The Marcionite Hypothesis

by HowTheBibleWasCreated 10 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  I'm still working on the Hebrew bible for my book but looking ahead most of my research had fallen into place as I take month off from research., When it come to the NT most people accept what is commonly called Markian priority.

  This common theory says that Mark was written in 70 AD and then a saying gospel of Jesus called Q was combined with this to make Matthew and Luke sometimes around 100 AD. John as later. I call this.... BS

  Around 120 -140 AD a theology went around a man named Marcion that preache3ed a gospel of Gnosticism. Simply put his gospel was quite cool and better then the one JWs or Fundamental Christians believe.

  There was a high supreme God. From him (Or her if she is Sophia) proceeded many demigods one of which was YHWH. He made the world and yeah.. it's f***ed up. But that because he's a secondary god. And the OT was true.

  Marcion said Jesus was a being who popped into existence (Like the Gospel of John) and preached a very Gnostic message and then died to return to the high god thus opening up the knowledge for us to attain salvation. But what would the Marcionite group follow for a canon of scripture.

  Well Maricon claimed he 'found' Galatians.Uh... ok. He wrote it. Fine, His canon was:

  Gospel of the Lord (A proto- Luke) and the following ten letters of the so-called Paul:

  • Galatians
  • 1 Corinthians
  • 2 Corinthians
  • Romans
  • 1 Thessalonians
  • 2 Thessalonians
  • Laodiceans (Ephesians)
  • Colossians
  • Philippians
  • Philemon

  All of these were shorted then today's version and of course had different authors such as 2 Thess and others in the community,

  The problem was in 136 AD a revolt by Jews in Jerusalem over a temple built ti Jupiter lead to a famous revolt by the Jews.

  Where as Marcion's gospel describes the temple destruction of 70 CE the Gospel of Mark takes the basic items of the former gospel (Judaizes it) and makes it fast, apocalyptical and adds a feature in Mark 13. (The abnodation of desolation from the book of Daniel) Thus Mark dates not from 70 but 136.

  Matthew uses Mark and Marcion but changes the order to make Jesus the Jewish messiah,.This is very anti Marcionite gospel. likely from the 140s and Justin Martyr knows of it in 160.

  So what about Luke or Acts? Well that's so easy and obvious it is mind-boggling no one saw it. Luke starts with:

  ...it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus.. Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1 The first book I wrote, Theophilus, concerned all that Jesus began both to do and to teach,

  
  

  'Most excellent Theophilus'? ... Like the bishop Theophilus in 170-185ad or so. The ame guy that wanted a history of Christianity written. // Oh yeah he got it.

  
  

  Yes the Synoptic Gospels are second century by this model and every other model I tried failed quickly. John predates Marcion but it's a Logos cult that produced it. John likely is around 100 or so.
  
• 

  Sea Breeze

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKObeKlqOqM&ab_channel=LibertyUniversity

  You can skip the introduction if you like and start at 4:30.

  I'm curious as to what your take is on the evidence presented in this video on how early eyewitnesses were all in agreement and saying the same thing as early a within five years of the crucifixion events?
• 

  Phizzy

  I await your Book with great interest HTBWC !

  I also like very much the Hypothesis you outline in your O.P, I would so very much like for it to be affirmed and to be accepted, at least by Scholars, J.W's and other Fundies will proceed regardless, they don't go much for Scholarship, Facts or Evidence.

  It is though, as you outline it above, hardly a credible Hypothesis that other Scholars will agree with, but maybe you will go in to greater depth on this more in your Book ? make a stronger case ? As I said, I do desire it to be spot on, but also desire its acceptance by those who matter in the field of N.T Studies.

  It is amazing how things have moved on in the last few decades, the consensus among N.T Scholars is as you say in your O.P, I think many of them err on the side of caution, out of fear of what other Big Guns in the world of N.T Studies may say, but at least things have moved on from the early 20th Century, where a quite silly view of the time of writing for the Synoptics etc was the consensus.

  Maybe you will give the old boys, ( and girls) of N.T Studies, a nudge further in the right direction, with your Book !
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  To Sea Breeze:

  Around 8 mins in he says most scholars agree Jesus died around 30/33CE. However Dr. Habernas seems unaware that many Christian texts place Jesus either later or often earlier then the first century.

  Wow his statement at 940 or so that Alexander's sources at in the 300s CE is vomit. The Alexander Romance is early second century BCE

  At 1030 he throw's out the apostle Paul bone. This is not one I follow. Robert Price and other scholars have already debunked the idea of a historical Paul long ago.

  https://www.jesusneverexisted.com/saul-paul.htm
  

  Just after 11min he pulls out Galatians (I answered this in my original post) and 1 Corinthians. The fact is neither of these letters or any other is from an early date. The earliest NT manuscript is a piece of John

  "I give you what I was given." Marcion goes back to Cerdo and then Simon Mangus.

  Around 1220 we get the 55CE date. Sorry this is based on Acts a very late document as I showed in the original post. We cannot use Acts to date Paul's letters. From here I won't go further. The argument is flawed from the beginning.

  To Phizzy. Many scholars are accepting this now. There are books about the mythical Paul ect. I will be using much of this when I get to the NT in my book.

  My book will be geared towards people like me who have become atheist but want to understand how this book came into existence. To do that I am not going to cement myself in late 19th and 20th century scholarship since they rarely challenge the trends, (Thus a cult of their own). Working with recent scholars I have found that instead of arguing about gospel placement or why certain pieces of JEPD are fragmentary I can be free of these mindsets and everything falls into place logically.
• 

  Aposta-Fish

  You need to hurry up and get your book done, looking forward to it.
• 

  smiddy3

  I hope your book has a second editition titled "How the Bible was created for Dummies " I can get bogged down with too much "over my head " information.

  Still .I look forward to it.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  many Christian texts place Jesus either later or often earlier then the first century.

  Really? Which ones?

  Wow his statement at 940 or so that Alexander's sources at in the 300s CE is vomit. The Alexander Romance is early second century BCE

  The Alexander Romance is fictional, not history. Wikipedia explains why. In the Wikipedia article they say that all the sources for this fiction is much later than you state... 1st. century and later.
  
  2nd Century BCE date (which I cannot verify) is still a couple of hundred years or so after he lived. So, I fail to see your point.

  The fact remains that, just as Dr. Habermas explains The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and Justin.... all 1st century and later sources.

  Regarding your statement about Paul: Dr. Habermas states the Scholars, (atheist and believer alive are virtually unanimous in accepting 6 -7 of Paul's books in the NT as genuine.
  
  Do you dispute this claim? What evidence do you have to contradict this claim by Dr. Habermas?
  
  
  
  
• 

  HowTheBibleWasCreated

  Regarding your statement about Paul: Dr. Habermas states the Scholars, (atheist and believer alive are virtually unanimous in accepting 6 -7 of Paul's books in the NT as genuine.
  
  Do you dispute this claim? What evidence do you have to contradict this claim by Dr. Habermas?>>>>

  -The first question is no I don't dispute that many consider the 7 letters of Paul as authentic. This movement is currently spearheaded by Bart Ehrman it seems. The fact is that in the late 19th century a school known today as the 'Copenhagen School"

  They theorized the ideas in my above post almost 150 years ago however sadly the 20th century locked scholars into a system of biblical scholarship that accepted the Pauline Epistles are authentic.

  There are numerous reasons this is being requisitioned today. Staring with the obvious being that no manuscript or reference exists attesting to the letter until Marcion. Paul if we assume Acts is true would have been so famous that Josephus would have mentioned him. He didn't. He didn't mention jesus either but that's another issue.

  As for Jesus being set hundreds of years earlier or decades earlier or later let me introduce you so some guys:

  Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

  Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

  Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

  Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

  And the best case for a historical Jesus is this amusing one:

  Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

  "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

  – Josephus, Wars 6.3.

  Sorry but there is no evidence for Jesus or even Paul (Except maybe a memory of Simon the magician)

  The Marcionite community is the first texts that be have people complaining and quoting. As for Hebrews and Revelation those books might indeed date early because both are heavy in not only Gnosticism but a cosmic Christ. (Revelation actually describe the Jewish War and Hebrews refers to a cosmic event ((Likely the eclipse of 59))
• 

  Drearyweather

  Paul if we assume Acts is true would have been so famous that Josephus would have mentioned him. He didn't. He didn't mention jesus either but that's another issue.

  Josephus didn't mention bout Jesus in his writing? Are you sure? Because, I had studied about him mentioning about 'Jesus - who was called the Christ' in his Antiquities
• 

  Phizzy

  Josephus refers to various people called Jesus, and in some Manuscripts says of one of them " also called Christus", both Jesus and Christus being common names. And people being known by more than one name being a common thing too.

  If Josephus wanted to speak about the Jesus of Christians he would have said " Jesus of Nazareth" to identify him.

  The fact that Christians had to put a fake reference in to Josephus at some point says it all. It was exposed as fake when an earlier MS. was found, and it was not in there.

  No MS. of Josephus exists earlier than about 1000 A.D.