Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
#1

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
[u]https://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/marcion-forgotten-father-inventor-new-testament/[/u]
 
To start it is not my intention to get involved in any sort of dispute about the relative merits of Marcionism as opposed to what emerged as proto-orthodoxy.  Frankly, that is like trying to decide which of two open cesspools smells worse.  Marcionism is every bit as stupid as the jesus freak horseshit which claims it was a competitor.
 
I am more interested in the historical setting or rather the historical implausibility of the tale told by the eventual winners.  This nicely sums up what we think we “know” about the historical setting of Marcionism.
 
Quote:Christianity owes a major debt to a man with no direct connection to Jesus of Nazareth or Paul of Tarsus – a man labeled a heretic by the forerunners of orthodox Christianity. Marcion (c. 95-165 CE) was a shipbuilder, possibly ship owner, from Pontus, a small region in what is now northern Turkey. We know little else about him, except that at some point in his career he joined the Christian community in Rome only to find himself embroiled in debate with the leadership there. Ultimately they were unable to resolve their differences, and the Marcionite community broke from other Jesus followers of that era.

 
Supposedly Marcion started around 144 AD or, about 10 years after the end of the Bar Kohkba revolt in Judaea. By that time, it was no longer called Judaea and the Jews had been kicked out by Hadrian after their defeat in that third revolt in 70 odd years.  They were decidedly persona non grata in the Roman world and Marcion is anti-jewish in the extreme.
 
The implication of this tale is that for some reason Marcion left Pontus to go to Rome to seek the approval of the Roman church. Except at this point in time there was no “church.” Small groups of xtians gathered in private homes with little in the way of common doctrine and utterly no archaeological or historical footprint other than what their own writers later claimed.   

Dismissing self-serving church claims this whole story has more of the feel of an attempt to influence the followers of Marcion that their founder came to them hat in hand seeking approval and they threw him out. Certainly in the mid second century there were far more xtian groups in the East than in the West. If Marcion wanted to reach xtians he would have stayed in Asia Minor. But the church has always been full of self-aggrandizing liars.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • mordant
Reply
#2

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
I am finding this quite fascinating. Too bad "the first new testament" isn't available in e-book form. I might make an exception and spring for the paperback. I'm interest to know just how different Romans 9-11 is and therefore have some inkling concerning possible later edits to Paul's theological musings.

Accusations against Marcion by his opponents that he was editing the NT to suit his doctrines rather than him presenting an earlier version that was later edited by OTHERS (specifically, the eventual guardians of orthodoxy) is a big sea change in scholarly thinking. I'm not sure we could rightly tell which way it evolved for sure, but ... certainly textual analysis would provide some clues.
Reply
#3

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
The "Gospel of the Lord" is given here in several sections.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

Note that the proto-orthodox writers who saved this ( in order to "refute" it ) for us do not seem to have bothered with Marcion's version of the so-called pauline epistles.  Why that is so we can only speculate on.

The Gospel of the Lord is about 2/3 of what later came to be called "Luke."  The first two chapters were added later and include the nativity horseshit and world-wide census and other such utter bullshit.

Marcion's "Jesus" drops from heaven into Capernaum in 29/30 AD.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#4

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
The interesting thing about Marcion is that apparently he was one of the first and a very influential people to lay out a canon for Christianity. Forcing others such as Irenaeus to create their own canons. Which lead to the New Testament.

He was a follower of one Cerdo who claimed the God of Christianity and the Old Testament were not the same, the Old Testament God was an evil God. Something a lot of modern day atheists have noticed about the God of the OT. Harmonizing the God of OT and NT is still a problem for many theologians.
Sitting in the club car of the hell bound train.

Reply
#5

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
(09-20-2019, 07:50 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Note that the proto-orthodox writers who saved this ( in order to "refute" it ) for us do not seem to have bothered with Marcion's version of the so-called pauline epistles.  Why that is so we can only speculate on.

I thought at least parts of Marcion's version of Paul survived. I read a remark somewhere that the very important chapters 9-11 of Romans were quite different therein from the modern version. That is what would most interest me to compare.

I assumed the book I cited had both. Now that I look at the online description it doesn't really say.

Hm.

--Bob
Reply
#6

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
I'm always struck by the fact that Justin Martyr knows of, and mentions, Marcion by name... but not anyone named "Paul."

I've seen some asinine apologetic arguments for why that is but nothing that makes any sense.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#7

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
Does anything apologetic ever make any sense?
Reply
#8

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
Quote: I thought at least parts of Marcion's version of Paul survived.

The earliest manuscript of any of this paul stuff is known as P-46 and dates to sometime in the late 2d / early 3'd centuries.  We are told by later xtian writers that Marcion had his own version of these.  They claim he edited the originals to match his doctrine.  We simply do not know.  He may very well have written them, himself.  Or he may have come into possession of some scribblings of gnostic groups and used them or edited them.  Again we do not know.

All we have is the sanitized version which emerges after the proto-orthodox got their paws on them.  We have not got a fucking clue what the originals may have said.  But, if the arguments of the later xtians that Marcion regarded the OT as a pile of shit are true then it makes little sense that "paul" would be out there repeatedly citing the OT as the word of god. 

Who knows?  Perhaps p-46 IS the original as it emerged from the pens of xtian editors?  Then Bart Ehrman could retire!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#9

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
(09-20-2019, 09:06 PM)no one Wrote: Does anything apologetic ever make any sense?

Rarely some does require a little thought to refute.

But when they say that Justin had no need to mention Paul because everyone knew about him they really go off the deep end.  As the story goes, "paul" was the primary bringer of the gospel to the gentiles and supposedly was in Rome personally in the mid 1st century.  But Justin doesn't know that or think it is important.

I've used the analogy in the past that I suppose someone in 1876 could have written a history of the American Revolution without once mentioning George Washington.  Why would they want to?

Far more likely is that at the time Justin was writing no one had invented "paul" yet.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply
#10

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
(09-20-2019, 09:38 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Far more likely is that at the time Justin was writing no one had invented "paul" yet.

I'm not a specialist in the domain, but from my understanding and knowledge of early Christianity, the historicity of Saul of Tarsus as mid first century preacher is widely accepted. Hell, his tomb was even found and properly dated to the late first century in the early 2000's if I'm not mistaken. How do you deal with such evidence for the existence of Paul?

PS: I also find your analogy with George Washington and the American Revolution to be rather disingenuous considering that Saul of Tarsus never actually held any role as a chief of any congregation and was more of a travelling missionnary who was actually literate. The American Revolution lasted for about 20 years and involved around a dozen key figures while the creation of Christianity took about 300-400 years and involved dozens of figures many of which are lost to time and history.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • grympy
Reply
#11

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
(09-23-2019, 05:22 AM)epronovost Wrote:
(09-20-2019, 09:38 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Far more likely is that at the time Justin was writing no one had invented "paul" yet.

I'm not a specialist in the domain, but from my understanding and knowledge of early Christianity, the historicity of Saul of Tarsus as mid first century preacher is widely accepted. Hell, his tomb was even found and properly dated to the late first century in the early 2000's if I'm not mistaken. How do you deal with such evidence for the existence of Paul?

PS: I also find your analogy with George Washington and the American Revolution to be rather disingenuous considering that Saul of Tarsus never actually held any role as a chief of any congregation and was more of a travelling missionnary who was actually literate. The American Revolution lasted for about 20 years and involved around a dozen key figures while the creation of Christianity took about 300-400 years and involved dozens of figures many of which are lost to time and history.

Even Richard Carrier affirms that Paul was more likely than not to have been a real person, and makes the point that his letters are highly likely to have been authored in the fifth decade of the first century, primarily because later forgeries would find it both irresistible and pointless not to reference the forger's contemporary theological dogmas, whereas the canonical letters of Paul that are widely accepted AS Pauline, are, as I've pointed out, blithely ignorant of the fabulist mythos of Jesus' earthly ministry, and more prone to regard Jesus as a celestial being -- whether as a matter of emphasis or assumption. That is the fact of the matter. In other words, the whole motivation of later forgeries is to try to sway theological debates contemporary to the forger, and that is not what Paul's corpus is attempting.

All of this argues against Marcion having authored Paul's corpus. He is more likely to have edited them or been the first to collect them, or, perhaps just resonated with their more gnostic tenor and so included them in his canon.

Carrier also considers Min's argument from silence concerning Paul and finds it wanting. He points out that the mentions of Paul that we have are the ones one would expect, and the ones we don't have are the ones that one wouldn't expect. He also dates Clement's mention of Paul's death in Spain earlier than most, around 66 AD. He also points out that many secular sources in the first couple centuries are barely aware of Christianity, so you can't expect them to pay any attention to Paul.

All of this is, of course, an exercise in reading tea leaves because so much has been lost to time. Anything is POSSIBLE. The question is, what is most likely. I find the above arguments persuasive but inconclusive.
The following 1 user Likes mordant's post:
  • epronovost
Reply
#12

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
Quote:I'm not a specialist in the domain, but from my understanding and knowledge of early Christianity, the historicity of Saul of Tarsus as mid first century preacher is widely accepted. Hell, his tomb was even found and properly dated to the late first century in the early 2000's if I'm not mistaken. How do you deal with such evidence for the existence of Paul?

Xtians keep insisting so - does not make it true.  They lie a lot.

And you can't be serious with the tomb shit.  Let's hear from that famous archaeologist, Benedict the Child Rapist:

Quote:Pope Says Tests ‘Seem to Conclude’ Bones Are the Apostle Paul’s

Quote:Benedict said scientists had conducted carbon dating tests on bone fragments found inside the sarcophagus and confirmed that they date from the first or second century.

“This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul,” Benedict said, announcing the findings at a service in the basilica to mark the end of the Vatican’s Pauline year, in honor of Paul.

Which is it?  First or second?  And they do so love to claim that their "traditions" have been confirmed.  Noah's ark has been found many times, after all.

And Paul cannot simultaneously have been the great spreader of the faith to the gentiles and some shmuck who is not worth even a single mention in one of the earliest and most extensive writings we have.

Read Candida Moss' "Myth of Persecution" for a discussion of how and why the church "martyr industry" grew.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#13

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
Quote:Even Richard Carrier affirms that Paul was more likely than not to have been a real person,

Yeah, I wish Carrier had aimed his cannon at this paul stuff but he made it clear in OTHJ that his target was jesus and whether or not he was "historical."  And to that end he found the pauline gospels of great help in making his point that paul's jesus was a mythic character living in the heavens.

Perhaps some day he'll undertake a similar investigation of "paul?"
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#14

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
Back to my boy, Marcion.

Here are two translations of the beginning of Galatians.  One of the ten epistles of this paul fucker that Marcion included in his Apostolikon.  The first from Marcionite scriptures:

Quote:1:1 Paul an apostle,not of men nor through man, T
but through Isu Chrestos, T
who awakened himself from the dead; 2(Hier.)

The notes (T) refer to works of Tertullian and (Hier) refers to translations by Hieronymus (Jerome.)

Quote:1 Paul, an apostle not sent from men nor through the agency of man,
but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead,

Note Tertullian's use of the term "Isu Chrestos" for his godboy...Tertullian was early 3d century.

The obvious difference is that Marcion makes no reference to any of this "god the father" shit.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#15

Marcion - Church Propaganda Aside, Who Was He?
Back to this.

https://pursuingveritas.com/2015/07/21/t...#more-2138

Quote:The Marcion Problem: Canon and Literature Formation (Part II)

Following Knox’s perspective is Joseph Tyson’s work Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle, in which Tyson argues argues for a late compositional dating of Luke-Acts as a response to Marcion during the period from 100 to 150 CE.[91] Tyson understands Marcion to have presented an enormous problem for the church with his rejection of the Jewish Scriptures, and that writers such as Irenaeus and Tertullian were pressed into finding symbolic or allegorical representations of Christ in those scriptures whilst simultaneously using the gospel narratives to present him as something unique.[92] Pauline writings and theology became especially problematic for use by the proto-orthodox, as they constituted the core of Marcion’s theological system, and thus the proto-orthodox created Luke-Acts to combat the challenge of Marcionite Christianity.[

Quote:In The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Robert M. Price argues that Marcion’s canon not only formed the idea of a specifically Christian canon and caused the formation of Luke-Acts, but also writes that Marcion was the first collector of a Pauline canon of writings.[96] For Price, Marcion viewed Paul as the restorer of an early Jesus Movement already corrupted by the twelve disciples, and that he sought to use Paul as the source for reformation of the church, a trajectory that was met by the counter reformation of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who began to co-opt Marcion’s idea of specifically Christian scripture.[97] Following Knox in his use of Ur-Luke, Price offers a reconstruction of Marcion’s gospel using Knox, Tertullian, and by taking into account revisions that he argues would have been included in Marcion’s gospel, having been in Ur-Luke’s redaction of the Gospel of Mark, but were assimilated into Acts by the editor of Luke.[98] Ultimately from Price’s perspective Marcion not only formed the first specifically Christian canon and influenced the formation of the canonical Luke-Acts, but he also was the first to collect a Pauline corpus and call for a distinctive set of Christian scriptures.[99]
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)