What a great talk Markus, brilliant. I especially loved the motive for Marcion, which puts him in the generally assumed timeframe of early 2nd CE. Regarding the resurrection: the million dollar question is what the Patristics would have done if there was no resurrection in Marcion, but where he ended at let's say Mark 15:37-38: a giant smack in the face of the Judeans who killed his hero, leaving the audience in uproar, enraged, ready for a kill. Would they have bit the bullet? Would it have advanced their case to point it out, or would it only have hurt them? I honestly can't oversee any of that, it certainly isn't my territory
It is evident to me that Mark 15:40-16:8 serves only one purpose, and that is to explain why nobody had ever heard of the resurrection - and he blames three Thomasine / Marcionite women for it, two of which make a cameo appearance especially for this. I mean look at Mark: it is a weak and feeble ending unless it is a goal in stead of a means: and the goal is to announce that Jesus lives
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_inevitable_emergence_of_Christianity for my full story on it - and at that point I wasn't sure about John, but now I am: Thomas, John, Marcion - and then Mark to counter it all. When Christianity / Marcion persisted, Matthew redacted *Ev into Luke while writing his own on the side. Which would solve most of the Synoptic Problem, wouldn't it
Dear Professor Historians assume that Marcion made a donation to the Roman community, which was returned after his exclusion. The source of this information are two quotations from Tertullian. This information is unreliable for two reasons. Donations are not returned to anyone because this activity is not subject to any conditions. Especially not after a few years. The donation was widely known and everyone knew that Marcion had made it. Tertullian's information is for internal use to deny previous collaboration between Marcion and the Roman commune. In general, from the point of view of the art of PR, Tertullian should have kept quiet, but he mistakenly felt he had to write about it. A similar situation is with Marcion's book collection. In the anti-Marcian introduction to the Gospel of John, there is mention of letters and writings that he gave to the community from the orthodox brethren of Pontus. In this way, the author refuted accusations of appropriating part of Marcion's book collection. It was first noticed by Jan Wierusz-Kowalski, church historian. Merry Christmas Jarek Stolarz
More than 10 years ago I was surprised by articles from Hermann Detering about the Dutch Radicals, Marcion and the Pauline literature. What could be the reason that I find his name so absent in discussions about Marcion's gospel priority? Is his name connected to a sort of 'tabu' like those of the late Dutch radicals and the 'minimalists' of today?
What a great talk Markus, brilliant. I especially loved the motive for Marcion, which puts him in the generally assumed timeframe of early 2nd CE.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the resurrection: the million dollar question is what the Patristics would have done if there was no resurrection in Marcion, but where he ended at let's say Mark 15:37-38: a giant smack in the face of the Judeans who killed his hero, leaving the audience in uproar, enraged, ready for a kill.
Would they have bit the bullet? Would it have advanced their case to point it out, or would it only have hurt them?
I honestly can't oversee any of that, it certainly isn't my territory
It is evident to me that Mark 15:40-16:8 serves only one purpose, and that is to explain why nobody had ever heard of the resurrection - and he blames three Thomasine / Marcionite women for it, two of which make a cameo appearance especially for this.
I mean look at Mark: it is a weak and feeble ending unless it is a goal in stead of a means: and the goal is to announce that Jesus lives
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_inevitable_emergence_of_Christianity for my full story on it - and at that point I wasn't sure about John, but now I am: Thomas, John, Marcion - and then Mark to counter it all. When Christianity / Marcion persisted, Matthew redacted *Ev into Luke while writing his own on the side.
Which would solve most of the Synoptic Problem, wouldn't it
Dear Professor
ReplyDeleteHistorians assume that Marcion made a donation to the Roman community, which was returned after his exclusion. The source of this information are two quotations from Tertullian. This information is unreliable for two reasons. Donations are not returned to anyone because this activity is not subject to any conditions. Especially not after a few years. The donation was widely known and everyone knew that Marcion had made it. Tertullian's information is for internal use to deny previous collaboration between Marcion and the Roman commune. In general, from the point of view of the art of PR, Tertullian should have kept quiet, but he mistakenly felt he had to write about it.
A similar situation is with Marcion's book collection. In the anti-Marcian introduction to the Gospel of John, there is mention of letters and writings that he gave to the community from the orthodox brethren of Pontus. In this way, the author refuted accusations of appropriating part of Marcion's book collection.
It was first noticed by Jan Wierusz-Kowalski, church historian.
Merry Christmas
Jarek Stolarz
More than 10 years ago I was surprised by articles from Hermann Detering about the Dutch Radicals, Marcion and the Pauline literature. What could be the reason that I find his name so absent in discussions about Marcion's gospel priority? Is his name connected to a sort of 'tabu' like those of the late Dutch radicals and the 'minimalists' of today?
ReplyDelete