Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-11-2008, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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

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

And then when you take into consideration that Tertullian also claim that Marcion's Gospel had no author, how can anything about Marcion with respect to Paul and Luke be verified unless we accept the words of those who opposed and disliked Marcion with a vengeance.

Tertullian hated Marcion to such a degree that even those who lived in the region of the Euxine Sea (Black Sea) were characterised as uncivilised, CANNIBALS and PROSTITUTES.

Against Marcion 1.1

Quote:

....They have no fixed abode, their life has no germ of civilisation; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked.

Moweover, when they gratify their secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes, to warn off curious and rash observers. Thus without a blush they prostitute their weapons of war.

The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts...

Did anyone from Pontus or the region about the Euxine Sea ever read this vile attack from Tertullian in Against Marcion?

I don't think so.

the_cave · 07-12-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is not simply an addition.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 1.1

Quote:

It is a NEW work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one.

Yes, I agree--but it did include an addition.

Quote:

The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise.

Quote:

Did the old work say anything about Luke or Paul?

No idea--that's what I'm asking. All that material is in books IV and V.

If you're saying we can't trust anything Tertullian says about Marcion, well alright then--in that case, this discussion is completely pointless.

Is there a record of Marcion's canon earlier than Tertullian?

aa5874 · 07-12-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is not simply an addition.

Tertullian in Against Marcion 1.1

Yes, I agree--but it did include an addition.

Quote:

Did the old work say anything about Luke or Paul?

No idea--that's what I'm asking. All that material is in books IV and V.

If you're saying we can't trust anything Tertullian says about Marcion, well alright then--in that case, this discussion is completely pointless.

Is there a record of Marcion's canon earlier than Tertullian?

How do you know all the material is in book 4 and 5?

I thought you just wrote that you have no idea if Paul or Luke was in the "old" work.

Whether we can trust Tertullian or not, a discussion is always worthwhile. If you trust Tertullian you can always state why you do and perhaps that can lead to a fruitful discussion.

And I have not read everything that it is claimed Tertullian wrote.

the_cave · 07-12-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

How do you know all the material is in book 4 and 5?

Because I can't find any of it in the earlier books? Are you aware of any material that addresses Marcion's canon in books I-III of Against Marcion?

Quote:

I thought you just wrote that you have no idea if Paul or Luke was in the "old" work.

I don't.

Quote:

Whether we can trust Tertullian or not, a discussion is always worthwhile. If you trust Tertullian you can always state why you do and perhaps that can lead to a fruitful discussion.

Marcion's gospel was apparently available during Tertullian's time. It could easily be cross-checked with Tertullian's claims about it. Tertullian would want to avoid embarrassment.

aa5874 · 07-12-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Whether we can trust Tertullian or not, a discussion is always worthwhile. If you trust Tertullian you can always state why you do and perhaps that can lead to a fruitful discussion.

Marcion's gospel was apparently available during Tertullian's time. It could easily be cross-checked with Tertullian's claims about it. Tertullian would want to avoid embarrassment.

Now, if you read the first chapter of Against Marcion, you will see that Tertullian is already warning the readers that he, Tertullian, did write and "old work hurriedly" and there is also another one, full of mistakes, which was done without his permission, by a "brother" so he is writing a third, a "new work".

Now, who is going to tell us about Marcion's writings, about the problems with forgeries and people who falsely claim Marcion wrote certain writings that he never did, just like they did to Tertullian?

Marcion was dead when Tertullian wrote about him.

And Tertullian claimed that Marcion's gospel had no author.

Now Tertullian also claimed Luke wrote a Gospel, and today we know Luke did not.

Do you see the problem I am having with Tertullian?

andrewcriddle · 07-12-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

..................................
Is there a record of Marcion's canon earlier than Tertullian?

Irenaeus writing a little earlier than Tertullian says http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6155_1380364

Quote:

Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-12-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

..................................
Is there a record of Marcion's canon earlier than Tertullian?

Irenaeus writing a little earlier than Tertullian says http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6155_1380364

Quote:

Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

Andrew Criddle

The problems I am having with Irenaeus is that he claimed Luke wrote a Gospel, but today we know Luke did not.

Irenaeus claimed an apostle named Matthew wrote a Gospel, but today we know Matthew did not.

Irenaeus claimed Mark wrote a Gospel, but today we know Mark did not

Irenaeus claimed an apostle named John wrote a Gospel, but today we John did not.

And Tertullian writing after Irenaeus claimed Marcion's Gospel had no author.

Who told Irenaeus what Marcion wrote? Was it the same person who told Irenaeus that Luke, Matthew, Mark and John wrote the Gospels when they did not.?

Who told Irenaeus what Marcion wrote? The same person who told Irenaeus that Jesus was over fifty years old when he, Jesus died?

Irenaeus doesn't seem to know a lot.

neilgodfrey · 07-12-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

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

And then when you take into consideration that Tertullian also claim that Marcion's Gospel had no author, how can anything about Marcion with respect to Paul and Luke be verified unless we accept the words of those who opposed and disliked Marcion with a vengeance.

Very little can be "verified". That's why we speak in terms of degrees of probabilities and plausibilities. But even false and hostile witnesses can, if we use sense and care in evaluating both their claims and the context in which they are making them, give us some sense of what appears to have happened.

Ben C Smith · 07-19-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think this underestimates the abilities of a critical mind. It may be the case that we do not yet have enough evidence to make an evaluation of Acts (and I know that I myself do not yet have enough; hence this thread!). But I would hate to stifle the inquiry by stating from the outset that some questions are beyond the possibility of serious inquiry. We are not waiting for new manuscript discoveries, though such would be splendid indeed. We are not waiting for time travel. We are striving to invent ever more creative ways to evaluate the evidence that we have on hand.

It may even be that these new tests we devise end up disproving my pro 1 argument. As I said before, some of the materials from the we passages already seem doubtful. But I would rather go the distance and devise the test anyway than sit back and say there is no way we can know.

Unless there are some new tests that can compensate for complete absence of primary evidence and absence of controls on the secondary evidence, then we can only ask the questions that the evidence will allow us to answer. Rules of historical enquiry can't be changed for the sake of finding "at least some answer" to a question we want to ask.

We are certainly bound by the (nature of the) extant evidence to a great degree; nevertheless, it is precisely the development of new hypotheses, almost as if they were new tests or methods, that I was referring to.

Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources, page 77:

Although it is a simple process to think up hypotheses, it is no simple task to formulate hypotheses that actually link the observed pieces of evidence—that can explain the facts available, not those that the scholar might wish to have. Often, it takes many tries before the scholar can formulate a hypothesis that really works—one that satisfactorily accounts for the known evidence. There is no formula for success in this difficult venture.

Ibidem, page 78:

The difficulties of applying the so-called scientific method to historical research means that historians must often satisfy themselves with rules of logic that appear less watertight, making statements that seem probable, not "proved" in any "scientific" sense.

Ben.

neilgodfrey · 07-20-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Unless there are some new tests that can compensate for complete absence of primary evidence and absence of controls on the secondary evidence, then we can only ask the questions that the evidence will allow us to answer. Rules of historical enquiry can't be changed for the sake of finding "at least some answer" to a question we want to ask.

We are certainly bound by the (nature of the) extant evidence to a great degree; nevertheless, it is precisely the development of new hypotheses, almost as if they were new tests or methods, that I was referring to.

Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier, From Reliable Sources, page 77:

Although it is a simple process to think up hypotheses, it is no simple task to formulate hypotheses that actually link the observed pieces of evidence—that can explain the facts available, not those that the scholar might wish to have. Often, it takes many tries before the scholar can formulate a hypothesis that really works—one that satisfactorily accounts for the known evidence. There is no formula for success in this difficult venture.

Ibidem, page 78:

The difficulties of applying the so-called scientific method to historical research means that historians must often satisfy themselves with rules of logic that appear less watertight, making statements that seem probable, not "proved" in any "scientific" sense.

Ben.

Fully agreed. I might be missing something in your argument, however, because the conclusion I draw from Howell and Prevenier is that the sorts of questions we can ask are limited by "facts available", "the known evidence".

I'm not looking so much at new hypotheses as at what probabilities the nature of primary and secondary evidence respectively can tell us, and upon which hypotheses can then be built.

Neil

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.