Vergari,
There were many versions of Christianity in the first two centuries. However, most scholars agree that there was a split between the original Jewish followers of Jesus and the Gentile followers who were taught by Paul. Many scholars, including Prof. Ehrman, if I’m not mistaken, include the Nazarenes (followers of Jesus of Nazareth), and the Ebionites as being a part of the Jewish Christian movement. Among those who accepted the teachings of Paul were the Marcionites who put forward the first version of the New Testament which only included Paul’s letters, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts.
I’m using these terms in order to distinguish between the separate lines of development of the early Christian movements. I don’t think the terms “Jewish Christians” or “Pauline Christians” were used at that time. I know it can be argued as to the specific beliefs of each movement, but I think I am correct in the general split of them between Jewish and Gentile believers.
caljack said
Vergari,
There were many versions of Christianity in the first two centuries. However, most scholars agree that there was a split between the original Jewish followers of Jesus and the Gentile followers who were taught by Paul. Many scholars, including Prof. Ehrman, if I’m not mistaken, include the Nazarenes (followers of Jesus of Nazareth), and the Ebionites as being a part of the Jewish Christian movement. Among those who accepted the teachings of Paul were the Marcionites who put forward the first version of the New Testament which only included Paul’s letters, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts.
I’m using these terms in order to distinguish between the separate lines of development of the early Christian movements. I don’t think the terms “Jewish Christians” or “Pauline Christians” were used at that time. I know it can be argued as to the specific beliefs of each movement, but I think I am correct in the general split of them between Jewish and Gentile believers.
Modern day Christianity did not evolve from Marcionites. It was a heretical movement which lost out.
The Marcionites were one of the movements of Pauline Christianity. There were others.
By the 4th century AD, Pauline Christianity had long separated from the Jewish religion and had become a non-Jewish (Gentile) religion. There were, however, many remaining issues to resolve. One of them was the compilation of a New Testament.
The Roman Emperor Constantine held a council to resolve these issues in 325AD. It was called the First Council of Nicaea which was attended by over 250 bishops. This council produced the Nicene Creed. There were many conflicts among them regarding this non-Jewish version of Christianity. It was this council which decided that Jesus was a God.
Marcion of Sinope had proposed a NT made up of the letters of Paul, the gospel of Luke, and the Acts. He failed to convince the other bishops to accept his version, so they came up with their own version of a NT, which we have today. They chose four Gospels out of a dozen or more that had been written. As each issue was resolved, the views of the losing bishops were declared to be heretical. So yes, Marcion and his followers failed in their efforts. However, the result of this and the Second Council of Nicaea, defined the Christian religion that is practiced today. The original Jewish Christian Sect of Jesus, however, was still history.
My original use of the Nazarene and Marcionite factions was intended to demonstrate the split between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Clearly there are many more details to the story.
caljack said
The Marcionites were one of the movements of Pauline Christianity. There were others.By the 4th century AD, Pauline Christianity had long separated from the Jewish religion and had become a non-Jewish (Gentile) religion. There were, however, many remaining issues to resolve. One of them was the compilation of a New Testament.
The Roman Emperor Constantine held a council to resolve these issues in 325AD. It was called the First Council of Nicaea which was attended by over 250 bishops. This council produced the Nicene Creed. There were many conflicts among them regarding this non-Jewish version of Christianity. It was this council which decided that Jesus was a God.
Marcion of Sinope had proposed a NT made up of the letters of Paul, the gospel of Luke, and the Acts. He failed to convince the other bishops to accept his version, so they came up with their own version of a NT, which we have today. They chose four Gospels out of a dozen or more that had been written. As each issue was resolved, the views of the losing bishops were declared to be heretical. So yes, Marcion and his followers failed in their efforts. However, the result of this and the Second Council of Nicaea, defined the Christian religion that is practiced today. The original Jewish Christian Sect of Jesus, however, was still history.
My original use of the Nazarene and Marcionite factions was intended to demonstrate the split between Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity. Clearly there are many more details to the story.
You kinda have the gist of the story mostly there, but lots of the details are wrong. Really wrong.
For example, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the “compilation” of a NT canon; indeed, the Council had nothing to do with Marcion (who had been dead for 200 years) at all; and, the Arian controversy was not over whether “Jesus was God,” but rather the nature of his divinity.
But perhaps most importantly, the Nicene Creed is believed to be based on the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, which, yes, goes back to Jewish Christian communities.
Vergari.
OK. My description was rough. Marcion’s bible came out long before the said council. However, many scholars claim that the church eventually developed it’s NT canon in response to Marcion’s efforts. And, if I’m not mistaken, Constantine ordered the delivery of 50 of the resulting NT bibles shortly after the council. Also, it may be a matter of semantics, but it is often stated that the council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ.
In any case, this discussion has branched off into a different discussion. My original intent was only to say that the Nazarene’s were an example of a Jewish Christian community, and the Marcionites were an example of a non-Jewish Christian community. It is true that there were many such communities, but in general they were either Jewish or non-Jewish. That was the primary split within Christianity.
caljack said
Vergari.OK. My description was rough. Marcion’s bible came out long before the said council. However, many scholars claim that the church eventually developed it’s NT canon in response to Marcion’s efforts. And, if I’m not mistaken, Constantine ordered the delivery of 50 of the resulting NT bibles shortly after the council. Also, it may be a matter of semantics, but it is often stated that the council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of Christ.
Marcion’s critical role in the development of the canon was his inclusion of the Pauline corpus.
We know from the Diatessaron that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were already considered Scripture by around this point in time.
The point about the post-Nicene circulation of bibles was the Constantine used official Roman scribes. So the quality of these bibles was far, far greater.
Paul was Saul, a pharisee? A Jew?
“I have deep sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my own flesh and blood, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory and the covenants; theirs the giving of the Law, the temple worship, and the promises.…”
He didn’t like the Jews? He lied to gain clout? What did he get for his efforts?
vergari wrote
Marcion’s critical role in the development of the canon was his inclusion of the Pauline corpus.
We know from the Diatessaron that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were already considered Scripture by around this point in time.
It’s frustrating because there are several discrete moments in the development of the tradition that we wish we had access to but don’t. For example, who was the first group to actually consider all four canonical gospels authoritative rather than value one over all the others? When did Paul’s letters go from just being mail to being scripture?
But even in the second century you still don’t have the attitude towards these documents that came later. For example, the Diatessaron was a harmonization. And this was accomplished by modifying the original texts and leaving stuff out! And even though the Diatessaron served as a supplement to the gospels in many areas, there is also evidence that for some groups it actually replaced the gospels. It appears that the author of the Diatessaron had the same attitude towards the gospels that the authors of Matthew and Luke had towards Mark, that the text was authoritative but not inviolable. If you’re still at the point where you feel competent to adapt the received tradition for your own uses have you really reached a point where the tests are actually considered “scripture” in the sense that later believers meant it?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)