Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 04-06-2012, 09:26 PM

What's also really interesting when you start thinking about - (a) a longer version of Mark and (b) a shorter version of Luke - being associated with the Marcionites is how similar these copies of Mark and Luke must have appeared.

For instance - as Andrew Criddle points out in a recent post at a blog, an addition to Ephrem's Commentary has this to say about the gospel of Luke:

Quote:

The words of the apostles are not in agreement because they did not write the Gospel at the same time. They did not receive the command like Moses, on tablets, but, as the prophet has said, I will give them a covenant, not like this one, but my Law in their spirit, and I will write it on their heart. [Various] reasons summoned them, and they wrote.
Matthew wrote it in Hebrew, and it was then translated into Greek. Mark followed Simon Peter. When he went to Rome [the faithful] persuaded him [to write] so that they would remember the tradition, lest it be forgotten after a long time. He wrote what he had grasped. Luke began with the baptism of John. Since one had spoken of his incarnation and of his kingdom springing from David, and the other [had begun] with Abraham, John came and found that their words were proclaiming many things, for they had composed genealogies concerning his human origins. [Literally, "that he was a son of man."] Consequently he wrote that he had been not just a man, but, In the beginning was the word.

Criddle has argued against reading this as meaning Luke began with John's baptism. But there is Tertullian's strange statement too about the Marcionite text:

Quote:

From what direction does John make his appearance? Christ unexpected: John also unexpected. With Marcion all things are like that: with the Creator they have their own compact order. The rest about John later, since it is best to answer each separate point as it arises.

At present I shall make it my purpose to show both that John is in accord with Christ and
Christ in accord with John, the Creator’s Christ with the Creator’s prophet, that so the heretic may be put to shame at having to no advantage made John’s work of no advantage. For if John’s work had been utterly without effect when, as Isaiah says, he cried aloud in the wilderness as preparer of the ways of the Lord by the demanding and commending of repentance, and if he had not along with the others baptized Christ himself, no one could have challenged Christ’s disciples for eating and drinking, or referred them to the example of John’s disciples who were assidous in fasting and prayer: because if any opposition had stood between Christ and John, and between the followers of each,
there could have been no demand for imitation, and the force of the challenge would have been lost. For no one could think it strange and no one be put to grief if the rival preachings of hostile divinities were also discordant in their rules of conduct, having begun by being discordant in the authorities imposing the rules.

Consequently Christ belonged to John and John to Christ, and both to the Creator, both concerned with the law and the prophets, as preachers and teachers. Otherwise Christ would have repudiated John’s rules, as pertaining to a different god, and would have commended his disciples for quite rightly following different practices, having been brought into the service of a different divinity of opposite character. As things are, by submissively offering the explanation that the sons of the bridegroom could not fast so long as the bridegroom was with them, and by promising that they would afterwards fast when the bridegroom had been taken from them, he did not commend the disciples, but rather found excuses for them, as though the rebuke was not without cause, nor did he repudiate John’s rule of conduct but rather gave it approval: for the present he allowed it to John’s circumstances, for the future approving it for circumstances of his own. Otherwise he would have repudiated it, and commended its opponents, if the rule which then existed had not been a rule of his own.

Also note Markus Vinzent's post on the existence of two different lengths of the Marcionite gospel:

http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com/20...-marcions.html

There are other references too. It is very curious.

Adam · 04-08-2012, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

with Clement's witness of the text. It only said 'Son of God'

The messiah context was added later or originally appeared as a wrong association

But it is "Christ" (Messiah) that is in the parallel passages of each of the Synoptics. What is missing is "Son of God" except in Mt. 16:16. That was apparently redacted into Mark 8:30.

stephan huller · 04-08-2012, 12:49 AM

But Clement is the earliest citation of this material. How can we argue for "Christ" being the right reading when its not in our earliest witness

Adam · 04-08-2012, 12:55 AM

You're serious, aren't you.
What about Bruce Metzger, Nestle-Aland, the whole entirety of textual criticism? I guess one needs to be that extreme to be a mythicist. No wonder Ehrman dismisses it as unscholarly.
I suppose the text he saw (whether redacted to agree with gMatthew or he himself thinking of what was in gMatthew) read "Christ, Son of God" from which he extracted "Son of God" as the most relevent.

maryhelena · 04-08-2012, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

In gMark, Jesus claims he is the Messiah AND the Son of the Blessed.:

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

Very good point aa, but as I have already demonstrated Clement's gospel witnesses an earlier version of the gospel which did not yet add the 'messiah' argument. Compare the received text:

Quote:

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

with Clement's witness of the text. It only said 'Son of God'

Quote:

Many (πολλοὶ) also of those who called to the Lord said, “Son of David, have mercy on me (υἱὲ ∆αβίδ, ἐλέησόν με).” A few (ὀλίγοι), too, knew Him as the Son of God (υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ); as Peter, whom also He pronounced blessed (ἐμακάρισεν), “for flesh and blood revealed not the truth to him, but His Father in heaven” (ὅτι αὐτῷ σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλ' ἢ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) —showing that the Gnostic recognises the Son of the Omnipotent, not by the eyes of the flesh conceived in the womb, but by the Father’s own power

The messiah context was added later or originally appeared as a wrong association (see the Marcionite interpretation of the blind man calling Jesus 'son of David' but finally recognizing him as heavenly 'Lord' when Jesus 'opens his eyes')

What's going on here Stephan? Now that have become a mythicist re no historical gospel JC - that now you want to remove the gospel references, mention, indication, whatever, that the gospel JC was thought of, by his disciples, to be the Christ i.e. a messiah figure???

:huh:

stephan huller · 04-08-2012, 07:52 AM

Quote:

What about Bruce Metzger, Nestle-Aland, the whole entirety of textual criticism?

But as I have noted over and over again the only witnesses that survive are those of the Catholic tradition - even when referencing the alleged readings of the heretics. We likely have only uncovered a quarter - maybe an eighth - of what the gospels in the second century read like. Yet we know what the beliefs of Marcion, Valentinus and Clement of Alexandria are. They are consistent with this emphasis - i.e. that Jesus was ONLY the Son of God. The gospel narrative actually makes sense this way - in terms of a debate over whether Jesus was a god.

stephan huller · 04-08-2012, 08:36 AM

And what's more if you read the Clementine Homilies it makes the point quite explicit - the first gospel was written by revelation - i.e. by a 'vision' that came to Simon the original evangelist. Simon Peter says that he established a 'secret gospel' second to counter the myths developed by his namesake. Nevertheless the text confesses the original paradigm - the 'myth' gospel came first, the historical gospel(s) second.

The danger of not reading Patristic evidence.

tanya · 04-08-2012, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" was just a Jewish honorific for kings, like "Anointed."

I should change my name to "tanya the cynic".

Can you provide even ONE example of a Jewish King, at any point in history, whose mother was inseminated by YHWH?

Scotsguy44 · 04-08-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

"Son of God" was just a Jewish honorific for kings, like "Anointed."

I should change my name to "tanya the cynic".

Can you provide even ONE example of a Jewish King, at any point in history, whose mother was inseminated by YHWH?

Can you provide the specifics of where Jesus' mother was inseminated by YHWH?

1. To introduce or inject semen into the reproductive tract of (a female).

Matt

tanya · 04-08-2012, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The danger of not reading Patristic evidence.

Which patristic author's original text do you possess?

Every time I investigate, I learn something like this:

'No longer extant in the original Greek, but we have a Coptic translation from the fourth century';

Or: 'Available in fragments in a 7th century Latin translation of a Syriac original copy of the translation from Greek',

Or: 'Only one copy exists, found in an Italian monastery, dating from the twelfth century'.

Hmmm. How about "The danger of believing that the "patristic" evidence is bona fide."

So, here's an easy question for you Stephan, most learned of all of us, vis a vis the patristic literature: Why does Irenaeus give an age for Jesus two decades longer than the gospels? Today being Easter Sunday, in the western, catholic tradition, it seems appropriate to inquire what the patristic evidence can do to shed light on Jesus' demise. It seems reasonable to me, to ascertain the terminus post quem. Can your expertise, reading the patristic evidence, shed light on this question, Stephan?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-08-2012, 12:49 AM	#133
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But Clement is the earliest citation of this material. How can we argue for "Christ" being the right reading when its not in our earliest witness

04-08-2012, 12:55 AM	#134
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	You're serious, aren't you. What about Bruce Metzger, Nestle-Aland, the whole entirety of textual criticism? I guess one needs to be that extreme to be a mythicist. No wonder Ehrman dismisses it as unscholarly. I suppose the text he saw (whether redacted to agree with gMatthew or he himself thinking of what was in gMatthew) read "Christ, Son of God" from which he extracted "Son of God" as the most relevent.

04-08-2012, 08:36 AM	#137
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And what's more if you read the Clementine Homilies it makes the point quite explicit - the first gospel was written by revelation - i.e. by a 'vision' that came to Simon the original evangelist. Simon Peter says that he established a 'secret gospel' second to counter the myths developed by his namesake. Nevertheless the text confesses the original paradigm - the 'myth' gospel came first, the historical gospel(s) second. The danger of not reading Patristic evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.