There would not be much to the Bible of Christianity without all that the Marcionites contributed. What would
the “New Testament” be like without the Apostle Paul's letters?
In fact, without Marcion, no one today would likely even know who the
Apostle Paul was!
Not only the Gospel of “Luke” would be absent (as it's creation was dependent on the Gospel of Marcion) but only in those sections of the gospel narratives that are spoken of in the Gospel of Marcion are the Four Gospels in harmony and agreement! Where the the Four Gospels speak of things not included in the Gospel of Marcion they contradict and disagree with each other! Hence, without the Gospel of Marcion as the main source for all other gospels there would be no harmony of the Gospels.
The scholastic search for the historic Jesus (if indeed it is possible to search for the “historic” Son of God) would have no firm ground without the first Christian Bible, the Apostolicon of Marcion, which contained the letters of Paul.
Not only the Gospel of “Luke” would be absent (as it's creation was dependent on the Gospel of Marcion) but only in those sections of the gospel narratives that are spoken of in the Gospel of Marcion are the Four Gospels in harmony and agreement! Where the the Four Gospels speak of things not included in the Gospel of Marcion they contradict and disagree with each other! Hence, without the Gospel of Marcion as the main source for all other gospels there would be no harmony of the Gospels.
The scholastic search for the historic Jesus (if indeed it is possible to search for the “historic” Son of God) would have no firm ground without the first Christian Bible, the Apostolicon of Marcion, which contained the letters of Paul.
Who was this “Marcion” that
canonized the letters of the Apostle Paul into the first Bible? I speculate that his
name was “Mark” (rather than Marcion) and Paul refers to him in
Colossians 4:10, “Mark [Marcion], the cousin of Barnabas touching
whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive
him”.
The Bible before we had a Bible! Considered to be scripture by most Christians 240 years before there was a Bible. This Bible before the Bible was called, "The Apostolicon". Many scholars believe that the Bible, in it's present form, was established in 367 AD. However, the Apostolicon was established as Christian scripture around 110 AD and was immensely popular!
The Apostle Paul was also called to “fill full” the word of God (Colossians 1:25). This he did when he finished writing all his epistles. You see, only in the epistles of Paul do you find the claim that they are scripture, or the word of God. (See: 1st Corinthians 14:36; 1st Thessalonians 2:13; see also: 2nd Peter 3:16).
Although you may find the Pauline letters in the common Bible today, that came down to us from the Roman Catholic Church, there was a time when the churches established by Peter did not accept them, nor did they accept Paul as a true apostle! One early Catholic Church Father, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), had to know about the letters of Paul, but we have no record where he ever quoted them. The reasons for this were probably because Jewish Christians and Catholic Christians of that early time would have condemned Justin Martyr if they considered him to be associated with Paul, who dared to teach that the faith of Jesus, the Good One, is a faith independent of the Jewish faith; one for all people. Early Jewish Christians, who called themselves “Ebionites” wrote a book called, “The Acts of the Apostles” (not the same one in today’s common Bible), which pre-dated the book by that same name in the common Bible of today, in which Paul is referred to as a “false apostle”1.
The Catholic Church had no canon of books that they officially accepted as a bible until 367 AD, yet many Catholics, before this time, accepted the epistles of Paul from the Apostolicon. The Catholic church (founded by Peter) and the Pauline/Marcionite church (founded by Paul) were in competition with each other and for a time it looked like the Pauline/Marcionite church would be the the victor! But Catholic redactors made copies of the Pauline letters, adding words to them that made Paul appear more like a Catholic, that is, a team player under the leadership of Peter. After a time, and the death of Marcion, all the original letters of Paul were suppressed, so that the Catholic redacted versions could make the claim to be the original.
Soon, however, the Apostolicon will be restored, and with it the pure loving message Jesus the Chrest! - No, “Chrest” was not misspelled, Jesus was called the “Chrest”, not the “Christ” by The Apostle! Chrest is derived from chrestos in Greek and means “the good one”!
The Bible before we had a Bible! Considered to be scripture by most Christians 240 years before there was a Bible. This Bible before the Bible was called, "The Apostolicon". Many scholars believe that the Bible, in it's present form, was established in 367 AD. However, the Apostolicon was established as Christian scripture around 110 AD and was immensely popular!
The Apostle Paul was also called to “fill full” the word of God (Colossians 1:25). This he did when he finished writing all his epistles. You see, only in the epistles of Paul do you find the claim that they are scripture, or the word of God. (See: 1st Corinthians 14:36; 1st Thessalonians 2:13; see also: 2nd Peter 3:16).
Although you may find the Pauline letters in the common Bible today, that came down to us from the Roman Catholic Church, there was a time when the churches established by Peter did not accept them, nor did they accept Paul as a true apostle! One early Catholic Church Father, Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), had to know about the letters of Paul, but we have no record where he ever quoted them. The reasons for this were probably because Jewish Christians and Catholic Christians of that early time would have condemned Justin Martyr if they considered him to be associated with Paul, who dared to teach that the faith of Jesus, the Good One, is a faith independent of the Jewish faith; one for all people. Early Jewish Christians, who called themselves “Ebionites” wrote a book called, “The Acts of the Apostles” (not the same one in today’s common Bible), which pre-dated the book by that same name in the common Bible of today, in which Paul is referred to as a “false apostle”1.
The Catholic Church had no canon of books that they officially accepted as a bible until 367 AD, yet many Catholics, before this time, accepted the epistles of Paul from the Apostolicon. The Catholic church (founded by Peter) and the Pauline/Marcionite church (founded by Paul) were in competition with each other and for a time it looked like the Pauline/Marcionite church would be the the victor! But Catholic redactors made copies of the Pauline letters, adding words to them that made Paul appear more like a Catholic, that is, a team player under the leadership of Peter. After a time, and the death of Marcion, all the original letters of Paul were suppressed, so that the Catholic redacted versions could make the claim to be the original.
Soon, however, the Apostolicon will be restored, and with it the pure loving message Jesus the Chrest! - No, “Chrest” was not misspelled, Jesus was called the “Chrest”, not the “Christ” by The Apostle! Chrest is derived from chrestos in Greek and means “the good one”!
_______________
1Epiphanius
refers to an Ebionite Acts of the Apostles in which Paul was
characterized as a false apostle (Panarion book 30, passage 16,
verse 8).
1 comment:
1st of all, I'm not an English speaker, so, sorry for my mistakes.
There is some inaccuracies on the text. For example, is suggested that without "The Apostolicon" (TA) we don't have any original letters from Paul, 'cause TA is the very first collection about Pauline works. It's not fair to say. There are evidences (accredited even by non roman catholics scholars), that Clemens has used to 1Corinthians and Romans, decades before TA (see 1Clemens, around 90-110 a.D.).
Besides, there is internal evidences on Romans (ch.15), Colossians (4:16) and Galatians (6:11) that the letters where already copied and distributed to other churches by the time of apostles. Including, there is evidences of alexiandrians compilations of theses letters older than TA.
Another issue is the speculation about Marcion's identity. The "historic" Marcion is well known and he lived far before the Mark of the Bible, having arrived in Rome around 140 A.D and the publication of the TA occurred after this.
Plus, there is manuscripts, older than Marcion's TA, that shows less content (especially without the prefaces from TA). It shows that Marcion added his personal thoughts to the apostle Paul's letters. He believed in Paul, but he created his own apostle Paul.
He was rejected not by a roman catholic plot, but of its additions to apostolic thought.
But, yes, his works (Marcion's) really motivated the church (before the "organized" Roman Catholic) to compile the canonic documents we have today.
P.S.: I'm not a Roman Catholic... If you want to know more, I suggest to read some commentaries on Paul's letters. It's clear that you distrust Roman Catholics... so try to read Reformeds, Baptists, Lutherans and others who don't use the Tradition as their bases. Names like FF Bruce, Leon Morris, Louis Berkhof, Ralph Martin, I Howard Marshall and many others, can help you if you really want to know more. May the peace of Jesus Christ be with you.
Post a Comment