(a) a physical human being named Jesus
(b) a Church founded under the principles set forth in the book of Acts
(c) identifying the author of the canonical letters in the Marcionite canon as 'Paul'
(d) identifying the gospel of the Marcionite canon as 'corrupt version' of Luke
The problem with positing any of these ideas is that it adversely affects the results of any future research that develops out of these presuppositions.
As Nietzsche once noted, the real problem in all of our lives is our inability to confront our presuppositions. In other words, few of us have the courage to admit that most of the ideas that are swimming around in our head have been 'planted' in their by individuals and institutions which want to control our way of thinking.
I know this sounds like the overstatement of the year but it is very similar to what happens when an individual suffers sexual or physical abuse by a parent or a relative. The individual CANNOT develop normally once the 'seed' of corruption has been planted in his soul.
To this end, if any of us really want to make sense of earliest Christianity rather than merely perpetuating the agendas of our ancestors (and I recognize that some of those inherited agendas can be a general HOSTILITY to things Christian) we have to challenge the certainty that we have in our inherited presuppostions about the canon and the role and identity of Jesus within those texts.
I personally think that the Marcionite tradition provides a great 'control group' to limit the influence of the Catholic tradition. Everything we see from the testimony of the earliest Fathers indicates that Marcion was older than the Catholic tradition (when Polycarp allegedly met Marcion Marcion was certainly the 'elder' Polycarp the innovator). The Marcionites had a fixed canon which could not have allowed for much innovation.
To this end, when we start to see that the Marcionites held that the figure who appeared crucified during the Passion was God and not man, Chrestos rather than Christos it is imperative that we investigate. There is a whole new interpretation of Christianity available for us to broaden our understanding of the tradition.
Why do so many scholars want to limit themselves to understanding an implausible scenario where someone HAD TO BE both God and man, divine Lord and Christ merely because someone penetrated their minds and implanted this nonsense into their soul when they were young and vulnerable? The search for truth demands that we purify ourselves from these impulses. We should learn to think for ourselves so that we come up with our own answers and our own truths.
For far too long scholarship has suffered from a kind of 'Stockholm syndrome' when it comes to its dependence on our inherited assumptions. As I remember it, the gospel says that the truth will set us free rather than enslave us ...
Stephan Huller's Observations by stephanhuller.blogspot.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Based on a work at stephanhuller.blogspot.com.
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."