You cut off most of what I said (and everything that was very relevant):
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 7:26 pm
Cosgrove also is clearly saying that Marcion had the first "written canon," which allowed the Gospel and the Apostle to be quoted as scripture. And Cosgrove is almost certainly implying that Marcion's canon excluded the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible (or Septuagint), which Marcion made a point of contrasting to discredit with the
Antitheses.
Justin's biggest objection wouldn't be what was included, but what was excluded: the Jewish scriptures. This exclusion of the Jewish scriptures followed from Marcion's theology.
And a reactionary effort would be to place an emphasis on the scriptures of the Bible, thus demoting the (multiple, human, potentially flawed) gospels back to noncanonical, nonscriptural status. This is a strategy that both Cosgrove and I see in Justin.
And quoted the first couple sentences:
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat May 27, 2023 3:54 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 7:26 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 5:46 pmHe writes on page 220:
"... Marcion was the first, as far as can be ascertained, to promulgate a fixed written canon, and since the radical canon which he produced..."
Was Marcion's canon so radical? What was his canon? A Gospel that, apart from the first line, any Christian of the time could have read without many problems? A collection of Paul's letters that were apparently not much different to the ones we have, and again any Christian of the time could have read without many problems? Maybe the Antitheses, but not sure if that was considered part of Marcion's canon.
I don't see Marcion's canon being a problem at all. The problem was Marcion's
theology.
Cosgrove's sentence here continues "... and since the radical canon which he produced was a result of the theology for which he was excommunicated from the Roman church." Cosgrove may be adhering to a school of thought according to which Marcion made amendations to the text.
Sure, but that's not what I mean. I guess I'm thinking out loud here. Marcion was supposedly a member of the early church. He has a Gospel and a collection of the letters of Paul. He hands them out and people are impressed. I'm thinking: is there anything in his Gospel and letters by Paul that would have been rejected by fellow Christians? I don't think so. I see a lot of the early texts -- 'heretical' and 'orthodox' -- as pretty much the same: Jesus doing and saying pretty much the same things in the Evangelion, Paul writing pretty much the same thing in both collections. (Of course, the lack of Jewish Scripture references in Marcion would have disturbed some Christians for whom that would have been important.)
In short, Marcion's canon would not have been
radical. Any Christian could have picked it up and read through it without concerns. It's only when it came to
theological interpretation -- framing the texts through the idea that the Creator of the material world was the Demiurge rather than the previously unknown Higher God -- that problems started. The texts started to become heretical only through association, rather than the contents themselves. I can see important (eventual) heretics like Marcion and Valentius joining the early church, distributing their own versions of the texts which probably receiving a good reception from their Christian audience generally, until the theological debates started.
Anyway, these are half-formed thoughts. I'm rambling now so I'll leave that there!
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with most of what you're saying.
I am saying that Marcion's
canon was radical because it provided a substitute for the scriptures (i.e., the Jewish scriptures, also known as the only scriptures up to this point). That is its
raison d'être, and that fact could not be avoided. Marcion's stink was on the idea of a
Christian canon. Not necessarily on the idea of writings about Jesus or letters from an apostle (which I agree existed before Marcion and were read by others besides Marcion), but on the idea that they could be elevated to scripture. That is the issue.
Going back to your initial reply:
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 5:46 pm Marcion's texts aren't particularly radical at all. Tertullian makes a big deal over certain words being included and excluded, and we today reinforce his concerns as though Marcion had a completely different canon.
The approaches of Justin and of Tertullian are quite different, aren't they? Tertullian himself has a New Testament, a Christian canon, and he accuses Marcion of falsifying it. Justin does no such thing. Instead, Justin has the memoirs of the apostles and their followers, which are simply testimony from a human perspective about Jesus on earth that show his fulfillment of the scriptures. For Justin, there is no New Testament canon. There is no New Testament text. There are no Christian scriptures.
For Justin, the scriptures foretold Jesus. The scriptures had prophecies. The scriptures had to be read carefully. These scriptures were the law and the prophets. By reading these scriptures, Justin comes to faith in Christ. And just as Justin comes to love Christ, Justin loves the scriptures. To Justin, these scriptures are misinterpreted by the Jews and read rightly by the Christians.
Marcion discarded these scriptures, substituting the Gospel and the Apostle. This is a radical difference.