Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 01-23-2008, 05:43 PM

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the response.

The question we must first answer is what the term "gospel" means in the text you cited. Is it being used to describe a book [gospel] or is it being used to describe an announcement [gospel]. The answer becomes obvious when we look at the relevant passage and the context:

Quote:

Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them,232 they may contend for a diversity of gods also. [5] Since, therefore, it is this very opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that god could not have been known who became known233 from the argument of the separation itself. He therefore could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the gospel and the law. Now this peace, which had remained unhurt and unshaken from Christ's appearance to the time of Marcion's audacious doctrine, was no doubt maintained by that way of thinking, which firmly held that the God of both law and gospel was none other than the Creator, against whom after so long a time a separation has been introduced by the heretic of Pontus.

This most patent conclusion requires to be defended by us against the clamours of the opposite side. For they allege that Marcion did not so much innovate on the rule (of faith) by his separation of the law and the gospel, as restore it after it had been previously adulterated. O Christ,234 most enduring Lord, who didst bear so many years with this interference with Thy revelation, until Marcion forsooth came to Thy rescue! [2] Now they adduce the case of Peter himself, and the others, who were pillars of the apostolate, as having been blamed by Paul for not walking uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel--that very Paul indeed, who, being yet in the mere rudiments of grace, and trembling, in short, lest he should have run or were still running in vain, then for the first time held intercourse with those who were apostles before himself. [3] Therefore because, in the eagerness of his zeal against Judaism as a neophyte, he thought that there was something to be blamed in their conduct--even the promiscuousness of their conversation235 --but afterwards was himself to become in his practice all things to all men, that he might gain all,--to the Jews, as a Jew, and to them that were under the law, as under the law,--you would have his censure, which was merely directed against conduct destined to become acceptable even to their accuser, suspected of prevarication against God on a point of public doctrine.236 [4] Touching their public doctrine, however, they had, as we have already said, joined hands in perfect concord, and had agreed also in the division of their labour in their fellowship of the gospel, as they had indeed in all other respects:237 "Whether it were I or they, so we preach

When, again, he mentioned "certain false brethren as having crept in unawares," who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel,239 he himself shows that that adulteration of the gospel was not meant to transfer them to the faith of another god and christ, but rather to perpetuate the teaching of the law; because he blames them for maintaining circumcision, and observing times, and days, and months, and years, according to those Jewish ceremonies which they ought to have known were now abrogated, according to the new dispensation purposed by the Creator Himself, who of old foretold this very thing by His prophets. Thus He says by Isaiah: Old things have passed away. "Behold, I will do a new thing."240 And in another passage: "I will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt."

Note these uses of the term "gospel" in the context of this passage:

1.Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy.

Marcion's heresy is the separation of the law and the gospel. Was the Hebrew Scriptures published alongside the gospel of St. Luke and Marcion publish them separately. Was that his "heresy"? Certainly his "heresy" is that the law of Moses given by the creator was different from the announcement (gospel) made by Jesus. The laws say one thing, the gospel (announcement) of Jesus
are a quite different thing.

2. These are Marcion's Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also.

Here Marcion is talking about "two documents which contain them". What is contained in the two documents -- obviously the gospel and the law. The two documents are not the law and the gospel. The law and the gospel are pronouncements contained within documents.

3. "certain false brethren as having crept in unawares," who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel,

Is the problem that certain false brethen were offering them the gospel of Mark rather than John, or the gospel of Matthew rather than Luke? No. the problem is that they're trying to push a different gospel (announcement) altogether.

It is clear, I hope, that in this passage we are talking about Marcion's position on Jesus' (pro)/(a)nnouncement/s, not the book that Marcion wrote.

I realize this is hard to grasp without certain theoretical underpinnings that I hope to explain in a future long article or book. In lieu of that at the moment, all I can do is point in the right direction.

Once we realize that what most people think Marcion is doing (adulterating the book of the Gospel according to Luke) and Tertullian thinks Marcion is doing (adulterating the message of Luke and Paul) is not what Marcion thought he was doing, we have to investigate what Marcion thought he was doing and that really makes things interesting.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It appears that your interpretation is the obvious one. Marcion, in his Antitheses has referred to the gospel of St. Luke as a construction.

I deliberately avoided saying that Marcion modifying our gospel of Luke was the obvious interpretation. What I said was that Marcion modifying a gospel (not necessarily our canonical Luke) was the obvious interpretation. I had in mind the following statement of yours:

My claim is that this statement is false on its face. You may dispute the significance of the evidence, but that there is indeed evidence that Marcion published a gospel text is beyond dispute. Your own words are that this is the most obvious meaning of what Tertullian writes; thus, what Tertullian writes is prima facie evidence that Marcion published a gospel.

And, of course, we have Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.11.7:

But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God from those [passages] which he still retains.

I understand that you reject this five-book work as a rough draft by Tertullian or some such thing, but nobody else is bound to take such an eccentric position, and it is still evidence.

Quote:

The only problem is, if you look in the first three books of Against Marcion, where Tertullian discusses Antitheses in detail, no such passage is ever mentioned.

Why it should be a problem for Tertullian to save a statement about the Marcionite gospel for the section of his work where he actually deals with the Marcionite gospel is, I fear, beyond my logical capacity.

Tertullian does, BTW, in 1.19.4 attribute to Marcion a statement to the effect that the law and the gospel are two very different texts:

For such are the Antitheses, or contrary oppositions, of Marcion, which are designed to show the conflict and disagreement of the gospel and the law, so that from the diversity of principles between those two documents [instrumenti] they may argue further for a diversity of gods.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-23-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Marcion's heresy is the separation of the law and the gospel. Was the Hebrew Scriptures published alongside the gospel of St. Luke and Marcion publish them separately. Was that his "heresy".

According to Tertullian, yes. Tertullian is arguing (for I doubt he had actual tradition to this effect) that Marcion modified canonical Luke, which was written, according to Tertullian, before Marcion and which was, according to Tertullian, holy scripture. (Tertullian specifically calls the gospel of Luke scripture, just as he specifically calls the Old Testament scripture; see 4.34.11, for example.)

What Tertullian does have, besides argumentation, is the argument that Marcion makes in the Antitheses to the effect that the gospel (text) was interpolated.

Ben.

JoeWallack · 01-25-2008, 07:57 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

Now on to the next Evil & Wicked Early Church Writing, Polycarp, which ECW dates c. 125.

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

Quote:

Polycarp 2:3
but remembering the words which the Lord spake, as He taught; Judge
not that ye be not judged. Forgive, and it shall be forgiven to
you. Have mercy that ye may receive mercy. With what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again; and again Blessed are
the poor and they that are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for
theirs is the kingdom of God.

Quote:

Polycarp 3:2
For neither am I, nor is any other like unto me, able to follow the
wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul, who when he came among you
taught face to face with the men of that day the word which
concerneth truth carefully and surely; who also, when he was absent,
wrote a letter unto you, into the which if ye look diligently, ye
shall be able to be builded up unto the faith given to you,

Quote:

Polycarp 7:1
For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the
testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert
the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is
neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of
Satan.

Quote:

Polycarp 8:1
Let us therefore without ceasing hold fast by our hope and by the
earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ who took up our
sins in His own body upon the tree, who did no sin, neither was
guile found in His mouth, but for our sakes He endured all things,
that we might live in Him.

JW:
Observations from the above:

1) Aware of Sayings of Jesus but no Attribution of Preservation.

2) Aware of the Cross/Tree but no Evidence of The Passion Narrative.

3) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

5) Evidence of Paul

Thus Polycarp matches up with Papias regarding, c. 125, evidence of Q and no evidence of written Gospel Narrative.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

aa5874 · 01-25-2008, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Marcion never criticized the gospel of Luke because the Gospel of Luke never existed in his time (circa 140's).

I want to understand you clearly.

Are you saying that, as you see it, (circa 140's), there were no writings called Luke, that is, the writings were present but just of unknown authorship, or do you mean that there were no writings at all similar to the present day gospel of Luke?

PhilosopherJay · 01-25-2008, 10:12 AM

Hi aa5874,

Yes, Tertullian gives us an alternative a) Prior Luke, then adulterated Marcion or b) Original Marcion (as Proto-Luke), then adulterated into Luke. Both alternatives are wrong.

I'm proposing an original Gospel before Marcion, which is virtually identical to the gospel that Marcion uses. It then becomes adulterated into Luke. Marcion does not give a name to the original Gospel that he's using because it doesn't have a name. It is simply "The Gospel" It is possible that other versions may have been in existence, but Marcion does not seem to know of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Marcion never criticized the gospel of Luke because the Gospel of Luke never existed in his time (circa 140's).

I want to understand you clearly.

Are you saying that, as you see it, (circa 140's), there were no writings called Luke, that is, the writings were present but just of unknown authorship, or do you mean that there were no writings at all similar to the present day gospel of Luke?

Ben C Smith · 01-25-2008, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I'm proposing an original Gospel before Marcion, which is virtually identical to the gospel that Marcion uses. It then becomes adulterated into Luke.

You and I must be speaking past each other. This was one of my viable options, yet you seemed to be resisting it.

Ben.

JoeWallack · 01-27-2008, 10:53 AM

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:

External:

1) Extant fragments of Gospel text

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Earliest fragment is P52 mid-range date of c. 165

2) No other fragment with mid-range in 2nd century.

2) Church Father References

2nd century Direct evidence

Key evidence:

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

2nd century Indirect evidence

2) Justin Martyr c. 155

Familiar with Synoptics

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

3) The Epistula Apostolorum c. 145

One paragraph on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) 2 Clement c. 145

One sentence on the Passion Narrative

No evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

5) Marcion c. 135

Consists of a version of "Luke" Narrative but gives No Attribution

Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

No Infancy Narrative

6) ARISTIDES c. 125

One sentence referring to Jesus' Death and one sentence referring to Jesus' Resurrection. No direct quotes from any Canonical Gospel.

7) Papias c. 125

Aware of written Sayings of Jesus by Peter/"Mark" and "Matthew"

No Evidence of "The Passion"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

No Evidence of Paul

8) Polycarp c. 125

Aware of Sayings of Jesus

Aware of "The Cross"

No Evidence of "The Simontic
Problem"

No Evidence of Infancy Narrative

Evidence of Paul

Now on to the next Evil & Wicked Early Church Writing, Ignatius, which ECW dates c. 110.

CAUTION - It's generally agreed that extant "Ignatius" contains massive amounts of Forgery so out of CAUTION I will take the Four Epistles considered most Likely authentic:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

Quote:

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

...

CHAPTER VII.--BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS.

For some are in the habit of carrying about the name[of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.

...

CHAPTER IX.--YE HAVE GIVEN NO HEED TO FALSE TEACHERS.

Nevertheless, I have heard of some who have passed on from this to you, having false doctrine, whom ye did not suffer to sow among you, but stopped your ears, that ye might not receive those things which were sown by them, as being stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God. Ye, therefore, as well as all your fellow-travellers, are God-bearers, temple-bearers, Christ-bearers, bearers of holiness, adorned in all respects with the commandments of Jesus Christ, in whom also I exult that I have been thought worthy, by means of this Epistle, to converse and rejoice with you, because with respect to your Christian life ye love nothing but God only.

...

CHAPTER XII.--PRAISE OF THE EPHESIANS.

I know both who I am, and to whom I write. I am a condemned man, ye have been the objects of mercy; I am subject to danger, ye are established in safety. Ye are the persons through whom those pass that are cut off for the sake of God. Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.

...

CHAPTER XVI.--THE FATE OF FALSE TEACHERS.

Do not err, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.

...

CHAPTER XVIII.--THE GLORY OF THE CROSS.

Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. "Where is the wise man? where the disputer?" Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

...

CHAPTER XIX.--THREE CELEBRATED MYSTERIES.

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of Which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.

...

CHAPTER XX.--PROMISE OF ANOTHER LETTER.

If Jesus Christ shall graciously permit me through your prayers, and if it be His will, I shall, in a second little work which I will write to you, make further manifest to you [the nature of] the dispensation of which I have begun [to treat], with respect to the new man, Jesus Christ, in His faith and in His love, in His suffering and in His resurrection. Especially [will I do this if the Lord make known to me that ye come together man by man in common through grace, individually, in one faith, and in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, so that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.

JW:
It's difficult to find much above that sounds Canonical that does not come Directly or indirectly from Paul. Therefore, I think it Likely that Ignatius here was not familiar with the Canonical Gospels and:

1) Not Aware of specific Sayings of Jesus.

2) Aware of the Cross and suffering of Jesus.

3) No Evidence of "The Simontic Problem"

4) Aware of a few pieces of Infancy information.

5) Stong Evidence of Pauline influence and the related anti-historical witness attitude.

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

PhilosopherJay · 01-27-2008, 03:05 PM

Hi Joe,

Good listing of the evidence.

However, here is something that bothers me about Irenaeus. Perhaps you can help me understand it.

We have this text :

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html

Quote:

11.7 But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.

Irenaeus knows that Marcion has been proved to be a blasphemer from the passages in Luke that he has retained. Ireneaus does not say who proved him a blasphemer or how, he only tells us that it has been done.

Now compare that to this text from Tertullian's "Anti-Marcion" from 207:

Quote:

(4.1.1)Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own.
(4.2.1) Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.
...(4.6.1) It is certain, also, that with this view he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine; and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them.

(5.5.4) Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained

My question is this: How does Irenaeus who apparently is writing circa 180 in this text know that Tertullian in the year 207 will prove that Marcion is a blasphemer from the text of Luke that he has retained?

I mean there are probably a thousand ways to prove that Marcion was a blasphemer (impious and sacrilegious). How does he know the exact and unique way that Tertullian did it or will do it -- by the passages of Luke he retains?

Shall we suppose that he was a prophet and saw into the future and saw Tertullian's work, or may we suppose he returned from the dead and read Tertullian's work Against Marcion and reedited his own works in light of it.

We may suppose that he himself originally refuted Marcion in his own work, just happening to refute Irenaeus using his own statements, and then Tertullian copied his modus operandi without mentioning him. But then why did Bishop Irenaeus' work disappear and the heretic Tertullian's work survive? And why did Irenaeus not refer to his own work, if he had done the refutation.

Perhaps, when he says that Marcion has been proved to be a blasphemer by the passages in Luke that he retains, he is speaking casually. There really hasn't been a refutation, but anybody can easily see it. But is it really so easy to see this, that Irenaeus does not need to explain how it may be done?

To me, the statement by the writer only makes sense to someone aware of Tertullian's work "Against Marcion."

This problem of the relationship of this text to "Against Marcion" seems to me highly problematical. The fact that it comes in the heart of the only discussion of the four canonical gospels that we have allegedly from the Second century, makes it especially problematical.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing with the Evidence concerning 1st vs. 2nd century Dating of the Canonical Gospels:
snip...

1) Irenaeus c. 180

Familiar with all 4 Canonical Gospels

...

2nd century Indirect evidence

Ben C Smith · 01-28-2008, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Irenaeus knows that Marcion has been proved to be a blasphemer from the passages in Luke that he has retained. Ireneaus does not say who proved him a blasphemer or how, he only tells us that it has been done.

The Latin word here is ostenditur; Marcion is shown (present tense) to be a blasphemer by the passages that he retains. Irenaeus is not saying anything about whether any author before him has shown this; he is saying that it is evident from the text itself.

However, I do think Irenaeus possibly had an authorial precedent for this statement; Irenaeus knows the work (now lost to us) of Justin against Marcion. It is possible that Justin used retained passages against Marcion.

Ben.

JoeWallack · 01-28-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Joe,

Good listing of the evidence.

However, here is something that bothers me about Irenaeus. Perhaps you can help me understand it.

We have this text :

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html

Quote:

11.7 But Marcion, mutilating that according to Luke, is proved to be a blasphemer of the only existing God, from those [passages] which he still retains.

Irenaeus knows that Marcion has been proved to be a blasphemer from the passages in Luke that he has retained. Ireneaus does not say who proved him a blasphemer or how, he only tells us that it has been done.

Now compare that to this text from Tertullian's "Anti-Marcion" from 207:

Quote:

(4.1.1)Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own.
(4.2.1) Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.
...(4.6.1) It is certain, also, that with this view he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine; and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them.

(5.5.4) Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained

My question is this: How does Irenaeus who apparently is writing circa 180 in this text know that Tertullian in the year 207 will prove that Marcion is a blasphemer from the text of Luke that he has retained?

JW:
Hi P-Jay. Irenaeus of Lyons (yes "Lyons") wasn't very intelligent by our standards so it's difficult to try and conclude much from one sentence of his. His related argument that because Four different Competitive groups are only using one Gospel (even though a significantly different version) of the Four Gospels used by Irenaeus' brand this Confirms the authority of the Four has got to be one of the stupidest arguments ever used by a Church Father.

I think what Irenaeus is referring to is that even allowing Marcion his Gospel as is, it contains evidence that the God of Jesus is the same as the God of the Jews. This is a common argument technique, to allow your opponent a key assumption, so as to make your argument more persuasive to them. Irenaeus does not demonstrate the details here but I think this is what he is referring to.

What's most interesting to me here is the earliest Historical Gospel Attribution. Marcion is the earliest known figure who is Attributed with using a Canonical Gospel. And the Attribution is by the orthodox! The orthodox claim there was use of their Gospels before Marcion but they can not identify any specific user. I believe this is what prompted Irenaeus/Eusebius to look before Marcion in an effort to leapfrog witness and the best they could do was Papias.

Regarding the bigger issue of this Thread, 2nd century Verses 1st, 1st century proponents have to use an Indirect argument and assert that "Mark" existed 1st century but was just not Identified until 2nd century. The related problem is that Irenaeus/Eusebius el all were actively looking for Identification/Attribution of Canonical Gospels and presumably found Nothing worthwhile. This should be especially problematic for an orthodox Christian who has Faith that Irenaeus also had a reliable oral link to historical witness.

Comparing the Credibility of orthodox Verses Marcion, Ironically, orthodox credibility has been completely impeached because of the Massive Forgery and Bad scholarship documented by orthodoxy itself while we can't be sure about Marcion's credibility because the orthodox destroyed Marcion's Gospel and related explanations. So as Roger keeps telling us, why not just take Marcion at his Word (so to speak)?

Joseph

"Statistics remind me too much of the 6 foot tall man who drowned in a river who's average depth was 3 feet." - Woody Hayes

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.