The Gospel of Luke as a Late Second Century "Trojan Horse"

[Secret Alias]

The need for Luke's gospel is stated in 1:3 ("having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you"). In other words, Luke was doing Theophilus a favor by "carefully investigating" the many accounts about Jesus that existed, so that he wouldn't have to sort through them all himself, the same way that Eusebius had "carefully investigated" earlier Christian writings and wrote an "orderly account" of Christian history for Christians of his time.

So what you're saying is, we should just believe the Church Fathers, etc.? Why not consider what the Marcionites believed? The question then becomes, what is the role of critical inquiry in all of this? Are we genuinely seeking a truthful understanding of the origins of Christianity? If so, what the Marcionites knew or claimed holds significant value. On the other hand, if we're convinced that the truth comes from divine inspiration or some "superior intellect" and we only use textual evidence to support a pre-existing belief, why engage in a discussion at all—except perhaps to gather new arguments and texts that reinforce that belief?

The Marcionites believed their tradition came first. The orthodox, of course, believed the same about theirs. To accept one side's claims without fully engaging with the other's perspective is a failure in scholarly responsibility. And if you're not committed to that kind of inquiry in the first place, by all means, continue doing whatever else it is you're doing.

I think that Marcionism is "truer" than the orthodox tradition because the Marcionite Paul resembles Moses. All sectarian leaders in the Biblical tradition, even Muhammad, end up having this resemblance. I don't find the Acts narrative to be compelling history. I don't find it reasonable to suppose that "all of Christianity" was in agreement about everything when Paul's own letters testify to the opposite situation. Celsus says otherwise. The Acts of the Apostles seems like second century fiction - if not propaganda.

[StephenGoranson]

SA, above, in part:
"So what you're saying is, we should just believe the Church Fathers, etc.?...."

No.
Kindly stop misrepresenting my views.

[Secret Alias]

Kindly stop misrepresenting my views.

I know these aren't your views. I was responding to John2. (Look at the cited text). posting.php?mode=quote&p=177619

[John2]

The need for Luke's gospel is stated in 1:3 ("having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you"). In other words, Luke was doing Theophilus a favor by "carefully investigating" the many accounts about Jesus that existed, so that he wouldn't have to sort through them all himself, the same way that Eusebius had "carefully investigated" earlier Christian writings and wrote an "orderly account" of Christian history for Christians of his time.

So what you're saying is, we should just believe the Church Fathers, etc.? Why not consider what the Marcionites believed? The question then becomes, what is the role of critical inquiry in all of this? Are we genuinely seeking a truthful understanding of the origins of Christianity? If so, what the Marcionites knew or claimed holds significant value. On the other hand, if we're convinced that the truth comes from divine inspiration or some "superior intellect" and we only use textual evidence to support a pre-existing belief, why engage in a discussion at all—except perhaps to gather new arguments and texts that reinforce that belief?

The Marcionites believed their tradition came first. The orthodox, of course, believed the same about theirs. To accept one side's claims without fully engaging with the other's perspective is a failure in scholarly responsibility. And if you're not committed to that kind of inquiry in the first place, by all means, continue doing whatever else it is you're doing.

For me it's about comparing the time period that Marcion is said to have flourished (Antoninus' time) vs. the time that (in my view) Mark and multiple versions of Matthew existed (no later than Trajan's time). Everything we have about Marcion comes from his opponents, including the Marcionite claim to have the original gospel, so that is what we have to go by. If we accept what the orthodox say about the Marcionite claim to have the original gospel, then we also have to take into consideration the time period that Marcion is placed in, and that is a later time than when Mark and multiple versions of Matthew are said to have existed (by a source that Eusebius otherwise disparages for having unorthodox views).

AndI think we both agree that Papias didn't know Luke, and for me, this means that by Papias' time (specifically no later than 110 CE according to Eusebius' chronology, in keeping with Ireneaus' description of Papias as "an ancient man"), there was no need for anyone to counter Marcion's gospel, because it didn't exist yet. And this timeline is in keeping with the time period that Justin Martyr and Hegesippus place Marcion (mid-second century CE). "Everyone" is putting Marcion in the mid-second century CE and "everyone" is calling Papias "an ancient man" and putting him before 110 CE, so for me Mark and Matthew pre-date Marcion's gospel.

[Secret Alias]

For me it's about comparing the time period that Marcion is said to have flourished (Antoninus' time)

Have you examined the origins of this claim?

[John2]

For me it's about comparing the time period that Marcion is said to have flourished (Antoninus' time)

Have you examined the origins of this claim?

Yes. Eusebius places Marcion in the mid-second century CE, as do Marcion's contemporaries Justin Martyr and Hegesippus. The origins of everything we know about Marcion comes from orthodox (or proto-orthodox) sources, and the sense I get from them is that Mark and multiple versions of Matthew existed before Marcion's time.

[Secret Alias]

Eusebius? WTF? What does that matter?

[Secret Alias]

I made another thread to discuss this so as not to distract this discussion with, what I consider to be, inanities. viewtopic.php?p=177630#p177630

[Peter Kirby]

Getting back to Peter's point, Luke 1:1-4 makes the whole story of Marcion forging Luke absolutely preposterous. Are we really supposed to believe that Marcion invented the Paul who spoke for Christ through the Spirit within him? Are we to imagine that Marcion stumbled upon a copy of Luke, which he supposedly "knew" had been commissioned by Paul, and then "ripped" out the first pages to prop up the Paul he "merely thought" was some cult leader establishing a separate messianic community? Meanwhile, Marcion supposedly "knew" Acts was true and that the Paul of Acts was the real one? It’s ridiculous.

What even is this argument?

That there have never been flimsy claims to authority in religious history based on taking existing texts and fitting them to new purposes? That nobody ever tried to use an authority figure of the past to express their views? That rewriting texts is the default for everyone but incredible for Marcion? That Marcion should have just slunk off and disappeared if he didn't possess the original gospel written by Paul, instead of forging ahead and promoting a religious movement?

[Secret Alias]

1. Christianity didn't just "happen" like a tailgate party. It wasn’t the natural development of an historical event that people randomly joined in on. Instead, it developed from the teachings of a charismatic individual who passed on a particular interpretation of life, of a supposed event, of a new reality to a community. Over time, more people joined this community, and that’s how Christianity was "invented." It was a community that grew from a creative interpretation of life, and most forms of creativity in antiquity were sparked by charismatic figures.

2. The orthodox model of Christianity’s origins is quite the opposite. According to this view, Christianity was born from real historical events that were so extraordinary they would have moved anyone who witnessed them to join the movement. The idea here is that there’s no need for subjective interpretation—these events shook the world. Jesus was seen as a great figure whose actions and impact were undeniable. The emphasis is on historical events, not on the visions or interpretations of individuals within the community.

3. Paul, however, was the charismatic visionary who really "invented" Christianity. The movement is rooted in his visions. While there may have been historical events or individuals besides Paul, none of these would have been powerful enough to create a lasting movement on their own. It was Paul’s vision and creativity that shaped Christianity. This is why he was seen as a "second Moses" and called "the apostle."

4. Marcionism is the tradition that best preserves this understanding of Paul. It sees Paul as the founder and creative force behind Christianity, making it the oldest and most original form of the tradition. All Christian traditions use the same foundational texts, but only Marcionism emphasizes the role of a single great man—Paul—as the originator of everything. For this reason, Marcionism should be given more weight than later orthodox interpretations. It preserves the essence of Christianity’s original foundation more accurately.