Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Scholarship about Marcionism that I have read has explained this. To Marcion, the gospel that Paul preached was spirit, was orally conveyed, and not written. It could not be written. The written narrative that is called the gospel was, for Marcion, an inferior and to-be-forever-revised text according to the lights of the orally/spiritually relayed gospel of Paul.

For Marcion, the written gospel was not the true gospel at all. It was an imperfect narrative that was expected to undergo -- and did -- ongoing revision even beyond his lifetime.

Neil

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Hoffmann et al, if I recall correctly, explain that Marcion was emphatic that the narrative we know as the gospel was not the gospel. The gospel was a spiritual thing, not a text document. It was a message one heard and took to one's heart. The narrative was a very imperfect story about the introduction of the gospel that would always require revision as the gospel (of Paul) was the more deeply discerned.

Do you happen to have the documentation for this? It makes sense, but I would of course need to see the evidence on which it is based.

This would affirm that Marcion himself did not attribute his gospel text to Paul.

Quote:

I understand your proposal in the first line to imply that the author of canonical Luke intended this narrative gospel to be known as "Luke's" gospel.

Actually, I bowed out of making that decision. I wrote that, either at the same time or in this same stream of tradition, the name Luke was attached.

Quote:

If so, why not give his name if he wanted himself to be known?

He may have done so in the title.

Quote:

I see the original anonymity of the gospels as quite plausibly an extension of the "Old Testament" genre of the "authority of anonymity" in relation to the written history of Israel (the Primary History). The attribution of names was a later development to meet changing circumstances when gospels did begin to appear under apostolic names.

I see the original anonymity of the gospels as an open question. It is too frequently forgotten that many ancient texts identify their authors only in the title. That is not the same thing as true anonymity.

I have much more to say about gospel anonymity (and pseudonymity), but it will have to wait.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I've seen it suggested that Mark, the reputed author of the gospel, was really Marcion himself.

If Marcion wrote Mark, what was the text to which Tertullian et alii were responding that looked a lot more like Luke?

Ben.

dog-on · 10-31-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

As for Paul, is it possible that until Ireneaus' time, Paul was viewed as heretical to the catholics? Is it possible that the catholics, in trying to convert the marcionites to their view might have found it convenient to do so by converting the marcionite's main man, Paul?

I doubt it. For one thing, we have 1 Clement (with attestation from Dionysius, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus), Ignatius (with attestation from Polycarp and Irenaeus), and Polycarp (with attestation from Irenaeus). I know it is fashionable in some circles to call all three of these texts late catholic forgeries, but I have not yet seen a convincing reconstruction.

We also have the pseudo-Paulines, especially the pastorals, written from what seems to be a proto-orthodox perspective. And 2 Peter may be relevant here.

Ben.

Dionysius and Hegesippus, if we take Eusebius at his word, are writing around the same time as Ireneaus. This "fact" does not preclude that Clement, even if it is not a forgery, could have been written post-Marcion.

Polycarp's attestation also could be "fixed" to mid 2nd century and therefore not preclude it as being post-Marcion.

Regardless, these are a 'circle-jerk' of attestations anyway...

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Regardless, these are a 'circle-jerk' of attestations anyway...

I am not sure what this means.

Ben.

dog-on · 10-31-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Regardless, these are a 'circle-jerk' of attestations anyway...

I am not sure what this means.

Ben.

Ummm... they are each valid because they each attest to each others validity... a circle jerk!

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I am not sure what this means.

Ben.

Ummm... they are each valid because they each attest to each others validity... a circle jerk!

Can you trace this circle for me?

Here is the attestation that I see. Irenaeus attests to Polycarp, who attests to Paul; Dionysius and Hegesippus attest to Clement, who attests to Paul. Irenaeus attests to Ignatius, who attests to Paul.

Where is the circle?

Ben.

dog-on · 10-31-2008, 10:06 AM

A wink and a grin, Ben?!

Ben C Smith · 10-31-2008, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

A wink and a grin, Ben?!

John Mark was obviously the author of the gospel of Mark; it is a lock.

It has been proven abundantly that Jesus existed; all who disagree are fools.

Will that do?

Ben.

neilgodfrey · 10-31-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Scholarship about Marcionism that I have read has explained this. To Marcion, the gospel that Paul preached was spirit, was orally conveyed, and not written. It could not be written. The written narrative that is called the gospel was, for Marcion, an inferior and to-be-forever-revised text according to the lights of the orally/spiritually relayed gospel of Paul.

For Marcion, the written gospel was not the true gospel at all. It was an imperfect narrative that was expected to undergo -- and did -- ongoing revision even beyond his lifetime.

Neil

Do you happen to have the documentation for this? It makes sense, but I would of course need to see the evidence on which it is based.

This would affirm that Marcion himself did not attribute his gospel text to Paul.

.

I do not have access to my books for a while but it was dicussed in hoffmann and maybe harnack at least. it's not controversial at all. i've never heard of marcion attributing the text narrative to paul or even calling it a "gospel".

neil

the_cave · 10-31-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

What if the source they share does not include a nativity, but rather is a nativity? A precursor to our extant infancy gospels, as it were.

Could be, though the Protevangelium of James derives from Matthew and Luke, I am fairly sure, not the other way around. It just seems odd they would both come up with the idea independently, and I don't think Matthew can rely on Luke, though of course there are theories that make that happen. Don't forget Luke also uses a genealogy like Matthew.

(IMO there is a possible intermediary between the Matthean nativity and the Lukan...can you guess what it is?)

Quote:

I disagree, BTW, that the great omission shows that Luke did not know Matthew. (It would also show that Luke does not know Mark!)

I take care of that by assuming Luke is using an earlier version of Mark--or else is using a Q-gospel that was based on an earlier version of Mark (but if he's doing that...then why not just call it Marcion?)

Quote:

I think we might need to take seriously what the prologue to Luke says. Many have undertaken to write up an account. Luke, then, may have many sources.

Yes, I agree, he does.

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

10-31-2008, 10:06 AM	#27
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	A wink and a grin, Ben?!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.