Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Casper · 07-01-2008, 01:02 PM

It may involve too much speculation based on the limited sources we have for Marcion's text, but are those things which extant gLuke is suspected of deriving from Josephus present or absent from Marcion's gospel?

This could probably work as a pro or a con but I am curious because I have never seen this particular question; it may not be something we can deduce, either.

Ben C Smith · 07-01-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

It may involve too much speculation based on the limited sources we have for Marcion's text, but are those things which extant gLuke is suspected of deriving from Josephus present or absent from Marcion's gospel?

This could probably work as a pro or a con but I am curious because I have never seen this particular question; it may not be something we can deduce, either.

That is a very perceptive question, and the sort of inquiry that stands a chance of moving the dialogue forward. Perhaps you could list a couple of items in Luke you think are suspected as having derived from Josephus; then we could check the Marcionite version (through Tertullian and Epiphanius, of course) for a yea or a nay.

Ben.

aa5874 · 07-01-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

It's possible Marcion believed that Paul's original teaching had been perverted, hence he edited the epistles to remove the offending content. In this case, Marcion still believed Paul to be his 'main man'.

Another scenario is that a lot of stuff was later interpolated into Paul (after Marcion, or contemporaneous to him) in which case it's possible Marcion's version of the epistles are more faithful to Paul... in which case also Paul is definitely Marcion's 'main man'!

Are you now claiming that Paul was the first Macionite?

Whenever you start to talk about the authors of the Pauline Epistles, you will run into chronological errors.. The authors of these Epistles are all after the Synoptics and they lived well beyond the fall of the Jewish Temple, possibly up to the late 2nd century.

JoeWallack · 07-01-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Maybe you are not approaching me with sufficient condescension and need to spell it out even more clearly.

JW:
< comment deleted >

The Messiah for Skepticism, Bar El-man, preaches a message of repentance for the sin of textual corruption. His teaching for the Unfaithful is lack of Faith in what was originally written. This is the means of his Salvation by Reason. Is it coincidence that the all-time greatest Textual expert would lose his Faith as a result of being the all-time greatest Textual expert? Is it the work of the Devil? Is it the sort of Irony that the author of "Mark" would really appreciate? Or is it exactly what we would expect based on Science and Reason. Who better to understand that based on the evidence we can not be sure what was originally written.

The subject of this Thread is important because it goes way beyond individual textual variation. Here we have potentially an entire Gospel that has evidence it existed in two significantly different forms with entirely different messages. The orthodox version is the Gospel for orthodox Christianity which claims a chain of historical witnesses between Jesus and orthodox Christianity. The Marcion version is anti-historical witness.

The orthodox here have Faith that orthodox "Luke" is the original based on Internal evidence. But, as this Thread should demonstrate and as you have impressively demonstrated on your blog, even the orthodox should at least have some doubt as to what was original. And that is all El-man is saying (at this point).

All I Am trying to do here is add External evidence to the discussion. Specifically, what quality evidence is there that Marcion was aware of another version of "Luke" or any other Gospel for that matter. Related to this is can the orthodox provide quality evidence of identifying a user of orthodox "Luke" before Marcion?

Usually Spin chastises people to get down (to sources) but in his absence I guess I have to. The discussion of Internal evidence here (and at your blog) is interesting but subjective and most of it is weaker that what has not been discussed here regarding External evidence. On that note:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ullian124.html

Quote:

CHAP. V.--BY THE RULE OF ANTIQUITY, THE CATHOLIC GOSPELS ARE FOUND TO BE TRUE, INCLUDING THE REAL ST. LUKE'S. MARCION'S ONLY A MUTILATED EDITION. THE HERETIC'S WEAKNESS AND INCONSISTENCY IN IGNORING THE OTHER GOSPELS.

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apos

ties, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John's foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the orders of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own--as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage--I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul. And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them--either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short, he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way--when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering.

JW:
Here based on extant Marcion, Tertullian seems to indicate that Marcion was not aware of any other Gospel.

Neil, to think that when I use your name here I am primarily addressing you is as mistaken as the orthodox thinking that "Mark's" Jesus was primarily addressing his audience (let the IIDB Reader understand).

Joseph

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - The State of Israel

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

dog-on · 07-02-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Tert is merely saying that Marcion rejected Acts...

(I actually think Tert's showing a gross anachronism here...)...

But, it is right there in the passage. Marcion rejects Acts and it agrees with Paul, so Marcion rejects them.

Can you show me where Marcion claims Paul is his main man?

This is Paul in Romans 1.1-3

Quote:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God [which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures] Concerning His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David, according to the FLESH.

Paul claimed Jesus was made of the seed of David, according to the FLESH.

Paul could not be Marcion's main man.

I don't think that Marcion's version of Romans ready "quite" the same way.

dog-on · 07-02-2008, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2-J

It's possible Marcion believed that Paul's original teaching had been perverted, hence he edited the epistles to remove the offending content. In this case, Marcion still believed Paul to be his 'main man'.

Another scenario is that a lot of stuff was later interpolated into Paul (after Marcion, or contemporaneous to him) in which case it's possible Marcion's version of the epistles are more faithful to Paul... in which case also Paul is definitely Marcion's 'main man'!

...and I'll take Door number 2, Monty!

JoeWallack · 07-02-2008, 05:40 AM

JW:
Let's move this forward. Justin looks like the earliest External evidence regarding Marcion:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

Quote:

CHAPTER XXVI -- MAGICIANS NOT TRUSTED BY CHRISTIANS.

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Caesar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:--

"Simoni Deo Sancto,"

"To Simon the holy God." And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him. And a man, Meander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetaea, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds--the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh--we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed, which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.

JW:

First Apology of Justin Martyr

Quote:

The First Apology was an early work of Christian apologetics addressed by Justin Martyr to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius. It is dated to the period 150-155.

Note that through Justin Christian arguments are philosophical in nature as opposed to Textual oriented. In Justin's limited description of Marcion there is only a primary difference in belief between Justin and Marcion, the nature of the God of the Jewish Bible. Note that this is consistent with the Christian belief through Justin that "Scripture" is only the Jewish Bible.

Although there's not much to work with here this suggests that the nature of dispute between Justin and Marcion's versions of Christianity was not primarily based on variations in Christian writings, but rather interpretations of the Jewish Bible.

Joseph

SATAN, n.
One of the Creator's lamentable mistakes, repented in sashcloth and axes. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. "There is one favor that I should like to ask," said he.

"Name it."

"Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws."

"What, wretch! you his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul -- you ask for the right to make his laws?"

"Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them himself."

It was so ordered.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

dog-on · 07-02-2008, 05:55 AM

Simon the Holy God and his prostitute!

Where have I heard such a story before...

aa5874 · 07-02-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, it is right there in the passage. Marcion rejects Acts and it agrees with Paul, so Marcion rejects them.

Can you show me where Marcion claims Paul is his main man?

This is Paul in Romans 1.1-3

I don't think that Marcion's version of Romans ready "quite" the same way.

So all along you are just using your imagination to make up the contents of the Pauline Epistles.

How many versions of Romans or the Pauline Epistles have been ever been found?

dog-on · 07-02-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I don't think that Marcion's version of Romans ready "quite" the same way.

So all along you are just using your imagination to make up the contents of the Pauline Epistles.

How many versions of Romans or the Pauline Epistles have been ever been found?

Said the fox, when interviewing for the night watchman position at the local hen-house...

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

07-01-2008, 01:02 PM	#61
Casper Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 430	It may involve too much speculation based on the limited sources we have for Marcion's text, but are those things which extant gLuke is suspected of deriving from Josephus present or absent from Marcion's gospel? This could probably work as a pro or a con but I am curious because I have never seen this particular question; it may not be something we can deduce, either.

07-02-2008, 05:55 AM	#68
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Simon the Holy God and his prostitute! Where have I heard such a story before...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.