Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

"Christus magis adamavit hominem, quando alienum redemit." (Tertullian De Carnis 4) The price paid was the blood of Christ. It is thus clear that for Marcion redemption derived from the death of Christ, not from the Resurrection alone. The significance of the shedding of Christ's blood on this view was not so much to make possible the forgiveness of sins as to cancel the Creator's claims upon his creatures.2 (Blackman Marcion 102)

But where is this allusion to 'the price' of Christ's blood? Of course it is found only - in the canonical gospel set - in Matthew:

So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is the price of blood (τιμὴ αἵματός).” 7 So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. 8 That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. 9 Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, 10 and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

I even wonder given the centrality of this concept in Marcionite Christianity whether the orthodox invention of Τιμόθεος the companion of Paul is related to the τιμὴ αἵματός.

This is one of the clearest things that comes out of actual testimony from Marcionites - i.e. the importance of the price of the blood of Christ. Eznik, De Deo 386 refers to 'that saying of Marcion, “We are the price of the blood of Jesus."

Galatians 3:15 Christ bought us with His blood and made us free from the Law.

Clearly the most 'anti-Jewish' part of the gospel is the notion that the curse of the blood of Jesus was on the Jews. But oddly enough the Marcionites seem to have taken the blood as the beginning of existence, their 'purchase' as it were. It would seem to me that the whole digression about the Jews not being able to put the money in the temple and buying a field was an anti-Marcionite revision - so central was this story to the Marcionite faith. But what was there before? What was in the Marcionite gospel?

Judas' 30 pieces of silver has nothing to do with Christ's blood purchasing anything. This is merely the price Judas evaluated Christ as worth in his unbelief per the orthodox writer of Matthew.

Christ's blood purchasing redemption, in the gospels, finds its place in the communion institution narratives, like Luke 22:20 "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." And is more fully explained in Paul.

Yes but there is difference between the Marcionites and the orthodox - the emphasis of the blood of Jesus as a 'price' for redemption. This is Marcionite and these ideas (if Luke is granted as the only gospel for the Marcionites) are relegated only to the letters of Paul. Could an idea as centrally important as this 'price of blood' to the Marcionites have been found only in the secondary testament? I find this impossible to believe. The gospel was more sacred than the Pentateuch. It was for all intents and purposes a new Law if not a second Law (or even 'last law' to borrow Islamic conceptions). The blood price redemption of Jesus has to be in the Marcionite gospel.

Also the most anti-Jewish part of the synoptic gospels is found in Matthew (the part that modern Christians silence viz. Matt 27:25 "His blood is on us and on our children!"). How could this not have been 'Marcionite'? If the Marcionites were these 'Jew haters' (a term I avoid) how is it that the Jew-hating bit in the gospels was excised from their gospel or written later? On top of this the Marcionites were fixated on the blood of Jesus. It just can't have been post-Marcionite. The image of the blood of Jesus being 'on the Jews' as the blood of sacrifices were formerly on the Israelites is so utterly fundamental to the logic of Christianity. It's hard to imagine that the Marcionites didn't know or use this line. It all fits together.

Secret Alias wrote:Yes but there is difference between the Marcionites and the orthodox - the emphasis of the blood of Jesus as a 'price' for redemption.

That's from Paul's ransom theology. 1st Cor 6:20 "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

The Marcionites emphasize Paul's theology more precisely because they don't have Matthew. But orthodoxy also has this concept, just its on the backburner because the one god pays the price to himself (stupid so largely ignored unless reading a passage in Paul that mentions it) whereas in Marcionism the Good God buys believers from the bad god (makes more sense so gets emphasized more).

But again could the centrality of the Marcionite interest in Jesus blood redemption - 'Jesus blood redemption' ultimately being a recorded event in the gospel (viz. the crucifixion) - have been wholly based on the Pauline writings, a secondary (i.e. based on/derived from the gospels) testament??? No mention in the gospel but Paul said so a generation later or Paul wrote the gospel but then failed to mention anything about Jesus's blood. Would that have stuck with anyone? Would that have convinced anyone? The price of Jesus's blood redeemed us ... but it's not in the gospel. I don't think so.

Secret Alias wrote:Also the most anti-Jewish part of the synoptic gospels is found in Matthew (the part that modern Christians silence viz. Matt 27:25 "His blood is on us and on our children!"). How could this not have been 'Marcionite'? If the Marcionites were these 'Jew haters'

They hated the Jewish god not the Jews. Remember Tertullian says Marcion allows that the Jewish god may still send his messiah for the Jews to give them national sovereignty over Israel.

Jew hatred comes from the belief that Jesus is the Jewish messiah snd they killed him....how can they kill their own messiah? How evil of them! They must be pure evil!

But if Jesus is snother god, naturally they would kill him, who can blame them for killing a foreign god based on knowing what their law teaches? So Marcionism is tough on the Jewish god, weak on the Jews. After all, they're no competition. What Marcionite would defect to worshipping the vile god of the Jews? But what orthodox wouldn't? Since they love the OT so much. The hatred in orthodoxy is from fear that the orthodox interpolation in Luke is right "no man having drunk the old wine straightway desires the new, for he says the old is better." Indeed the orthodox themselves think the OT is better so hating on the Jews is necessary to prevent defection to the synagogue. The Marcionite views the old as vile, so he csn leave the Jew in peace to follow his crappy god if he wants.