Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 02-28-2013, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

<snip>

OK, one may ask, what material is in the unique Lukan material? I give here quick examples. The nativity in Luke is a late addition. It does not appear in Mark, or "Q" (if that doubtful document even existed) and it is contradictory with Matthew. And it certainly contradicts Marcion's docetic Jesus wafting down from heaven. Also, the resurrection appearance where Jesus states "Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have." This is clearly a late addition to the gospel and just clearly as clearly an antidocetic text. Other "L" material includes Prodigal son, unjust steward, good Samaritan, rich man and Lazarus, Samaritan leper, bent woman, Mary & Martha, Zacchaeus, widow of nain, woes of Sermon on the Plain, historization of the Little Apocalypse.

Jake Jones IV

Jake

Is there an online version/compilation of Marcion's 'Luke' that you recommend?

Is this one - link below - satisfactory?

http://gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm

jakejonesiv · 02-28-2013, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Jake,
My first name is Bernard.

[Lk 21:32 "... this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." RSV
gMarcion: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel5.html

Case 1: Because gMarcion was written well into the 2nd century, Marcion had obvious reason to make a change: since "all things" included the advent of the Kingdom (21:25-28), it was evident Jesus' generation had died down before the big event. But with gLuke written in the 1st century, some of the generation of Jesus would still be alive. So the author would have no problem for including in the gospel a verse from gMark (13:30), as also did "Matthew" (24:34).
...
To conclude, it is far more likely Marcion modified a verse from gLuke rather than "Luke" changing it from gMarcion.

Cordially, Bernard

Hi Bernard,

If Marcion had changed "this generation will not pass away" to "The heaven and the earth shall not pass away" why didn't Tertullian AM 4:39 chide him on it?

Jake

Bernard Muller · 02-28-2013, 09:40 PM

Quote:

[Lk 21:32 "... this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." RSV
gMarcion: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel5.html

Case 1: Because gMarcion was written well into the 2nd century, Marcion had obvious reason to make a change: since "all things" included the advent of the Kingdom (21:25-28), it was evident Jesus' generation had died down before the big event. But with gLuke written in the 1st century, some of the generation of Jesus would still be alive. So the author would have no problem for including in the gospel a verse from gMark (13:30), as also did "Matthew" (24:34).
...
To conclude, it is far more likely Marcion modified a verse from gLuke rather than "Luke" changing it from gMarcion.
Jake

Cordially, Bernard

Hi Bernard,

Tertullian seems very very happy with the Marcionite text of Luke 21:32 being authentic. If Marcion had changed "this generation will not pass away" to "The heaven and the earth shall not pass away" why didn't Tertullian chide him on it?
Jake

Tertullian, writing generations after the one of Jesus, was very unlikely to chide him on it. Today apologists used silly arguments for damage control on this Lukan verse.

Cordially, Bernard

outhouse · 02-28-2013, 09:58 PM

How funny I found this link.

http://www.textexcavation.com/datingpaulscratch.html

Andrew Criddle has added that the way in which Paul in his epistles to Corinth refers to Achaea and Macedonia as distinct regions, with Corinth a prominent place in Achaea (refer to 2 Corinthians 9.1-2, for example), is more likely if it is written after Augustus appears to have split southern Greece from Macedonian administrative control to establish (or re-establish) the province of Achaea with the refounded Corinth as its capital 27 years before Christ.

outhouse · 02-28-2013, 10:03 PM

Heres another article on dating

http://hebrew.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Paul/dating.htm

Sheshbazzar · 02-28-2013, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by James the Least

If only 10% was left after substantial redactions, then one is left to wonder why they would have bothered retaining even that much. Much less the name/figure of "Paul."

It's easier to believe that there never was a "Paul," only Marcionites and Catholics pretending to be this supposedly dead expert on the Torah.

It wasn't a matter of retaining. That original strongly argued Jewish 10% was absolutely essential and fundamental to the arguments of the orthodox position, it covering the doctrine of justification by faith, and the principal upon which believing gentiles were exempt from the requirement of circumcision.

Really, it was nothing more than a thoroughly Jewish argument that gentiles living subject to the Noachide law, were as gentiles, exempt from the 'touch not, taste not, wear not' requirements of the Jews Levitical laws. And were in their uncircumcised condition accepted by The Elohim of Israel, in accordance with his promises, and with the sayings of the Prophets.

And without the actual writings of 'Paul' we will never know how much 'Jewish' material was edited out of 'Paul' to make him palatable to the views of the orthodox church.

Despite either of our personal opinions, pauls Judaism is seriously debated.

Understandably, when most of the 'Pauline texts' are church fabrications that turn him into a jebus loving christian.

Quote:

I see nothing at all that doesnt place him firmly as a Hellenistic Righteous Proselyte who had fully converted.

That is because of what you are looking at, and are uncritically accepting at face value as being a historical account.

Skeptically the 'Paul' tall tale absolutely sucks. Critical examination reveals it to be church fabricated mythical propaganda, not a historical account.

Quote:

His uncontested Epistles are fairly well dated, of which I havnt seen a decent arguement against.

And what would those dates be John? When do you think Paul lived? and when did Paul write?

Explain why Justin Martyr not only knows nothing of any Paul, his church and writings circa 150 CE are totally unaware of the Pauline form of gospel which had allegedly established and been taught in Christian churches all over the Empire for over 100 years?

Bernard Muller · 02-28-2013, 10:08 PM

Quote:

However, we may take these assertions with a grain of salt. We have the frank admission that Marcion answered the proto-orthodox with the same charges. "I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is." Tertullian, AM 4.4. This tit-for-tat cancels out the other.

Of course, Marcion would say his gospel is the true unadulterated earliest one. Of course, Tertullian would say no. Propaganda <=> Counter propaganda. I do not see why it should be any cancellation on that.
Furthermore, I have evidence the author of gLuke & Acts knew about Josephus' Wars but not about his Antiquities. That's not a smoking gun but that certainly allows these two books to be written before 93 CE. Furthermore, if written in the second century, the author not using 'Antiquities' while he/she used 'Wars" is difficult to explain.

Quote:

A concise list of some passages where Tertullian confounded passages in Matthew with Luke is found on Roger Pearse’s site, where Dr. Holmes quotes from Dr. Lardner, _The History of Heretics_.

Here is an excerpt from note 4.
"Lardner refers two of these instances to passages in chap. vii. of this Book iv., where Tertullian mentions, as erasures from Luke, what really are found in Matthew v. 17 and xv. 24. The third instance referred to by Lardner probably occurs at the end of chap. ix. of this same Book iv., where Tertullian again mistakes Matt. v. 17 for a passage of Luke, and charges Marcion with expunging it; curiously enough, the mistake recurs in chap. xii of the same Book"
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-32.htm

I read Ladner's findings and I think, like Ladner, it was because Tertullian had a faulty memory. More, if Tertullian did not have a copy of gLuke for reference when making his critique, that would explain many things which puzzled me, such as not commenting on many passages of gMarcion or not even mentioning they existed or not.

I have to go to bed now. More replies tomorrow ...

Cordially, Bernard

Tenorikuma · 03-01-2013, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Jake,
I have an argument to show than 'Acts' was written with knowledge of Josephus' Wars but NOT his 'Antiquities, which would make very difficult for 'Acts' to be published very late.

Steve Mason (Josephus and the New Testament) has amply demonstrated that the author of Acts was familiar with Antiquities, though he didn't appear to have a copy in front of him when he wrote Acts.

Bingo the Clown-O · 03-01-2013, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Jake,
I have an argument to show than 'Acts' was written with knowledge of Josephus' Wars but NOT his 'Antiquities, which would make very difficult for 'Acts' to be published very late.

Steve Mason (Josephus and the New Testament) has amply demonstrated that the author of Acts was familiar with Antiquities, though he didn't appear to have a copy in front of him when he wrote Acts.

Yep. The Theudas / Judas of Galilee fiasco (Acts 5:36-8) shows that the author was familiar with Antiquities.

Richard Carrier explains it here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carrier

Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josephus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people."

Wikipedia currently does a decent job of explaining it too.

The Theudas Problem

Bernard Muller · 03-01-2013, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Jake,

Quote:
The second (delete keys) is the type of imaginitive apologetics it would not be productive for us to discuss.

Here it is, for everyone to see. I certainly do not see why I would be an imaginative apologetics on that:

....
And Paul, very likely, did not want to loose face in front of his scribe, probably one of his followers, by asking him to erase several verses (which was near impossible to do or creating a mess) or rewriting the letter (if on a scroll) or part of it (if on sheets). That would imply Paul made a mistake (& was not inspired from above!).
...

Cordially, Bernard

Dear Bernard,

Yes, eveyone can see and judge your arguments for themselves.
Now I have a question for you. What was the Marcionite Recension of this passage? Just what is your point here re Marcion?
Jake

I also wrote next:
"However, someone writing in the name of Paul in secret had the luxury to do some rewriting in order to remove any "faux pas"."
That's my point.

Tertullian commented on this passage in AM, V, VIII. But he never said here Marcion deleted or changed anything.

Cordially, Bernard

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

02-28-2013, 09:58 PM	#34
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	How funny I found this link. http://www.textexcavation.com/datingpaulscratch.html Andrew Criddle has added that the way in which Paul in his epistles to Corinth refers to Achaea and Macedonia as distinct regions, with Corinth a prominent place in Achaea (refer to 2 Corinthians 9.1-2, for example), is more likely if it is written after Augustus appears to have split southern Greece from Macedonian administrative control to establish (or re-establish) the province of Achaea with the refounded Corinth as its capital 27 years before Christ.

02-28-2013, 10:03 PM	#35
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Heres another article on dating http://hebrew.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Paul/dating.htm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.