dog-on

Indeed, apart from the invectives against Marcion, we have very little hard evidence for Marcion himself.

avi

Fair enough, then, why conclude that Luke/Acts comes after Marcion, and were written in reaction to Marcion's heretical teachings? Is the same true for John? If not, then, does that suggest, that John preceded Marcion? If Paul's dualism is shaped by Marcion, then, does it follow that he also, like Luke, took up the quill after reading Marcion?

avi

dog-on

I believe that the writings of Paul were redacted, not by Marcion, but by the catholics. I also think that one of the main reasons that Acts was created was to catholocize (subjugate) Paul while supporting the concept of apostolic authority through the catholic church.

As it is not unreasonable to consider that the author of Acts also edited a more original version of Mark, (which I believe Marcion's gospel to have been more closely related), to create Luke, I think that this package was done at around the same time as we get Ireneaus, post Marcion.

We do have evidence of redaction within the canon, so I think that it is justified to hold it all suspect, until proven otherwise.


I think John is just another redaction of Mark, perhaps from a gnostic, or proto-gnostic community. Of course, I also think that John was pretty heavily worked on by later editors.

bacht

...which would be around the same time as the first canons, the later decades of the 2nd C

I haven't read Trobisch but you seem to be following his analysis more or less, which Robert Price endorses (and Stephan Huller).

dog-on

Yes. It all seems to fit together much better and makes much more sense than the Sunday school version, imo.

Toto

Because that hypothesis neatly explains a lot of features that otherwise make no sense. Read Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Joseph Tyson.

dog-on

Great book and thanks, Toto.

aa5874

There is NO evidence in Acts of the Apostles to show that it was written to subjucate "Paul".

It was "Peter" who was subjugated.

From Acts 15.11 Peter was eliminated from Acts and both the supposed author and "PAUL" traveled and preached ALL over the Roman Empire.

Acts was written as a CORROBORATIVE source for the "Paul" through the very author of Acts.

But, the fraud was inadvertently EXPOSED by Eusebius. See "Church History" 3.4.8

"Paul" was AWARE of gLuke and gLuke was written sometime after the Fall of the Temple or after 70 CE.