aa5874

I think the prologue in Luke is to set up the reader to make him think the same author also wrote Acts. The author of gLuke could have given his/her name instead of Theophilus, and likewise the author of Acts, instead of mentioning Theophilus.

But, there seems to be some fundamental problems here. If Marcion is already dead, by the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, this would mean that his Gospel, the Antithesis, or whatever Marcion wrote is finished and all his writings can be addressed with respect to mutilation or rejection.

Are the Church writers implying that Marcion followers, after Marcion died, are also publishing continuously amended works of Marcion?

But, Tertullian has already declared that Marcion gospel has NO author. And I just can't find the word "Paul" in the reconstructed Marcion gospel.

The more I read Tertullian's Against Marcion, it is appearing more and more that the information from these Church writers are full of errors and misleading information.

neilgodfrey

Marcion was said to have edited/deleted sections from an existing anonymous gospel. Later Fathers said that the gospel he "mutilated" in this way was their Gospel of Luke. No one has said Paul appears in the gospel, not even Marcion's. Marcion and his followers appear to have not regarded their gospel as authoritative at all. It was subject to revision. It could only be interpreted through what they believed was the message of Paul. Yes, the followers of Marcion continued to revise this written gospel after Marcion's death.

(I might have been misleading when I used the expression "gospel of Paul", sorry. I meant in that context for "gospel" to mean the central message of Paul. Not the written gospel some attributed to Luke.)

aa5874

So, where can I find what Marcion wrote about Paul independent of Church writers?

I am having serious fundamental queries about Tertullian's Against Marcion.

Against Marcion 1.1 Today we have a unique paralell situation, we have those who are called HJers, who believe Jesus was entirely human, so like Marcion, it can be said they too have mutilated the Gospels, indeed the entire NT.

Any passage in the NT that declares that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a God or equal in characteristic to God, the HJers reject. This would mean rejecting passages from the entire NT, not only from gLuke, Romans or Revelation, but from the entire NT.

HJers reject gMatthew's and gLuke's Holy Ghost conception. They reject gMark's, Matthew's and Luke's transfiguration. They reject gJohn's depiction of Jesus as pre-existing before the world was created. They reject Paul's claim that Jesus ROSE from the dead.

In effect, HJers mutilate and reject as necessary, they do not concentrate on or isolate any book from their hands of rejection.

But, even though they reject passages from the NT, they accept or need the NT to get the name of their human only character, where he lived and preached, and how he died.

Oddly, Marcion, as the Church writers would have us believe, was aware of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn , the Pauline Epistles and Revelation, very similar to the canonised NT.

I would then expect Marcion to reject and mutilate as necessary, just like HJers, and not to concentrate or isolate any book from his hands of rejection.

I find it NOTcredible that Marcion would isolate gLuke, if he was aware of the other Gospels, since all the Gospels as we have today all declare that Jesus was the Son of the God of the Jews, and that the God of the Jews is the Creator.

Against Marcion by Tertullian appears to be propaganda to distort the true history of Marcion, the authors of Luke and the Pauline Epistles.

Casper

Could it have been the other way round, and Tertulian is creating a straw man?

[Tertullian_as_blogtroll]"Yeah, Marcion used what we have right here, but he conveniently removed the part about yadayadayada which we all know is central. Thus he is a heretic!"[/Tertullian_as_blogtroll]

the_cave

Here's a riddle:

If Luke used GMc as a source, then there is no need for GLk to depend on any version of GMk or GMt. Is there?

But if that's so...then why does GLk include a genealogy and nativity story, just like GMt?

aa5874

To solve the riddle, these words must be deciphered.

Tertullan Against Marcion 1.1 Who wrote those words and what was said of Marcion before?

the_cave

You don't think it was Tertullian?

What's interesting is, if Tertullian is being accurate, there were two different versions of Against Marcion circulating during the third century. What happened to them? Is there no record of them at all?

However, I have to say I don't see that this is relevant. It tells us nothing about what might have prompted the author of GLk to include the genealogy and nativity sequence.

Although it is interesting to wonder what the addition was that Tertullian made to his treatise. How interesting that the last two books are basically an analysis of Marcion's canon...

aa5874

It is not simply an addition.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 1.1 Did the old work say anything about Luke or Paul?

neilgodfrey

Probably nowhere. I don't know of any claim that Marcion wrote anything about Paul?

neilgodfrey

If you are suggesting the possibility that it was the "orthodox" who added to the gospel rather than Marcion taking passages out of it, I used to think this was a possibility. Wasn't rewriting and expansion the more usual method for "correcting" texts, rather than omissions?

But against that, we have Irenaeus's assertion that Marcion was the only one to have treated a gospel text this way:

Irenaeus Haer 1.27.4
If it were really a debate about which teachings were supported by original established texts then I would have expected there would be others in addition to Marcion who would have created issues. Irenaeus's claim seems to point to Marcion really having edited some form of a gospel like Luke's. Yes? No?