Marcion of Sinope According to Tertullian and other writers of early proto-orthodox Christianitythe movement known as Marcionism began with the teachings and excommunication of Marcion around Marcion was reportedly a wealthy shipowner, the son of a bishop of Sinope of PontusAsia Minor. He arrived in Rome c. The organization continued in the East for some centuries later, particularly outside the Byzantine Empire in areas which later would be dominated by Manichaeism.
The Antithesis and the relationship of Matthew 5: But now I will examine the entirety of the chapter and show verse by verse the dependence upon Marcion as source, explaining every phrase. Matthew structure differs dramatically from the other Synoptic Gospels.
Several years ago, back in the early s, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand the Synoptic Gospels without a clue to the theology involved.
Being an engineer by profession, I liked purely mechanical solutions, since at least in theory you could construct a model that explained the development. Of course this didn't get me anywhere because without a thorough understanding of the theological developments there was no way to distinguish between early and late material.
This situation is compounded in view by an atmosphere of sophomoric theories and silliness bred from ignorance of those in the field. I decided they were all nuts, and undisciplined, or rather unwilling to cross pollinate with higher critics and gain insights, and so were hopelessly locked in a useless battle pitting one flawed theory against another.
Today however knowing Marcion's text and theological and historical events which shaped the New Testament, I now have the tools to break down Matthew's The antithesis of marcion structure and explain in the context of known history, not fiction.
Matthew's structure is unique among the Synoptic Gospels. The sequences of stories, while on the micro level follows pattern of the others, is in the large picture scrambled. Even the so called Q document stories and sayings do not follow the sequence of Luke.
The rather obvious conclusion is Matthew structured his gospel differently because his emphasis was other than telling a linear story. His blocks served another purpose. And the block that I am concerned with today is the Sermon on the Mount, which itself consists of three sections: My focus here is on the first section, chapter 5, and specifically how it was built on Marcion's antithesis.
The Synoptic Gospel Problem: Here is my ten thousand foot view of the Synoptic problem, and how it is best explained. The solution that works best to explain all the evidence is this 1. Marcion's Gospel is written using "L" as a backbone, stories and sayings from Marcion's camp are added 4.
Matthew is written using "M" and Marcion's Gospel, and for chapter five Marcion's Antithesis as sources 5. Mark is written conflating "L" and "M" 6. Luke is written using Marcion's Gospel as a base, plus Matthew and other sources, replaces Marcion 7. Catholic additions here and there to to all three Synoptic Gospels into the 3rd century note: Mark can be no earlier than M, so CE, seems to have been known only after Matthew 6.
Mark is isolated from the rest of the Synoptic development, built on two ur-Gospels, nothing else. The dating and order is based on internal dependence and first solid verification of the books. Irenaeus, probably writing around CE, and Justin who probably wrote a few years before Irenaeus, probably CE, are the only solid 2nd century witnesses.
The dating of these men earlier and of others relies on unreliable and often fraudulent writings and unsupported speculation. I am sticking to more solid dates here. Sources of Matthew Chapter 5: The basic take away from the outline I give above is that Matthew and Mark have a common underlying ur-Gospel source which I call "M.
When determining the order of dependence of any given verse or a group of them — and there are places where each of the Gospels that came down to us is more primitive than the others — the best approach is to use a concept from Textual Criticism which states that when you have multiple variants, as is the case in the Synoptic Gospel verses, the question to is which reading best explains the others.
The most interesting application of this concept in Matthew's Sermon is the Salt saying.
The saying occupies different locations in each of the synoptic gospels, so it's original placement is in doubt - Mark's placement seems right however, but that is another story.
Going through the analysis will be instructive into how this concept works looking at the three accounts Matthew 5: It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out for men to trample upon.
Have salt in yourself. Salt then is good; but if even salt becomes tasteless, how can it season? Neither for soil nor for manure is it suitable, they throw it out. But this is a misreading, as the original had the salt being the object not the reader.O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and Contradictions [antithesis] of gnosis falsely so called.
-- From the Pseudo-Pauline Epistle I Timothy (circa C.E.). This page represents a short exercise on my part (rather loose and by no means. Besides the Antithesis, the Testament of the Marcionites was also composed of a Gospel of Christ which was Marcion's version of Luke, and that the Marcionites attributed to Paul, that was different in a number of ways from the version that is now regarded as canonical.
Marcion: Gospel of the Lord and Other Writings. Part of a library of materials dealing with Gnosis and Gnosticism, both ancient and modern. The site includes the Gnostic Library, with the complete Nag Hammadi Library and a large collection of other primary Gnostic scriptures and documents. Aug 06, · Hate to tell you this, but Marcion didn't worship the God of the New Testament.
He worshipped the God of the Gospel of John and some Pauline Epistles. He threw out the rest.
Besides the Antithesis, the Testament of the Marcionites was also composed of a Gospel of Christ which was Marcion's version of Luke, and that the Marcionites attributed to Paul, that was different in a number of ways from the version that is now regarded as canonical.
In any event, this will at least provide the reader a general idea of what Marcion's work "Antithesis" may have been like.
For a further in-depth discussion on Marcion's "Antithesis", see Adolf Von Harnack's work, "Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God" (pp; E.T. Labyrinth Press, ).