From another thread, I'd like to highlight a quote from the writings of Daniel A. Smith, 'The Sayings Gospel Q in Marcion's Edition of Luke', ETL 94/3 (2018) 481-503 p. 482-423
There are several passages in the Gospels that appear to be anti-Trinitarian. For example: Luke 18:19 / Mark 10:18 — "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.").
Would one decide that the Gospels were written by Trinitarians, with orthodox Trinitarian beliefs, but the writers were just sloppy? No, we'd decide that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed later. The idea that proto-orthodox beliefs changed quickly from the times the Gospels were written in the years after is not a shocking one.
I suggest that Marcionite beliefs also developed after the time of Marcion. Marcion's Gospel seems to contain a number of anti-Marcionite passages. For example:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... cion6.html
Tertullian uses statements like these to argue against the Marcionites of his time:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an124.html
I've argued this on other threads, and I know some have argued we don't know what Marcion meant by "phantom". But surely that adds to the mystery? Why is Tertullian so easily able to 'refute' the apparent Marcionite beliefs of his time? I argue that a possible reason is that Marcion had a different idea about a docetic Jesus than the Marcionites of Tertullian's time. I think Marcion believed that his Jesus had flesh and bones, though possibly not naturally-born flesh. It may have been flesh created from the stars, as some heretics apparently believed. But the later Marcionites adopted a stricter view of a "no flesh" Jesus.
Would anyone here like to propose why those apparent anti-Marcionite statements are in Marcion's Gospel? Why does Marcion's Jesus have flesh and bones?
I suggest that a possible reason for Marcion to include those apparent "anti-Marcionite" passages is that Marcion didn't hold the same beliefs as the later Marcionites.... on the traditional view, Marcion removed material uncongenial to his theological views, but on this view, he appears to have left in material that would be problematic for him, while taking out material that could have supported his views...
... theological appropriateness does not seem to have been a consistently applied editorial principle for Marion (on the traditional view).
There are several passages in the Gospels that appear to be anti-Trinitarian. For example: Luke 18:19 / Mark 10:18 — "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.").
Would one decide that the Gospels were written by Trinitarians, with orthodox Trinitarian beliefs, but the writers were just sloppy? No, we'd decide that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed later. The idea that proto-orthodox beliefs changed quickly from the times the Gospels were written in the years after is not a shocking one.
I suggest that Marcionite beliefs also developed after the time of Marcion. Marcion's Gospel seems to contain a number of anti-Marcionite passages. For example:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... cion6.html
22:43 And there appeared unto him an angel from heaven,
strengthening him.
44 And he became in an agony and prayed more earnestly:
and his sweat became as it were
great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
...
23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
and having said this, he expired.
...
50 And, behold, a man named Joseph, who was a counsellor...
52 This man went unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth,
and laid it in a tomb that was hewn in stone,
wherein no man had ever yet lain
...
24:36 And as they spake these things,
Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,
and saith unto them,
Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted,
and supposed that they had beheld a phantom.
38 And he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled?
and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that I am myself:
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
strengthening him.
44 And he became in an agony and prayed more earnestly:
and his sweat became as it were
great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
...
23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
and having said this, he expired.
...
50 And, behold, a man named Joseph, who was a counsellor...
52 This man went unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
53 And he took it down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth,
and laid it in a tomb that was hewn in stone,
wherein no man had ever yet lain
...
24:36 And as they spake these things,
Jesus himself stood in the midst of them,
and saith unto them,
Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted,
and supposed that they had beheld a phantom.
38 And he said unto them,
Why are ye troubled?
and wherefore do reasonings arise in your hearts?
39 Behold my hands and my feet, that I am myself:
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
Tertullian uses statements like these to argue against the Marcionites of his time:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... an124.html
Nothing therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after "the giving up of the ghost;" there was nothing to beg of Pilate, nothing to take down from the cross, nothing to wrap in the linen, nothing to lay in the new sepulchre. Still it was not nothing that was there. What was there, then? If a phantom Christ was yet there. If Christ had departed, He had taken away the phantom also. The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is to admit that what remained there was the phantom of a phantom!
...
But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom--nay, were supposing that He was one--He says to them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have." Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him... Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination--limbs which consist of bones--if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, "Know that it is I myself," when they had before known Him to be corporeal? Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him to be a phantom?
...
But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom--nay, were supposing that He was one--He says to them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have." Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him... Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination--limbs which consist of bones--if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, "Know that it is I myself," when they had before known Him to be corporeal? Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him to be a phantom?
I've argued this on other threads, and I know some have argued we don't know what Marcion meant by "phantom". But surely that adds to the mystery? Why is Tertullian so easily able to 'refute' the apparent Marcionite beliefs of his time? I argue that a possible reason is that Marcion had a different idea about a docetic Jesus than the Marcionites of Tertullian's time. I think Marcion believed that his Jesus had flesh and bones, though possibly not naturally-born flesh. It may have been flesh created from the stars, as some heretics apparently believed. But the later Marcionites adopted a stricter view of a "no flesh" Jesus.
Would anyone here like to propose why those apparent anti-Marcionite statements are in Marcion's Gospel? Why does Marcion's Jesus have flesh and bones?
Statistics: Posted by GakuseiDon — Wed Apr 30, 2025 2:48 am
