The idea that there is some literary connection between Marcion’s Gospel and the canonical Gospel of Luke seems undeniable.
But what is the evidence that Marcion was prior to, and a source for, the gospel of Mark? That really seems surprising. Can someone summarise the basis for this view?
Robert. The Wikipedia article you indicated is a very good summary of juxtaposed hypotheses based on biblical criteria. I don’t know what I could add to these three hypotheses except that I don’t like these criteria and these conclusions.
A specific book was not important to the extent that it is today. The ancients used canonical and apocryphal literature to the same extent – Shepard’s popularity was comparable to the Gospel of Matthew and greater than all other NT books.
The Roman Orthodox did so, and Marcion’s men did so.
Why ? Because you never know what the recipient will like and you can’t be surprised by their content selection.
The available content resources were the same – the winner in the missionary competition was determined by training and selection of people, as well as logistical issues.
Omar. Marcion created the content canon in accordance with the principle of minimum necessary training. He selected the best literary works available to him. And he mass-produced missionaries, investing in them the bare minimum.
Marcion’s entire criticism is an artificial polemical concept used to fight a specific man who turned out to be too effective to be allowed to remain in the structure.
Content development is not about 10-year iteration cycles – it is an uncontrolled process like wildfire. There is no chance of solving the synoptic problem or effectively reproducing this rapid process of literary development fueled by Marcion’s success.
The first Luke (Marcion’s one) is a collective work of ghost writers and editors. Only the publisher’s interest mattered. And he needed a tool to train missionaries and attract believers.
If there were not mutual ideological differences between Marcion and the establishment in Rome, why would the Roman leadership be opposed to the success of Marcion?
I don’t see any reason to think Jarek’s analysis is correct, but I don’t think it is that easily proven false. It is easy enough to find cases where people, ostensibly working to the same mutual goal, oppose each other either out of petty jealousy (“I won’t play second fiddle to him“) or out of a desire for personal power (“I’d rather be king of a my own minor kingdom than a high-ranking servant of an emperor”).
You ask, rhetorically,
Was Marcion upset because he was not made the supreme leader in a church with which he was in complete agreement? Did Marcion want more? Were the Roman leaders jealous of his success, if his success only contributed to their own success?
I don’t see any reason we can exclude an affirmative answer to any of those. We can find people acting with such petty and unreasonable motives all the time. Without knowing more about the dispute and the characters of the individuals in question, we can’t foreclose those as possibilities.
I think the principal problem with Jarek’s thesis is that he has no actual evidence that would support his account over the alternatives.
That aspect of his theory doesn’t strike me as unrealistic, so much as unproven.
I mean, again, that sort of petty dispute is extremely common. Even in Church history, we see the pissing contest between east (patriarch of Constantinople) and west (pope in Rome) over who gets to evangelize the nations in the middle. The attitude is not, “we are all Christians; let’s rejoice that Christianity is being spread to these people.” The attitude is instead, “that is my missionary territory, bugger off.”
Having seen how a few non-profits are run, I can totally imagine the established leadership in Rome getting bent out of shape, and the relationship quickly souring, when an outsider shows up and meets with success and acclaim.
Also, I find the suggested etymology of “ideology” suspicious; I am under the impression that “ideology” comes from “ἰδέα” (from, “εἴδομαι” c.f., “εἶδον”) rather than “ἴδιος”. Am I mistaken?
As far as etymology, the word, I think, indicates fitting the world into some theory you have–some apparent truth you have latched onto as the key; not the idiosyncrasy and peculiarity, nor self-serving character, of your thought.
It could well be that I’ve misunderstood Jarek, but I’ve not taken him to be saying that Marcion was selfless. On the contrary, I have understood him to be saying Marcion was acting out of unadulterated self-interest, with no concern for truth, trying to promote his version of the gospel, whether ultimately he was motivated by fame or fortune or influence. But I am certainly less well acquainted with Jarek’s position that you are.
Robert, I would like to look at the world and people the same way you do. A trusting and noble way. But experience doesn’t allow me to do that. Experience is the only real red pill.
Marcion came to Rome with one purpose – to take control of Christianity in the center of the Empire. Rome was crucial because it controlled everything, including the religious life of the Empire. Such a power structure that imperial officials controlled religions – civic cults, foreign cults recognized by Rome. Both persecution and subsidies were decided. Pax Deorum was an important matter.
He was an unscrupulous guy who knew what he wanted.
They defeated him by prolonging decisions when they were weak, unorganized and unprepared. They accepted the money, part of the book collection and for a few years they saw no problem with Marcion’s theological views. Probably because they didn’t have them themselves yet. They did not know how to convert in an organized way, how to finance the project, how to run it. They were unable to choose literary products. And he couldn’t force them to make decisions in his favor. After all, when he saw that they learned a lot from him and in return he got nothing from them. He knew that his position was weakening and there would be no breakthrough. He left to do his own thing.
The Romans saved their position from a foreign stray. They did not recognize his leadership. They quickly started hiring people like him. The rest is just a black PR.
Robert, the theology of leaders is simple and sometimes expressed in terse, well-known quotes.
Paris vaut bien une messe – Henry IV.
It doesn’t matter what Poland will be like. Red or black. What matters is whose it will be. – Jaroslaw Kaczyński.
Marcion took the funds obtained by his missionaries living in asceticism and poverty and voluntarily donated them to the Roman commune. For what purpose? He could have used it for further training and recruitment of new missionaries for the glory of the Lord. And he preferred to bribe those he needed to achieve his goal.
The bishopric of Rome was beyond his reach for customary reasons. Bishops were elected by the people and the clergy. By members of the local commune. The same applied to the Bishop of Rome, who did not yet have the powers of central authority. But that was about to change. Marcion may have wanted to help his candidate with whom he had reached an agreement.
Valentinian? He may have wanted to impose a management structure that rewards his organization. Achieve a favorable division of competences.
Who can guess?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert