tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post8568204927634071847..comments2023-08-27T08:48:24.133-07:00Comments on Origins, the 2nd Century: The Sudden Appearance of John in the Marcionite GospelStuart Waughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-53070695944539382682019-06-20T16:54:14.660-07:002019-06-20T16:54:14.660-07:00Stuart
Addendum
I'm just trying to account...Stuart <br /><br />Addendum <br /><br />I'm just trying to account for the who, what, where, when, why and how of these traditions.Joseph D. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07160566235879539848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-61805007949044941572019-06-19T16:39:21.978-07:002019-06-19T16:39:21.978-07:00Stuart
I am currently working on a book called Th...Stuart<br /><br />I am currently working on a book called The Acts of Peregrinus Proteus. My overall thesis is that:<br /><br />1) What we call "Marcionite" is only a late second century (160-180 ad) phenomenon<br /><br />2) That the original Gospel of Marcion had to announce the end of the Law and the coming of Paul/Paraclete and promoted Hadrian as the messiah that dates to 120-140 ad.<br /><br />3) That the figure in Lucian's Passing of Peregrinus is the closest we can hope to get to Marcion<br /><br />4) That later traditions are just evolutionary tendrils of this figure (example, Marcion, Paul, Aquila, John and Mark are just names for the same individual from different traditions).<br /><br />I'm not disputing that Luke was derived from Gospel of the Lord, but the the latter was itself derived from a proto-Gospel.<br /><br />You need to keep in mind that all of this, even your assessment, is pure speculation because the only evidence we have is just bad. All we can do is speculate, compare and contrast. Joseph D. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07160566235879539848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-34096564455654030012019-06-19T00:56:34.290-07:002019-06-19T00:56:34.290-07:00I think you need to write a thesis and study some ...I think you need to write a thesis and study some more. There is more than a little speculation in what you are trying to assert and not a lot of foundation. If you notice I spend most of my time building foundation, because my opinions are somewhat outside "the consensus." I am very diligent to make sure what I say fits the literary evidence.<br /><br />I actually have a PDF copy of Knox, and I bought Clabeaux 2nd hand. I could put Knox on this website, but I am worried about whether there is some copyright that still covers an out of print book. Knox was a bit sloppy in his study in that if a word from any given verse was attested he assumed the entire verse in Canonical form was present. I am more conservative in my evaluation, only attested passages count as attested, and only if the evidence is in favor of the attestation being just that, and not a commentary from the Catholic version used by the anti-Marcionite Church Father (very common). But even so Know find a large list of missing words, including nearly every word identified in Luke-Acts as a "Lukan Favorite" (you can look those up online). This strongly points to Luke being a later revision.<br /><br />To better understand my arguments about Gospel order, I advise you read the articles I wrote about the Gospel of John:<br /><br />https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-gospel-of-john-context-of-authorship.html<br /><br />https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2019/03/simon-peter-and-cheshire-cat-was-peter.html<br /><br />On John the Baptist (I need to rethink this in context to John the Apostle being the same legend as John the Baptist)<br /><br />https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2015/03/john-baptist-from-marcionite-to.html<br /><br />and on 2 John vs 3 John <br /><br />https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-battle-for-little-john-2-john-vs-3.html<br /><br />My opinion is always evolving. Have fun.Stuart Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-38166529347376954522019-06-18T22:14:43.076-07:002019-06-18T22:14:43.076-07:00Stuart
Okay, I have a few minutes to go over this...Stuart<br /><br />Okay, I have a few minutes to go over this some more.<br /><br />As far as textural differences, you got me there because I don't know Greek or have I been able to read Knox or Calbeaux (if you know where I can find their books please tell me. Amazon has shown out of stock for years now.)<br /><br />And I'll admit that a lot of what I write is strictly hypothetical, so maybe that's own discredit.<br /><br />Where Gospel of the Lord, Luke, and Paul are concerned, my own theory is (and I admit this is speculative), after Marcion's death in 157 ad, some of his students (be they Apelles, Demas, Lucan, or even another Marcus) began to re-edit his work in other texts, like Mark. The Gospel of the Lord is one such new editions. I'll fully admit that this text is Ur-Luke, but that it itself was based upon an older text. Or even during his own lifetime as Apelles and Demas both abandoned him.<br /><br />My suspect for the author of Gospel or the Lord is Demas, and their may be a connection between this text and the Memoirs of Damis (note the name) that Philostratus used to write the Life of Apollonious. Luke is THE Orthodox Gospel. It is a Diatessaronic text, and the writer of the first 4 verses might be Tatian writing to Theophilus to unite the churches in Ephesus (Johannine) and Syria (Pauline/Markan). But this is during the 80s. Marcion had been dead for nearly 30 years.<br /><br />That's all I've got for now.Joseph D. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07160566235879539848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-68770636061930274332019-06-18T16:51:27.534-07:002019-06-18T16:51:27.534-07:00Stuart
I'll only respond briefly for now beca...Stuart<br /><br />I'll only respond briefly for now because I'm unable to delve deeper. But you said that Paul could not be the Paraclete?<br /><br />That's exactly what he is!<br /><br />He is THE Apostle; he spreads THE Gospel; he quells disputes; he "magnifies Christ within hisself"; he is a slave and servant of Christ.<br /><br />That is precisely what the Paraclete is. And Paul is unambiguously saying that's what he is.<br /><br />And this is related to proto-John/John 3:1-21. Being reborn in Heaven? Galatians and Apocalypse of Paul. He who has ascended is he who has descended? Apocalypse of Paul and 2 Corinthians.<br /><br />Even the adage of John 3:16 is purely a Marcionite concept.<br /><br />Paul and proto-John are more so relatable than Paul and Gospel of the Lord. So much so that even a sect like the Valentinians employed John and Paul together.<br /><br />What's more, as per your theory that the eclipse of 118 ad had an influence on Marcion: John 3:1-21 is a mirror image of this event. Even the sign of the serpent being lifted upon the cross (Ophiucus and Cygnus, which were viewable during the eclipse). And Christ's proclamation on the cross, "It [The Law] is finished," is a Marcionite concept.<br /><br />That's all I have time for. I'll address further issues when I can.<br /><br />Joseph D. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07160566235879539848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-57948199948490291732019-06-13T01:14:23.036-07:002019-06-13T01:14:23.036-07:00Jospeh,
My 3 John vs 2 John comments are off targ...Jospeh,<br /><br />My 3 John vs 2 John comments are off target. I realize you meant to say the gospel of John "three times" mentions the Paraclete in verses 14:15-14:27. This is true. However I do not think Paul is in sight. It is "the spirit of truth who will be with you forever." This implies something very different than an Apostle who will live and then die. 2 John 2 has a similar sentiment "the truth which abides in us and will be with us for ever." <br /><br />The truth here seems to be the teachings of Jesus declared in the gospel of John. There is no Paul here. I argued that there was no Simon Peter in the original first version of the fourth gospel. The list of apostles is very different. What I think we have going on is an Asia Minor sect which has a different patron saint, John. There is no way this sect would promote Paul as their Paraclete. He is a rival patron saint. <br /><br />As for the earliness or lateness of any sect, I think we'll never know. When Christianity erupted, it is my view that many of the sects were well developed with distinct theology. The books which were written only reflect the needs of sects to write books, not the earliness or lateness of the sects.Stuart Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-45564435884499845382019-06-13T01:03:13.139-07:002019-06-13T01:03:13.139-07:00CW,
You fail to take into account "ur-Luke&q...CW,<br /><br />You fail to take into account "ur-Luke" is the Marcionite gospel. SO Matthew could expand a story from the Marcionite gospel, and that expansion might not be reflected in Luke. Luke built off the Marcionite Gospel, and grabbed bits from the other gospels including Matthew and Mark, and some lost like maybe the Ebionite/Hebrew gospel. He did not have to take everything in Matthew, and in fact he didn't. Stuart Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-52157606856025860032019-05-19T20:14:43.605-07:002019-05-19T20:14:43.605-07:00(part 2)
As for the content of the attested text,...(part 2)<br /><br />As for the content of the attested text, I have always commented that it shows a great diversity of sectarian theology present, and could not possibly have been from the hand of any one individual, but rather many. It looks in many respects similar to the Canonical text handed down to us in this respect, except that the blatantly Lukan, Pastoral and Catholic layers seem to be missing almost entirely (or rather they are almost completely unattested). Thus I conclude that the collection was put together by a Marcionite, as part of their Catholicizing effort, adding some sectarian elements and the common Openings and closings. In short the ten letter collector did much the same thing the later thirteen letter collector did. Whatever unity of voice is from the collector, not the elements of the collection.<br /><br />Where we most likely differ the most is the unattested text. Much of that I think was not present. And even were it present it can not be used as a source for the positions of the Marcionites since it cannot be verified as present. If you make arguments from the unattested text, you again are clinging to a cliff side.<br /> <br />Now as o your statement about 3 John, I can assure you it has nothing to do with Paul. Rather it is a refutation of 2 John. Note that 2 John 10 reads<br /><br />"If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting"<br /><br />2 John 6-9 gives the doctrine the writer is using as a test to accept or reject any itinerant preachers to the lady (unlike 1 John, clearly a reference to the church) and the children (the congregation). And this is by way of a new commandment (verse 5), which the author is trying to pass off as having come from the patron saint John.<br /><br />But 3 John rejects this out of hand. First in verses 5-8 say in effect, that you must greet strangers, that is itinerant preachers ("For they have set out for his sake and have accepted nothing from the heathen"), as your duty. Then in verse 9 he identifies the opponent of this position as one Diotrephes who sees himself as the authority on church matters. And specifically that he "he refuses himself to welcome the brethren, and also stops those who want to welcome them and puts them out of the church" in verse 10.<br /><br />This is extremely straight forward example of how one text, 3 John, was written to oppose another, 2 John.<br /><br />The issue long post dates Paul. We are in an era where the church is an institution, and a debate rages on whether to continue to accept and give support wandering preachers who are not under the control of the hierarchy. This is an issue that raged in the church almost to the present day. But it is the debate of an established organization against charismatic traveling preachers whose doctrines are often at odds with the approved doctrine. This is impossible in the era of Paul when churches would have lacked structure, that is house churches. We are multiple generations apart from that era.Stuart Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-51614065479092647522019-05-19T20:14:18.745-07:002019-05-19T20:14:18.745-07:00Joseph, (long answer two parts)
Let me counter yo...Joseph, (long answer two parts)<br /><br />Let me counter your primary complaint of my acceptance of Tertullian and Epiphanius as witnesses to the text of the 10 letter Pauline collection and the form of the Lukan Gospel as used by the Marcionites. There have been three textual studies, Knox the first, which show decisively a different vocabulary in the attested text than the text which is is not attested. The famous Lukan words for example are missing from the attested Marcionite text. Until this evidence is refuted, those arguing against it, such as yourself, are arguing from a cliff side with no good footing. Explaining for example why the word "τε" is entirely missing from the attested Marcionite text of Paul and Luke is something I'd love to see explained. (There is no theological meaning at all associated with the mostly not translated word, a color word only, that merely betrays a later editors hand, a calling card if you will.)<br /><br />I do not in the least trust the commentary of these two witnesses. They often present arguments based on missing text or upon logic based on assumptions not accepted by the Gnostic and Marcionite opponents. It is like reading a Democrat describe Republican positions and their logic or a Republican describing Democrat positions and their logic. Very polemic, often misleading.<br /><br />Now I do not trust the attested text entirely. Some of the supposed attestations are certainly from the Catholic text. Also the Church father writings have been corrected by scribes over the centuries and so their is some doubt. But for the most part if it is clearly attested and consistent, that is to say not directly contradictory to the Marcionite teachings, then I accept it. <br /><br />Now mind you, in my model the ten letter collection, in shorter form, and the gospel of Luke in shorter form as attested by the Marcionite sources, circulated for a few centuries precisely because the Marcionite community broke from the main church and had their own institutions, their own bishops, their own liturgy. Robert M. Price says Marcion (or perhaps the Marcionites) sought to build a church and in such respects represent the first Catholicism. The main church however had the same texts and continued to expand upon them, and they eventually grew into a thirteen letter collection.<br /><br />Some of the divergence is no doubt due to Marcionite scribes adjusting, but that seems to be few verses and far between. Some are textual variants, as Calbeaux showed, which reminds us that the text before Tertullian and that text before Epiphanius represented a local text, just as we recognize with Church father readings of the Canonical text.<br /><br />Stuart Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-57984439368561927952019-05-19T17:06:01.999-07:002019-05-19T17:06:01.999-07:00Several points of contention.
Firstly, you'r...Several points of contention. <br /><br />Firstly, you're relying on information that is for the most part suspect. What we know about of Marcion is not his own writings, but comes through filtered through his detractors, all of whom are themselves late.<br /><br />Secondly, even these sources are suspect to redactions and later revisions. So that makes Marcion even further removed. <br /><br />Now, Marcion/Paul have to be related to the Johannine literature because it (and particularly chapter 3 of John) is the closest example of what we (can) know of his Christology. Not even the text that is attributed to him matches it, or even the Pauline letters in his canon. John however does more so.<br /><br />My problem with your thesis is you are too trusting of the sources for Marcion, when everything should held sceptocally. You rely on Tertullian and Epiphanius, yet they are contradictory to each other.<br /><br />I don't have a counter argument because I adhere to the sectarian need for competition. I only see it as being between three factions: Marcion, who became a promoter of the Empire; the Ebionites, who went extinct after bar Kochba; and the Nazareans.<br /><br />The problem with your overall arguments is that we have Marcion's text (Secret Mark) and it bridges the cap between John, Paul, and Mark. Put that in the front and everything grows naturally. There's no need for redundant sources like L, M and Q. Secret Mark/UrJohn comes in promoting Hadrian as the Christ; Gospel of the Hebrews/Ebionites promotes bar Kochba as the Christ; the Nazareans, after the revolt, tries to compromise and gives us Matthew. Luke doesn't come in until at least Commodus, and I would argue for the time of Severius. Ireneaus is a complete fraud made up of several sources.<br /><br />Lastly, Paul doesn't make any sense with "Marcion's" text. Yet Paul does follow the Paraclete concept that is almost solely found in John, and is even seemingly referred to twice in John 3. And if Paul is who I suspect he is, then that seals the deal for John 3 being a foreshadowing of Paul, because there's a detail in John 3 that indicates that it is a witness to the eclipse of 118 ad., and which will be the main focus on my book on Peregrines (if I ever find the time to finish it, as I don't do this professionally, and rely on my actual profession to pay the rent). But nevertheless, John 3 and Paul go hand in hand, and if that's the case then everything you think about Marcion is wrong. Joseph D. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07160566235879539848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-17227768721673143582019-05-19T11:26:16.230-07:002019-05-19T11:26:16.230-07:00You are quite wrong on several points here.
First...You are quite wrong on several points here.<br /><br />First, I am following convention in using the name Marcion, as it represents the Marcionite collection, that is the writings, as it circulated prior to the Gospel of John. Whether there was a Marcion or he was legend is in the same category of Paul and frankly most of the NT characters and even the early church fathers. But none of the speculation of the "prehistoric church", that is before the writings, is germane. <br /><br />When I am speaking of Marcion and the beliefs associated with him, I am speaking of the attested writings we find in Epiphanius and Tertuallian, and the comments of his followers such as we find in Dialogue Adamantius. <br /><br />There is no question that the Marcionites held very strongly that John was the last prophet of the Jewish God, and that Jesus belonged to another greater God. This is well attested. It is equally clear that first author of the gospel of John knew the Marcionite Gospel, as he borrowed elements from it, and elaborated upon it, especially Lazarus, Martha and Abraham stories. But it is equally clear that he positioned John the Baptist as also not from the Jewish God.<br /><br />Your order is impossible because proto-John is demonstrably dependent upon Luke in Marcionite form and an early form of Matthew. The Gospel of the Hebrews is questionable as to having ever existed, we have but a fragment or two incorporated by the Catholic redactor of Luke -- there is no dependence in John upon the post-Marcionite elements found in Luke. The Gospel of Peter is clearly secondary, built upon the Canonical gospel stories.<br /><br />Your order, further is based upon assertion here, without the slightest evidence of dependence, nor of any refutation of the dependencies of John upon Matthew and the Marcionite Gospel (proto-Luke if you will) which I outlined here and in other posts, item by item. <br /><br />You also do not have a counter to the explanation I give for the there to have been multiple Gospels in the first place, that is sectarian competition within Christianity, and the need to "correct" the existing gospels to present the "true" theology of the sect writing the corrected gospel.<br /><br />I do understand the desire to put John first, which can only be done by ignoring the fine details of the individual passages and their dependencies, as this allows one to create a nice neat line of theology from Gnostic to semi-Catholic Marcionite to eventually a fully Catholic Church. But it was not a straight line, it was in fact an internally fractured movement driven by deep divisions in pretty much every theological point.Stuart Waughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17447330967206105260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-52196087464857801552019-05-19T02:47:01.179-07:002019-05-19T02:47:01.179-07:00Until we dispense with the assumptions that we hav...Until we dispense with the assumptions that we have accurate information regarding Marcion and his text, we will never come close to understanding the early church's origins.<br /><br />In other words, "Marcion" =/= Marcion. <br /><br />Marcion and Paul are Johannine. What we currently identify as the Gospel of Marcion is a product of the post-Marcion movement of the 170s, and likely relates to the memoirs of Damis/Demas, and could be why it and Life of Apollonious are so similar in both aim and content. ("Marcion" -> Luke, Life of Apollonious)<br /><br />So that puts the emerging text pattern as,<br /><br />proto-John/proto-Paul -> Gospel of the Hebrews -> Gospel of Peter -> Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Matthew -> Gospel of LukeJoseph D. L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07160566235879539848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-84866704690157122562019-03-08T09:03:38.123-08:002019-03-08T09:03:38.123-08:00BTW, one comment (Slight disagreement):
On the vi...BTW, one comment (Slight disagreement):<br /><br />On the view of the Story being a reflection of the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE:<br /><br />Luke 7: 28 (Matthew 11: 11) RSV:<br /><br />[28] I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.<br /><br />The reason "...the least in the Realm of Heaven..." is greater than John is that John did not make it into the Realm of Heaven. While 3000+ are being butchered around the Temple and surrounds, only a few are saved by making it through the narrow door. This entrance is so small that you must turn as a child in order to get into the Realm of Heaven.<br /><br />This is the Story of Peter, who is a child in 4 BCE. The 2 telescoped Stories smear the Duties of Mishmarot. In a rewrite. Mishmarot is then written out of the narrative almost entirely. <br /><br />The second Story tells of Jairus, 12 years later, asking the Priest who was saved by Peter to make one more Call to Glory (2 full rotations of the Mishmarot Service).<br /><br />John, the Greatest Prophet, did not make it into the Realm of Heaven. <br /><br />This is a Noir Story. The Realm of Heaven is where Priests with no blemish or flaw gather. There are a few survivors who have lost limbs, eyes and more. These are some of the few who make it into the Realm of Heaven.Charleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05417810805625984670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6885873082755537537.post-56576543521620940802019-03-07T10:11:24.739-08:002019-03-07T10:11:24.739-08:00SW --
Very nice, per usual. I would love to exchan...SW --<br />Very nice, per usual. I would love to exchange E-Mails, if possible. I'll try to keep this one short.<br />1. "So why is [John} here, and why is he in the Marcionite Gospel at all?"<br />...<br />"...we are presuming Marcionite priority, but also that the synoptic gospels, including the Marcionite, were built upon one of two versions of a prototype gospel, and Mark was built upon both versions of the prototype gospel in a conflation of their accounts..."<br /><br />You are correct. The assumption that is to be challenged, however, is that From the fact that the "Jesus stories" are written from Source, the Source Stories are about "Jesus". Jay Raskin (_Christs and Christianities_), shows that Mark and John literally Cut and Pasted from a common Source. I believe that GJohn is "correcting" Mark, seen especially in the 2 Crucifixions (where Mark does not understand that "Passover" is in addition to the Feast Week, not the first day of the Feast Week). <br />The character John is from the Mishmarot Group Bilgah, the created character "Jesus" is from Immer (Though Acts is radioactive, 13: 25 shows that John was finishing his COURSE).<br /><br />2. By your Mapping, Matthew precedes Luke. That would mean that Matthew was selective as to use of the Story:<br /><br />Matthew 18:<br />[1] At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"<br />[2] And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them,<br />[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.<br />[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. <br /><br />Compare with Luke 13:<br /><br />[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,<br />[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. <br /><br />I very strongly believe that these 2 passages are describing the same Story. The Priest (of Immer) is saved by the child Peter at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE (THIS is the major Source Story).<br /><br />Matthew 23: 13 (RSV):<br />[13] "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. <br /><br />Thus, the Kingdom of Heaven (or Realm of Heaven in Matthew - Moffatt Trans.) is a real, physical place. The Scribes and Pharisees are keeping MEN (Priests) out of the Realm of Heaven. <br /><br />3. Luke preserves fragments of the Story which may be reach back to the Temple floor:<br /><br />Luke 19:<br />[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."<br />[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out." <br /><br />This is from Josephus (or the 2 quotes are both from Source...):<br />War..., 2, 1, 3:<br /><br />"...At this Archclaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so..."<br /><br />At the front of this is Marcion and the modifications came quickly to adhere to the New Religion. It all comes back to the modifications (and telescoping of TWO Stories into one) that tell of the Mishmarot Priesthood.<br />I'm way over in length for this one but thank you for allowing comments.<br /><br />CWCharleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05417810805625984670noreply@blogger.com