Page 11 of 13
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:17 am
by StephenGoranson
One weird thing about the behaviorist, reductionist, materialist worldview is that one who holds that can speak as if they are the exception and can with informed free will tell us accurately how it (or propaganda) works.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:22 am
by Secret Alias
I'm struggling to understand your position. Can we get to the core of the issue? Are you suggesting that everything we know about early Judaism and Christianity is accurate? If we could travel back to the first century, would we see the events in the Acts of the Apostles unfold as described? Would the rabbinic view of continuity with Second Commonwealth Judaism hold up, or – as I believe – was something drastically different happening that isn't reflected in our sources?
For example, I argue that early Christianity was clearly an extension of Alexandrian Judaism as outlined by Philo. And regarding Second Commonwealth Judaism, I propose that the Sadducees were, in fact, more like neo-Samaritans. This is my main argument, but I don't see these points reflected in the mainstream narrative of the first century.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:28 am
by Secret Alias
I would go so far as to suggest that early Christianity was so deeply dependent on Philo's Alexandrian Judaism that it might have even been ahistorical, in the sense that it could have developed more as a theological construct than as a direct response to specific historical events. Philo's influence on early Christian thought is undeniable—his writings on Logos, divine wisdom, and allegorical interpretation of scripture seem to permeate early Christian theology.
However, I don’t believe Philo was innovating something entirely new. Rather, he was part of a highly Hellenized Alexandrian Judaism that was already well established. This tradition didn’t necessarily need a historical event like Jesus’s ministry to develop a gospel narrative. Instead, it could have evolved as a response to the collapse of the Second Temple in 69 CE, offering a new theological vision to replace the destroyed Judaism of that time. In this view, early Christianity may have been shaped not by historical necessity, but by the intellectual and cultural currents of Hellenized Judaism that were already in motion.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:35 am
by StephenGoranson
SA, above, in part:
"Are you suggesting that everything we know about early Judaism and Christianity is accurate?"
SG, me:
Of course not. It can be unproductive to try to reply to straw man characterizations. Plus "we" don't all know the same stuff.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 10:15 am
by Secret Alias
I've never been interested in studying just for the sake of studying, researching for the sake of researching, or writing for the sake of writing (though my participation in this forum might make it seem that way due to its general lack of fruitfulness). The "big picture" needs to be re-examined and something less imposing, more nuanced, needs to take its place.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 10:17 am
by Secret Alias
When it comes to the scholarly use of Adversus Marcionem, it’s important to acknowledge that we can't be certain Tertullian is giving us any reliable information about the Marcionite gospel. Any claims of "reconstructing" the gospel should come with an asterisk. It's entirely possible that Tertullian is simply adapting Irenaeus's original argument from Luke against Marcion, rather than providing any firsthand insight into the actual Marcionite text.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 10:36 am
by maryhelena
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 9:28 am
I would go so far as to suggest that early Christianity was
so deeply dependent on Philo's Alexandrian Judaism that it might have even been ahistorical, in the sense that it could have developed more as a theological construct than as a direct response to specific historical events. Philo's influence on early Christian thought is undeniable—his writings on Logos, divine wisdom, and allegorical interpretation of scripture seem to permeate early Christian theology.
However, I don’t believe Philo was innovating something entirely new. Rather, he was part of a highly Hellenized Alexandrian Judaism that was already well established. This tradition didn’t necessarily need a historical event like Jesus’s ministry to develop a gospel narrative. Instead, it could have evolved as a response to the collapse of the Second Temple in 69 CE, offering a new theological vision to replace the destroyed Judaism of that time. In this view, early Christianity may have been shaped not by historical necessity, but by the intellectual and cultural currents of Hellenized Judaism that were already in motion.
While I agree with the above points regarding Philo, I don't think this suggests that actual political history was irrelevant.
I think George Wells once remarked about Doherty's mythicist theory = it's not all spiritual. It's not all theology or philosophy. Jewish history always played its part in Jewish self understanding. The chosen people, the land. Ideas, concepts, that required political expression alongside philosophical ideals.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 10:55 am
by Secret Alias
I am not saying it's impossible that Jesus existed. He could have. I am just saying it wasn't necessary for Christianity to come to life. I am not sure that a historical Jesus is at all necessary for the central myth about a crucified one having some "magical" effect on the Jewish religion, the world, world history etc. Hard to argue that history matters to a religion which is so firmly based on magical thinking.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2024 11:12 am
by maryhelena
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2024 10:55 am
I am not saying it's impossible that Jesus existed. He could have. I am just saying it wasn't necessary for Christianity to come to life.
Ideas come to life when given 'flesh'. Given a material reality. Whether that material reality is bricks and morter or literary creations.
And Stephan, after all the years you have seen me posting on forums, you have never seen me supporting any version of a gospel related flesh and blood Jesus figure.
I'm not a Jesus historicist nor a Doherty/Carrier mythicist. I beat my own drum....
Anyway, Philo needs more attention.
Re: Against Marcion Studies
Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2024 1:26 am
by JarekS
Marcion created Jesus' market offer for mass organized missionary action by taking selected content products and training people on their basis. He was the founder of the Roman commune as an organized structure by giving it money (Tertullian), writings and letters (anonymous prologue to John). He taught them business.
They became independent and began to compete with his structure after his death, gathering around themselves all others who were threatened by his activities and operational reach.
His structure sold the same thing using the entire early Christian literature as his competitors.
In conflict, hard parameters counted: number of congregations, number of believers, revenues, costs, scope of activity.
Just like in business, in waging war or in running a state, in managing a company.
The rest is propaganda, which has its goal - to maintain structures, take over foreign structures, change the perception of recipients.
The dogs were already barking at his grave. Before that, no one dared to set them on him.
