jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzar,

It is a fair question.

I can point you to Dr. Hermann Detering's "The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians - Explanations" http://www.radikalkritik.de/DetGalExpl.pdf which fortunately for the readers has been translated into English by Frans-Joris Fabri. It shows in detail how the Marcionite text of Galatians is recreated. That is not exactly what you asked for, but it is as close as I can come.

If the Dutch Radical Criticism is not your cup of tea, no problem. I am not trying to force anything. But you asked a question and this is my reply.

Best Regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

You MUST, MUST, MUST actually read what Apologetics wrote about Marcion whether or not you think they are authentic. That is the first step.

Justin Martyr is the only writer to claim or imply he was a contemporary of Marcion.

2nd century Apologetic Justin Martyr mentioned NOTHING about the writings of Marcion.

3rd century Apologetic Hippolytus claimed Marcion Plagerised Empedocles and NOT the Pauline letters.

4th century Apologetic Ephrem of Syria wrote "Against Marcion" and did NOT acknowledge that Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters.

Now, the Apologetics, Irenaeus and Tertullian, who claimed Marcion mutilated Pauline writings are the very Apologetics that don't even know who wrote the Pauline letters and when they were written and presented all the bogus information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters.

Irenaeus and Tertullian claimed Marcion mutilated the Pauline letters and Pastorals except Philemon but it has been deduced that the Pastorals and other Pauline letters are forgeries.

If Aplogetics, Irenaeus and Tertullian, can invent or present bogus authors for the very Canon then it is most likely that they could also make false claims about Marcion.

Justin Martyr did NOT make the FALSE claims of Irenaeus and Tertullian that Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, James wrote Gospels or Epistles.

Vorkosigan

Thanks. Back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

This is what I mean, Stephen. No one argues that the best way to understand the Scriptures is to ignore what the earliest sources say; that is a fantasy on your part. Doherty argues quite the opposite: the earliest sources should be read, and closely -- his works have extensive references to them. The trick is to stop seeing what the earliest sources say in light of the ideological commitments to historicist positions that color interpretation and rather, to see what they are actually saying about the Pauline texts and the Gospel narratives, as well as the development of the Jesus story itself.

Vorkosigan

Sheshbazzar

All very well aa, but does any of this provide a single paragraph attributable to Marcion his self?

Sheshbazzar

Thank you for the link Jake. Fascinating.

Best Regards,
Jessie Jake

aka Sheshbazzar

EarlDoherty

Richard Carrier does not. And even if that were so, who knows, maybe they're all wrong.

I've made a pretty good case that Hebrews has to be dated before the Jewish War. That makes it before the Jesus story was written, and certainly before any sign that it was known.

And you wouldn't recognize a fallacy if you fell over it in broad daylight. You expect to find a denial of the Jesus story in a document written BEFORE the Jesus story was written? You expect to find in the Gospels some reference to Hebrews which had nothing to do with the Gospel story and where it came from?

Just because diverse documents are brought together at a later date and have the same interpretation imposed on them does not make them originally about the same thing, especially when there is no Gospel story to be found anywhere in Hebrews (or the rest of the epistles, for that matter).

You need to take a course in logic, aa.

No it isn't "aa". Hebrews says that the Son of God took on the semblance of human flesh, not that flesh itself. And the "days of his flesh" tells us what he did in scripture, not on earth. Besides, 8:4 tells us in no uncertain terms (once you actually examine it dispassionately rather than shouting at it) that Jesus had never been on earth.

This makes no sense, and sounds a bit flaky. I think you need a rest, aa.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

All claims that Marcion used and manipulated the Pauline writings based on writings attributed to Tertullian and Irenaeus are hopelessly in error.

"Against Heresies" and "Against Marcion" are two massive forgeries.

At the time of Marcion there were NO Pauline letters.

A simple check on the Provenance of "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian will show that it was UNKNOWN for hundreds of years AFTER it was supposedly composed.

At around or after c 326 CE when "Church History" was composed there is ZERO mention of "Against Marcion" which is the most voluminous work of the supposed Tertullian.

In "Church History" about 9 authors are mentioned who wrote "Against Marcion" but Tertullian was NOT listed.

The author of "Church History" attributed only The Apology to Tertullian.

Later in the 4th century or after when Jerome wrote "De Viris Illustribus" and mentioned the writings of Tertullian "Against Marcion" was NOT mentioned at all.

It makes no sense for Marcion to mutilate the Pauline letters if they were already composed 100 years earlier, COPIED, circulated and taught in the Churches ALL OVER the Roman Empire.

There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to Marcion to corrupt 100 year old letters that the Recipients had already read and were ALL DEAD.

If Galatians was composed around c 55 CE surely by c 150 CE all the people of Galatia who read the original letter were already dead.

"Against Marcion" is nothing more than a very late fraudulent composition to give the impression that Marcion was aware of Pauline letters.

From "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, it can also be deduced that the Pauline letters were UNKNOWN in the 2nd century when Origen declared that Celsus, a non-apologetic writer, wrote NOTHING of Paul.

The abundance of evidence from Apologetic sources do show that the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN in the 2nd century, the same time as Justin, Aristides, and Marcion.

gurugeorge

It's not logic that's aa's problem, he's a very logical and intelligent guy. It's more that his logic revolves around a fixed position that he's unwilling to question: that the Canon is all of a piece and the parts that compose it were all composed from more or less the same point of view about an entity conceived of in the same fashion in each part. With that pivot, what he says is extremely well-thought-out and logical. But he's just never willing to relax that assumption.

IOW, while he's freed himself from a good deal of Catholic propaganda, he's still falling for a crucial element of it: the pretense that the Canon is all of a piece, rather than just being gerrymandered together from disparate sources with originally different meanings for "Christ", with the singular Catholic meaning of "Christ" being foisted onto those disparate sources.

TedM

The thread I began to answer your challenge with regard to that verse was not really ended as I expected. I responded to your challenge in some length, you responded, and I responded to your response. I basically said that 8:1 - 8:6 reasonably could be seen as discussing Jesus in heaven after the sacrifice, offering up prayers as mediator to God, and that therefore 8:4 reasonably could be seen as referring to a hypothetical regarding Jesus coming to earth after after the sacrifice was made.

Your response was brief and implied you would respond further, but that has yet to happen. I'm not in a hurry, but I've seen you continue to make comments like the one above, and therefore I continue to be curious as to how you would respond to my observations.

aa5874

Please, read what I wrote. I said MOST SCHOLARS reject your reading of the Epistles.

You could NOT have made any good case because you have NO real evidence at all. I mean NONE--ZERO-NIL--NOTHING.

We all know that NO manuscript of Hebrews have been found and dated to the 1st century much more before c 66 CE.

You accuse people of reading things into the Epistles that are NOT there but it is obvious that it is you who MUST do so in order to argue that Hebrews was composed in the 1st century.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is an Anonymous writing with no known date of authorship and was NOT even mentioned in "Against Heresies" up to c 180 CE or later.

There is no claim anywhere in the Epistle that it was composed in the 1st century before c 66 CE and NO author of the Canonised Gospels made use of a single verse in Hebrews.

However, Canonised authors used almost 100% of the short gMark and virtually word for word.

The short gMark story is the Foundation of Christianity--Not the Epistle Hebrews that had ZERO influence on the Canonised authors.

Again, you are reading things in to Hebrews that are NOT THERE. You keep on PRESUMING that Hebrews was composed before the Jesus story was known.

The Canonised authors copied hundreds of verses from the short gMark but they did NOT copy a single verse from the Epistle Hebrews.

What is the logical explanation??

The Epistle to the Hebrews was NOT yet composed.

You need to understand the Jesus story, the Son of God born of a Ghost on a Virgin that was crucified under Pilate after a trial with the Sanhedrin and was Delived up to be crucified in Jerusalem so that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.

Again, you are reading things into Hebrews that are NOT there. You do NOT understand the Epistle to the Hebrews. You do NOT understand that Hebrews is NOT Heresy.

You have taken the whole Hebrews out of context by presuming that it was composed before the Jesus story was known and have made the Epistle a most blatant Heresy completely contrary to those who assembled the Canon.

It is most absurd and illogical that the Epistle to the Hebrews would have been OPENLY known to be Heretical and completely contrary to the teachings of the Church and was still Canonised.

ALL the Gospels imply that Jesus the Son of God came in the Flesh even the Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God's Son made of a woman so it makes no logical sense that Hebres of the very same Canon would promote the very opposite.

You may need a course in logics.

I am not really surprised. You don't understant the Jesus story in the Canon.

You have NO idea that the Epistles are Anti-Marcionite Texts.

2 John 1:7 KJV No Epistle to the Hebrews has ever been found and dated to the 1st century and before c 66 CE--and none will ever be.