So, did Marcion just make everything?

[Peter Kirby]

For what it's worth - since this is what I'm presently hyperfixated on in my biblical research - I'll likely make a thread soon detailing all the various theories regarding Pauline authorship and the evidence for them. I find the idea of the Paulines originating with Marcion quite compelling, but I also think it's worth exploring the ideas that there were originals that Marcion simply corrupted into what we have today, or that the co-authors of Paul are responsible for the contradictions and errors we see from time to time. And of course, I'd also do my utmost to include as much evidence as I can for both the fully traditional view, that all Pauline epistles (aside from the letters to Seneca) are legitimate, as well as the current scholarly consensus, which is that all Pauline epistles excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are legitimate. Lots of different angles to work this from, but I think before I (or anyone, really) can formulate a new canon and incorporate non-canonical works, I've first got to determine if the current canon is bloated in any way so I don't take forged or corrupted works as evidence for the canonicity of others.

That's a great idea. It's a very complex topic, but it sounds like you're trying to approach it in a good way.

I believe 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and sometimes Colossians are more commonly contested.

Do you know about Robert Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts? He takes the approach of being more inclusive (instead of paring down) and adding some commentary regarding texts likely to be forged or corrupted. A large part of the study of these texts is figuring out where these texts are coming from, even if they aren't by the ascribed author. It might be of interest to you.

[Vanished]

For what it's worth - since this is what I'm presently hyperfixated on in my biblical research - I'll likely make a thread soon detailing all the various theories regarding Pauline authorship and the evidence for them. I find the idea of the Paulines originating with Marcion quite compelling, but I also think it's worth exploring the ideas that there were originals that Marcion simply corrupted into what we have today, or that the co-authors of Paul are responsible for the contradictions and errors we see from time to time. And of course, I'd also do my utmost to include as much evidence as I can for both the fully traditional view, that all Pauline epistles (aside from the letters to Seneca) are legitimate, as well as the current scholarly consensus, which is that all Pauline epistles excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are legitimate. Lots of different angles to work this from, but I think before I (or anyone, really) can formulate a new canon and incorporate non-canonical works, I've first got to determine if the current canon is bloated in any way so I don't take forged or corrupted works as evidence for the canonicity of others.

That's a great idea. It's a very complex topic, but it sounds like you're trying to approach it in a good way.

I believe 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and sometimes Colossians are more commonly contested.

Do you know about Robert Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts? He takes the approach of being more inclusive (instead of paring down) and adding some commentary regarding texts likely to be forged or corrupted. A large part of the study of these texts is figuring out where these texts are coming from, even if they aren't by the ascribed author. It might be of interest to you.

Yes, I've seen those three contested quite a bit, often alongside suggestions that they were written by a group of Gnostics. I'll be sure to include evidence for and against those claims as well

As for that book, no, I have not. I've never actually read any biblical literature whatsoever except for that JesusWordsOnly book I mentioned earlier, and of course the Bible itself. I've only been researching the Bible for about a month, and I'm frankly more well-versed in the history of Super Mario 64 than I am in the history of the Bible, but history and literature in general interest me, so I figured I'd try my hand in deciphering some of the Bible's mysteries as well, at least, in my own mind. I'll be sure to give it a read - thank you for the suggestion!

[lclapshaw]

For what it's worth - since this is what I'm presently hyperfixated on in my biblical research - I'll likely make a thread soon detailing all the various theories regarding Pauline authorship and the evidence for them. I find the idea of the Paulines originating with Marcion quite compelling, but I also think it's worth exploring the ideas that there were originals that Marcion simply corrupted into what we have today, or that the co-authors of Paul are responsible for the contradictions and errors we see from time to time. And of course, I'd also do my utmost to include as much evidence as I can for both the fully traditional view, that all Pauline epistles (aside from the letters to Seneca) are legitimate, as well as the current scholarly consensus, which is that all Pauline epistles excluding 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are legitimate. Lots of different angles to work this from, but I think before I (or anyone, really) can formulate a new canon and incorporate non-canonical works, I've first got to determine if the current canon is bloated in any way so I don't take forged or corrupted works as evidence for the canonicity of others.

That's a great idea. It's a very complex topic, but it sounds like you're trying to approach it in a good way.

I believe 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and sometimes Colossians are more commonly contested.

Do you know about Robert Price's The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts? He takes the approach of being more inclusive (instead of paring down) and adding some commentary regarding texts likely to be forged or corrupted. A large part of the study of these texts is figuring out where these texts are coming from, even if they aren't by the ascribed author. It might be of interest to you.

Yes, I've seen those three contested quite a bit, often alongside suggestions that they were written by a group of Gnostics. I'll be sure to include evidence for and against those claims as well

As for that book, no, I have not. I've never actually read any biblical literature whatsoever except for that JesusWordsOnly book I mentioned earlier, and of course the Bible itself. I've only been researching the Bible for about a month, and I'm frankly more well-versed in the history of Super Mario 64 than I am in the history of the Bible, but history and literature in general interest me, so I figured I'd try my hand in deciphering some of the Bible's mysteries as well, at least, in my own mind. I'll be sure to give it a read - thank you for the suggestion!

Personally, I would start with this book https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letter-Col ... 0966396677

[davidmartin]

The epistles are the work of a successful early church theologian whoever that may be
But one who looks like they are innovating away from his predecessors who disagree with him
Once it is realised this theologian lived at least 40 long years after the supposed time of Paul, the opponents in the epistles reflect opponents contemporary to the author and don't tell us much about those predecessors and the opponents are shown to be diverse themselves (it is not just Paul vs the Judaic Pillars)
'Paul' is the vehicle the author uses to win the argument in his day which is commonly how the ancients use to write and thought nothing of it

The so-called Judaic Pillars 'Paul' opposes look very much like the opponents Marcion's own crowd might run up against in their time and we can't assume they were not innovating as well, as the epistles claim they were or what exactly they were saying.

The epistles do capture something of the earlier movement once the theologian's innovations are stripped away, I assume it was about bringing divinity into the mud-world. That's basically what Jesus does in the gospels?

[robert j]

I've never actually read any biblical literature whatsoever except for that JesusWordsOnly book I mentioned earlier, and of course the Bible itself. I've only been researching the Bible for about a month ...

Personally, I would start with this book https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letter-Col ... 0966396677

Trobisch’s book, Paul’s Letter Collection, is certainly a worthwhile read, however, IMO a few years of prior study is necessary to adequately evaluate the various claims and interpretations offered.

I think a far better place to start would be Burton Mack’s 1995 Who Wrote the New Testament. The book provides an excellent, critical, and reasonably balanced introduction to New Testament studies from a widely recognized scholar. I certainly don’t agree with all of what Mack wrote, perhaps not even most of it (par for the course for me even with the most simpatico of authors). But I found Mack’s book to be an excellent starting point when I first became interested in NT studies. I still refer back to it sometimes, and even cite the book on occasion.

[lclapshaw]

I've never actually read any biblical literature whatsoever except for that JesusWordsOnly book I mentioned earlier, and of course the Bible itself. I've only been researching the Bible for about a month ...

Personally, I would start with this book https://www.amazon.com/Pauls-Letter-Col ... 0966396677

Trobisch’s book, Paul’s Letter Collection, is certainly a worthwhile read, however, IMO a few years of prior study is necessary to adequately evaluate the various claims and interpretations offered.

I think a far better place to start would be Burton Mack’s 1995 Who Wrote the New Testament. The book provides an excellent, critical, and reasonably balanced introduction to New Testament studies from a widely recognized scholar. I certainly don’t agree with all of what Mack wrote, perhaps not even most of it (par for the course for me even with the most simpatico of authors). But I found Mack’s book to be an excellent starting point when I first became interested in NT studies. I still refer back to it sometimes, and even cite the book on occasion.

I don't think that I have read Burton Mack’s book so I can't comment on it. I recommended Trobish's book based on the stated interest of Vanished to study Paul's letters and not the NT in general. Frankly I find some of Trobish's conclusions in the book a little iffy but very much admire the factual information about the nature of the letter collection he presents. On the general nature of the NT I can recommend his book On the Origin of Christian Scripture.

@ Vanished, try this thread out as well viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10382

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10490

[davidlau17]

I realize this isn't a direct response to the question of whether Marcion was behind everything, but in my opinion, Marcion most likely dates earlier than Irenaeous, Tertullian, and Epiphanius would lead us to believe. The church fathers had reason to push him as far forward in time as possible; a heretic from the post-apostlic age. Tertullian's 144 CE assertion is often cited.

Yet, if Justin Martyr is correctly dated to 150-160 CE, the 144 CE date cannot be correct. Justin wrote:

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. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

"Even at this day" suggests that Marcion and his teachings had been around for quite some time. "Caused many of every nation" similarly suggests too great an influence than would be possible within a decade of Justin. What we can say with certainty is that Marcionism had ripened to the point of developing a large following by Justin's time. Not only because he claimed this, but also because he felt the need to respond to it. And Justin apparently wrote an entire work entitled Against Marcion.

[Peter Kirby]

I realize this isn't a direct response to the question of whether Marcion was behind everything, but in my opinion, Marcion most likely dates earlier than Irenaeous, Tertullian, and Epiphanius would lead us to believe. The church fathers had reason to push him as far forward in time as possible; a heretic from the post-apostlic age. Tertullian's 144 CE assertion is often cited.

Yet, if Justin Martyr is correctly dated to 150-160 CE, the 144 CE date cannot be correct. Justin wrote:

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. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

"Even at this day" suggests that Marcion and his teachings had been around for quite some time. "Caused many of every nation" similarly suggests too great an influence than would be possible within a decade of Justin. What we can say with certainty is that Marcionism had ripened to the point of developing a large following by Justin's time. Not only because he claimed this, but also because he felt the need to respond to it. And Justin apparently wrote an entire work entitled Against Marcion.

This is a good point. The first apology is usually dated around 155 CE, and approximately ten years wouldn't be enough time to speak of Marcion this way.

We can get a couple points of reference on the time period that Justin considers to be recent. Justin refers to Antinous (died 130 CE) as someone "who was alive but lately." And he mentions the "Jewish war which happened just recently" (132-135 CE). Based on these two references, apparently the past twenty-five years at least were considered to be recent enough by Justin.

Also, Clement of Alexandria in Stromata Book 7: "Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]." Both Justin and Clement suggest old age and a long career as a teacher for Marcion.

This puts the start of Marcion's activity early in the reign of Hadrian (if not earlier, possibly in the reign of Trajan).

[Secret Alias]

The word marcus is part of a threesome of words, explained by Isidore of Seville in his Etymologies (also known as Origins): "The marcus is a rather large hammer, called marcus because it is larger and stronger for striking. The martellus is medium-sized. The marculus is a very small hammer" (Isid. Orig. XIX, vii. Metalworkers' tools, 2). Isidore distinguishes the marculus and its kin from another impact tool called malleus: "is so named because it strikes and stretches out anything when it is hot and soft (mollis)" (ibid.).

[andrewcriddle]

I realize this isn't a direct response to the question of whether Marcion was behind everything, but in my opinion, Marcion most likely dates earlier than Irenaeous, Tertullian, and Epiphanius would lead us to believe. The church fathers had reason to push him as far forward in time as possible; a heretic from the post-apostlic age. Tertullian's 144 CE assertion is often cited.

Yet, if Justin Martyr is correctly dated to 150-160 CE, the 144 CE date cannot be correct. Justin wrote:

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. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

"Even at this day" suggests that Marcion and his teachings had been around for quite some time. "Caused many of every nation" similarly suggests too great an influence than would be possible within a decade of Justin. What we can say with certainty is that Marcionism had ripened to the point of developing a large following by Justin's time. Not only because he claimed this, but also because he felt the need to respond to it. And Justin apparently wrote an entire work entitled Against Marcion.

This is a good point. The first apology is usually dated around 155 CE, and approximately ten years wouldn't be enough time to speak of Marcion this way.

We can get a couple points of reference on the time period that Justin considers to be recent. Justin refers to Antinous (died 130 CE) as someone "who was alive but lately." And he mentions the "Jewish war which happened just recently" (132-135 CE). Based on these two references, apparently the past twenty-five years at least were considered to be recent enough by Justin.

Also, Clement of Alexandria in Stromata Book 7: "Likewise they allege that Valentinus was a hearer of Theudas. And he was the pupil of Paul. For Marcion, who arose in the same age with them, lived as an old man with the younger [heretics]." Both Justin and Clement suggest old age and a long career as a teacher for Marcion.

This puts the start of Marcion's activity early in the reign of Hadrian (if not earlier, possibly in the reign of Trajan).

There is some ancient evidence for beginning Marcion's activity in the late 130's CE. See Arch Heretic by Moll. Harnack suggested that Marcion's activity was originally dated as beginning at the start of the reign of Antoninus Pius in 138 CE.

Andrew Criddle