Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The more I think about this question, the more I think 70s is actually a pretty good dating for Mark. Mark 13 has clear references to the temple's destruction. Like a lot of apocalyptic material, it's good at telling you recent history, but kind of fails from there on. There are implications in Mark 13 that the shit would go down not long after the Temple's destruction - the Son of Man would come on clouds with angels gathering the elect etc. - events being described "at the very gates" after the Temple's fall. That obviously never happened. So it seems a bit far fetched to me that someone writing in the 120s would put this prophecy on Jesus' lips if "at the very gates" was said about a time 50 years ago.

Kapyong wrote:Gday Blood,

Blood wrote:

Kapyong wrote: Now let's be clear - you're arguing that the Marcionites wrote the Apostolikon around the 120s ?

Yes.

I see - is that what is called Marcionitism ?

The Apostolikon is a major aspect of the Marcion theology, yes.

Kapyong wrote:

Blood wrote:The basic idea is that the ten letters originated with the Marcion Church in the second century before Luke-Acts was written. Luke-Acts was a response to the Marcionites.

Interesting idea - do many scholars support it ?
Just asking

The Acts Seminar concluded that "some of the major themes in the book [Acts] may be accounted for by supposing that its author intended to counteract some of the contentions of the Marcionite movement." (Joseph B. Tyson, "Marcion and the Date of Acts," in Acts and Christian Beginnings (2013), page 7-8.

Kapyong wrote: I think your thesis is an interesting one, but I'll admit it sounds a little forced and I've never heard it before. But then there are problems with my theory as well.

As to letter and Gospels - once the Gospels clearly all had appeared on the scene in the 180s they were quoted and cited at length, many times. I find it hard to believe that letter writers would all be completely silent on Gospels stories (apart from the initial celestial stories of dying, crucified and rising). To me the best explanation is that the letters came before the Gospels, although I know there are problems with this hypothesis too.

Most scholars seem to accept that the Marcionites received and redacted the ten letters and G.Luke rather than created them. I'd like to see some evidence and argument for your theory.

Kapyong

As I pointed out, all but two of the epistles are completely silent about "the life and teachings" of Jesus. To say nothing of the seven epistles of Jesus himself in Revelation. So that's a red herring that Doherty and Carrier have made altogether too much of.

Of course the theologians want the Pauline epistles to be "authentic," because they (wrongly) think that the study of Christianity wouldn't be worth studying if it was founded on myth. So they can't accept that the Marcionites simply wrote the Pauline epistles as scripture. Thus they follow the church fathers in inventing the apologetic idea that the Marcionites "redacted" the Pauline epistles.

Beyond what has already been cited about Paul in the Marcionite tradition, that he was 'brought to the side' of Jesus in (the third) heaven soon after the calling of the other apostles, it should be noted that the Marcionite and other heretical traditions also understand Paul to have engaged or reacted against a group of apostles headed by Peter. There are actually two models which are mentioned. The first is similar to what appears in our canonical texts (i.e. Paul condemning Peter to his face etc). The other is that Paul improved upon the understanding of Peter. The first obviously might be argued to only reflect the familiar contents of orthodox scripture. Nevertheless the second is very widespread and necessarily also assumes the existence of apostles in apostolic era. This can't be dismissed as a 'fictitious' invention I don't think because it acknowledges that Paul used pre-existent scriptures and modified them (in the manner of Mark's development of his gospel with the preaching of Peter in Clement of Alexandria). It is hard to imagine a fictitious Paul to begin with. Now some mythicists have to develop an ever expanding matryoshka doll with an anonymous 'real author' in the second century writing about a fictitious Paul modifying a fictitious gospel written or told by a fictitious Peter about a fictitious Jesus (!!). I think this is becoming ludicrous. There is no evidence I know of which could be used to suggest that the Marcionites thought Paul or the apostles was written in any period after 70 CE.

toejam wrote:There are implications in Mark 13 that the shit would go down not long after the Temple's destruction - the Son of Man would come on clouds with angels gathering the elect etc. - events being described "at the very gates" after the Temple's fall. That obviously never happened. So it seems a bit far fetched to me that someone writing in the 120s would put this prophecy on Jesus' lips if "at the very gates" was said about a time 50 years ago.

This is a very common argument but the problem I've always had with it is that once Mark 13 was presumably found to be false then why was it not redacted to explain away the failure? Why was the supposedly failed prophecy then repeated by Matthew and Luke? Why was the embarrassing prophecy not re-written or removed altogether?

The implications of those questions make even less sense to me.

The question I again reinforce is (and no one seems to be able to provide an answer) why is it more likely that the Pauline corpus (including 'the gospel' according to the Marcionites) was a second century fiction if - as we see over and over again in Irenaeus and Tertullian - the traditions outside of 'orthodoxy' assume that this Gospel and that Apostle (i.e. the original literary units in the NT) assume the existence of 'apostles' preaching an already established message which Paul improved upon by means of his heavenly revelation shortly after (the angelic) Jesus's commissioning of the apostles. Again the pattern is:

1. heavenly Jesus comes down from heaven
2. performs 'miracles' to be recognized as the Son
3. commissions the apostles
4. then immediately (iam) draws up Paul (who was not one of the twelve) to heaven to have his revelation to compose the perfect gospel

I think there are clear parallels between the heretical understanding of Paul and Clement's understanding of Mark, both in relation to Peter. But the bottom line is that a date of sometime between the 'apostolic age' and 70 CE is clearly defined here. I don't see how a second century date can even work here.

to Neil,

This is a very common argument but the problem I've always had with it is that once Mark 13 was presumably found to be false then why was it not redacted to explain away the failure? Why was the supposedly failed prophecy then repeated by Matthew and Luke? Why was the embarrassing prophecy not re-written or removed altogether?
The implications of those questions make even less sense to me.

"Luke" did not say the "second coming" will happen soon after the fall of Jerusalem.
"Matthew" ditto. He predicted that "second coming" will happen soon, but relative to the end of distress among the Jews, not the fall of Jerusalem. According to Josephus' Antiquities (93), under the Pharisees turning into rabbis, Judaism was reformed and the distress, caused by the fall of the temple, had disappeared.
So both corrected Mark's failed prophecy.
"John" did not say anything about the fall of Jerusalem. That's another way to correct gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

I don't see how Marcion could have written the original Pauline letters, given that he appeared to endorse a gospel story.

If the Evangelikon was anything like a canonical gospel - (i.e., a story involving a mysterious figure wandering around the Levant, performing miracles and saying 'wise' things) - then why would Marcion's own letters completely avoid mention of these wondrous deeds and teachings?

In other words, the same argument that Doherty et. al. use to show that Paul understood Christ to be a celestial deity rather than a historical personage... also establishes that whoever wrote the Apostolikon had no familiarity with the historicized concept of Jesus portrayed in the Evangelikon. (Even if Marcion thought of Christ as some kind of ethereal phantom, the gospel character is still historically/geographically situated, and does and says various things).

In short: Marcion obviously knew and approved of the Evangelikon (and may even have written some/all of it himself), so he couldn't have written the Apostolikon.

In Mark, Jesus spoke the prophecy while in the Temple courtyard, with the Temple not yet being finished. Likely there were blocks lying around, so referring to the end times when not one block would remain in its place would be logical.
But after the Jewish revolt, blocks standing on top of each other would be the least of the problems- and, by the way, plenty of temple blocks were still standing, which forms the base of the temple we see today.
Josephus says a hundred thousand Jews were killed in the siege, with most of the bodies thrown outside the city walls to rot. People were reduced to cannibalism. Untold thousands were sold into slavery, with the stronger men becoming gladiators and sacrificed in Roman shows. Many were sold into the Parthian Empire.
If Mark had written his gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, he would have much more colorful and devastating analogies to make.

I don't see how Marcion could have written the original Pauline letters, given that he appeared to endorse a gospel story.

I don't see what one has to do with the other given that the Marcionites said that Paul wrote both the Gospel and the Apostle ('Apostolikon' is a term which was not specifically Marcionite and only appears in De Recta in Deum Fide in the mouth of both Catholic and Marcionite representatives).

If the Evangelikon

See above. The more likely terms were 'Gospel' and 'Apostle.' From memory Irenaeus uses both -ikon forms. I see no relationship between the terminologies and Marcionitism specifically.

[If it] was anything like a canonical gospel - (i.e., a story involving a mysterious figure wandering around the Levant, performing miracles and saying 'wise' things) -

It most certainly was.

then why would Marcion's own letters completely avoid mention of these wondrous deeds and teachings?

They most certainly didn't. Since the Marcionites assumed Paul wrote both, the lack of references to the gospel in our MSS result from editorial manipulation. There are examples of the crossover between Marcionite gospel and apostle.

In other words, the same argument that Doherty et. al. use to show that Paul understood Christ to be a celestial deity rather than a historical personage...

Why quote Doherty? What does he know about ancient sources?

also establishes that whoever wrote the Apostolikon had no familiarity with the historicized concept of Jesus portrayed in the Evangelikon.

That person was Paul on both counts so the argument falls flat on its face.

(Even if Marcion thought of Christ as some kind of ethereal phantom, the gospel character is still historically/geographically situated, and does and says various things).

The heretics clearly thought the heavenly Christ had 'flesh' of some sort albeit fashioned from fire or light (cf. On the Flesh of Christ and De Recta in Deum Fide).

In short: Marcion obviously knew and approved of the Evangelikon (and may even have written some/all of it himself), so he couldn't have written the Apostolikon.

Stupid logic which falls flat on its face. Next ...

If Mark had written his gospel after the fall of Jerusalem, he would have much more colorful and devastating analogies to make.

I don't know if artist license can be accurately predicted by any model. The musical Hair had a naked cast yet almost all other productions have clothed performers. If someone in the future were studying references in the late 60s and early 70s to a musical called 'Hair' they might logically assume that the performers wore costumes of some sort. You can't generalize the way you have. It is a worthless point.