Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

...

Acts was written at the same time as the gospel of Luke (they were two parts of the same document). The gospel of Marcion was derived from the gospel of Luke, so we know that both Luke and Acts were written well before Marcion.

It is generally agreed that the final editor of Luke also wrote Acts, but there is no agreement that the the two works were written at the same time. Marcion's gospel was most likely based on an earlier version of Luke, but this is all speculative.

At the time Marcion was influential, the gospel of Luke had not yet been named even if it had been written, and there was no orthodox canon. For all we know, Marcion wrote the first gospel, and the others were based on his.

Here's something to read on Marcion's gospel, just to give you an idea of what you don't know: The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion

Great, thanks!

EDIT: I don't seem to have access to whatever is behind that link. Do you have access to it?

EDIT AGAIN: Never mind, avi found it for me.

show_no_mercy · 12-17-2009, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

...

Acts was written at the same time as the gospel of Luke (they were two parts of the same document). The gospel of Marcion was derived from the gospel of Luke, so we know that both Luke and Acts were written well before Marcion.

It is generally agreed that the final editor of Luke also wrote Acts, but there is no agreement that the the two works were written at the same time. Marcion's gospel was most likely based on an earlier version of Luke, but this is all speculative.

At the time Marcion was influential, the gospel of Luke had not yet been named even if it had been written, and there was no orthodox canon. For all we know, Marcion wrote the first gospel, and the others were based on his.

Here's something to read on Marcion's gospel, just to give you an idea of what you don't know: The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion

Marcion's gospel was probably associated with Luke because of the supposition that Paul used Luke's gospel.

Toto · 12-17-2009, 12:04 PM

Sorry, that link seems to be a dynamic one.

You should be able to download the essay from here, or from hypotyposeis.

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is generally agreed that the final editor of Luke also wrote Acts, but there is no agreement that the the two works were written at the same time. Marcion's gospel was most likely based on an earlier version of Luke, but this is all speculative.

At the time Marcion was influential, the gospel of Luke had not yet been named even if it had been written, and there was no orthodox canon. For all we know, Marcion wrote the first gospel, and the others were based on his.

Here's something to read on Marcion's gospel, just to give you an idea of what you don't know: The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion

Marcion's gospel was probably associated with Luke because of the supposition that Paul used Luke's gospel.

Marcion's gospel is associated with the gospel of Luke because both manuscripts are extent (you can find the gospel of Marcion online), and Marcion's gospel is almost identical to the gospel of Luke, with only a few minor variations that reflect Marcion's theological leanings.

Toto · 12-17-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Marcion's gospel was probably associated with Luke because of the supposition that Paul used Luke's gospel.

Marcion's gospel is associated with the gospel of Luke because both manuscripts are extent (you can find the gospel of Marcion online), and Marcion's gospel is almost identical to the gospel of Luke, with only a few minor variations that reflect Marcion's theological leanings.

Please stop making these confident assertions that are so wrong.

Marcion's gospel has been lost, but it has been reconstructed from quotes from Marcion's opponents. It is not "almost identical" to the gospel of Luke, although it might be a stripped down version of Luke - or Luke might be an expanded version of Marcion's gospel, or both might be based on a common source, or. . . we don't know for sure.

But no one thinks that Paul used Luke's gospel. The gospel was named by Irenaeus because he recognized that gLuke and Acts showed signs of common authorship; Acts has several passages that use "we" to refer to Paul and his companions, leading to the idea that the author was an actual companion of Paul; and Luke was a likely suspect, mentioned in Paul's letters as traveling in Paul.

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Marcion's gospel is associated with the gospel of Luke because both manuscripts are extent (you can find the gospel of Marcion online), and Marcion's gospel is almost identical to the gospel of Luke, with only a few minor variations that reflect Marcion's theological leanings.

Please stop making these confident assertions that are so wrong.

Marcion's gospel has been lost, but it has been reconstructed from quotes from Marcion's opponents. It is not "almost identical" to the gospel of Luke, although it might be a stripped down version of Luke - or Luke might be an expanded version of Marcion's gospel, or both might be based on a common source, or. . . we don't know for sure.

But no one thinks that Paul used Luke's gospel. The gospel was named by Irenaeus because he recognized that gLuke and Acts showed signs of common authorship; Acts has several passages that use "we" to refer to Paul and his companions, leading to the idea that the author was an actual companion of Paul; and Luke was a likely suspect, mentioned in Paul's letters as traveling in Paul.

I can keep making confident dumbass assertions as long you are here to correct me. :-P I didn't know that the existing gospel of Marcion was only a reconstruction from a bunch of quotes, but now I know, and I think a similar variation of the same argument still applies.

The gospels of Marcion and Luke are similar enough that we at least know that they are strongly related. The debate about which gospel came first seems to be complex, and in such things I normally rest on the conclusions of the secular scholarly consensus (Marcion was derived from Luke). This page seems to contain pretty good arguments and explanation (100 years old though it is):

The GOSPEL OF MARCION and The GOSPEL OF LUKE COMPARED

Toto · 12-17-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
The gospels of Marcion and Luke are similar enough that we at least know that they are strongly related. The debate about which gospel came first seems to be complex, and in such things I normally rest on the conclusions of the secular scholarly consensus (Marcion was derived from Luke). ..

Are you sure that this is a secular scholarly consensus? It was the assertion of the 2nd century orthodox apologists, and all of our surviving evidence comes from them.

What facts would the modern consensus be based on? How could you be sure that the canonical gospel of Luke does not contain additions to Marcion's gospel? Or for that matter, Marcion could have subtracted, the orthodox could have added more.

Not only do we not have the original of Marcion's gospel, we do not have the original of Luke's, or John's, although all scholars are sure that there was an earlier edition of John's gospel and have even named it.

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...
The gospels of Marcion and Luke are similar enough that we at least know that they are strongly related. The debate about which gospel came first seems to be complex, and in such things I normally rest on the conclusions of the secular scholarly consensus (Marcion was derived from Luke). ..

Are you sure that this is a secular scholarly consensus? It was the assertion of the 2nd century orthodox apologists, and all of our surviving evidence comes from them.

What facts would the modern consensus be based on? How could you be sure that the canonical gospel of Luke does not contain additions to Marcion's gospel? Or for that matter, Marcion could have subtracted, the orthodox could have added more.

Not only do we not have the original of Marcion's gospel, we do not have the original of Luke's, or John's, although all scholars are sure that there was an earlier edition of John's gospel and have even named it.

Whatever the evidence may be (you would know much more than me about it), the secular scholarly consensus seems to be that gMarcion was derived from gLuke, and I will use their conclusion as a premise until I fully investigate the matter (probably not gonna happen). My perception of the secular scholarly consensus I think was gained by reading Lost Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart Ehrman.

ApostateAbe · 12-17-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

:banghead:

Christopher Price is an evangelical Christian and an apologist who used to post here under the handle Layman, until he realized that he wasn't about to convert anyone.

Of course he's going to try to make a secular case for the historical Jesus - he's trying to convert you, and this is the first step, or at least he wants to keep you from converting any wavering Christians. Like Paul, he is going to be all things to all men. When he talks to infidels, he's going speak like a secularist.

Pick any issue that Van Voorst discusses, and look into it further.

I'll do that, if I can manage to finish it and have time to discuss it (Winter quarter will be a very busy time for me). I know that Christopher Price is an apologist, but that does not matter to me, and I don't see why it should. His information is useful. The book by Voorst, that Price favors, seems to assume the errancy of the New Testament (Voorst states that the historical Pilate was a lot meaner than the New Testament Pilate).

Toto · 12-17-2009, 03:34 PM

Ehrman only says that Marcion's gospel was based on a form of Luke. This is a pretty safe statement.

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

12-17-2009, 12:04 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Sorry, that link seems to be a dynamic one. You should be able to download the essay from here, or from hypotyposeis.

12-17-2009, 03:34 PM	#40
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Ehrman only says that Marcion's gospel was based on a form of Luke. This is a pretty safe statement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.