might be invoking Josephus bar Matthias. John, ironically, invoking Marc-Ion.

So, where "The Gospel of the Lord" is updated to be the product of "Lukuas", "The Gospel of Jesus Christ" is updated to become named for Marcion himself, though he is given a new history.

It is after this when the Gnostics decided to play copy cat with their own gospels.

That is, we have 135 in Rome and 150 in Alexandria.

The only question is whether there was a genuine John with independent influence in Asia.

My personal theory doesn't address that, and assumed the Marcionite sect was present in Asia and converted over to the Eastern influence from the 165 conquest of Nisibis ("Ignatius"). This became the anti-materialist, second Marcionitism responsible for our idea that Gnostics despised the demiurge. Christians in Asia, reacting to the second Marcionitism, would have developed the apostolic tradition of John. I have doubts about Polycarp's authenticity. I believe he was invented to facilitate this tradition.

Though, the presence of a John is unanswered in my corpus of thought. Peter was Simon bar Giora. Paul was an invention of Marcion, but related to the events of 65 AD and an exposition of Therapeutaic doctrine. James is James.

[yakovzutolmai]

With this picture, if Mark is truly an invocation of Marcion, and if "second" Marcionism begins after 165, then it means that the vilification of Marcion was not extant from 135-165. He may have been shunned and shooed out of Rome (I suspect, for claiming too large a role in the gospel creation process and authority over the church, although I believe the other Christians must have taken some of his money and had been happy to do so). However, he was not a heretic.

Thus, in 150, the Alexandrians would have been happy to claim Marcion. They claimed Lukuas, after all.