stephan huller's observations: On Tradition

If NT scholarship actually wanted to make sense of the early history of Christianity it would have done so by now. Instead what it has attempted to do (especially in the last hundred years) is 'rescue' the beliefs of our ancestors FROM science by means of adopting scientific terminology to recast old propaganda as 'historical testimony.'

Indeed how could we go from the observations of German scholarship in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that Marcion developed the first canon to our present disinterest in Marcion? Yes to be sure there have been a handful of papers written on Marcion which have managed to 'discover' a few interesting things about his 'tradition.' But the real question is why hasn't EVERYONE in the field of NT studies developed an OBSESSION for Marcion?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask the most fundamental question which German scholarship recognized over a century ago - which tradition is older than the Marcionite tradition?

Of course I like and even love many Lutheran scholars. Indeed all my closest associates are Lutheran. Yet there is a problem with the mind set of these people that is worth noting.

While I can't say enough about the Lutheran interest in 'following the truth wherever it leads' in a strange way this comes back to haunt these investigators. For all ancient Biblical traditions are above all else SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. The ancient rabbis and Church Fathers did not operate like the Lutheran scholar. They did not sit around speculating about what 'the truth' was. The truth was the tradition they represented.

I can't emphasize enough that Origen the Alexandrian and Clement the Alexandrian were Alexandrians first and 'thinkers' second. Their ideas were not developed out of their own imaginations (i.e. in the manner that the Lutheran scholar approaches history). They did not 'make sense' of the Bible. The Bible already 'made sense' through the tradition of Mark which they became a part of when they accepted the sacraments of the Church.

Where Clement and Origen differed from one another was in responding to contemporary pressures from the emerging Catholic Church. That is the reason that Clement could call himself a gnostic and Origen could not. The term had already become associated with heresy owing to the influence of Irenaeus (even though for all intents and purposes Irenaeus did not ban the use of the term; for he speaks of 'false gnostics' and as such there must have been 'true gnostics' and 'true gnosis' which he claimed his tradition represented).

Indeed is it any wonder that the successors of Irenaeus end up blasting all those who came after Origen as 'Origenists' in order to bypass the argument that Origen was merely passing on a pre-existent Alexandrian tradition (i.e. that Heraclas, Dionysus, Theognostus, Pierius and the rest were simply Alexandrians or followers of the apostolic tradition of St. Mark).

The tradition certainly existed, just read the Acts of Peter of Alexandria for God's sake! It is made explicit but no one hears what it says. There is 'little Mark' i.e. 'Marcion' from Mark 14:52 appearing naked in his linen cloth reminding Peter and the reader about the ancient tradition he created and which Peter I was only the latest representative.

Indeed if we go back and look at the very approach of Irenaeus to attack the legitimacy of the heresies we see the same methodology at work.

The heretics are interestingly accused of employing the methodology of the modern Lutherans. They 'invented' interpretations of the Bible which stand at odds to the 'true tradition' that was witnessed by Polycarp (through a chain of transmission from Jesus to John and John to Polycarp and Polycarp to Irenaeus) and the Roman bishop (from Jesus to Peter and Peter through Linus etc).

Irenaeus certainly does not mention the Alexandrian tradition of Jesus passing on knowledge to Mark and Mark to the various Popes of Alexandria. Scholars conclude from this omission that the Alexandrian tradition didn't exist at this time! Yeah, these guys are real geniuses. Apparently America went to Iraq to promote democracy, just look at what President Bush said in 2002 ...

I guess we are supposed to think it is coincidence that 'Cerdo' is identified as a teacher of Marcionite doctrines AND an Alexandrian Pope at the time 'St. John' was active ...

In any event by establishing the heretics as 'imaginative thinkers' or even philosophers (notice that they are called 'heresies' for a very good reason) Irenaeus is attempting to further diminish the Alexandrian tradition. Yes, I am suggesting that Marcion was from Alexandria. The epithets 'of Sinope' or 'of Pontus' only reflect widespread contemporary reports that Alexandrian Christianity seemed to pagans to have been influenced by the cult of Sarapis (who according to Plutarch was of Sinope in the Pontus).

The fact that the Marcionite canon had a letter to the Alexandrians and the Catholics don't and posit instead an Acts of the Apostles which emphasizes an Antiochean line of transmission (Irenaeus inherited this text from Polycarp's correspondance with Theophilus of Antioch) says everything. Alexandria is INTENTIONALLY absent from Acts and the Catholic canon (Apollos not withstanding).

Alexandria was the place from where the term Papa and the Papacy derived its origin. Need I say more? ...

BUY MY BOOK. SERIOUSLY. WHAT CAN YOU BUY TODAY FOR $10?