jakejonesiv

Roger,
What are you being so obstinate about this? I refered you to section 4.1 of the document on your own site, assuming you had the ability to read it. Did you?

However, since that is not sufficient, here is a cut and paste job.

Can you explain why you came down so hard on me for no reason that I can perceive?
Nor is this the first time i have posted on this ssubject. As far back as August 3, 2006 I had a posting The Negelcted Myth .

Roger, I do not believe that the behavior you mention is charateristic at all of my habits.

Jake Jones IV

andrewcriddle

IMS the late HJW Drijvers published about Eznik and his version of Marcion. He (Drijvers) regarded it as based on very early tradition.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for this info. I have not read Drijvers. Do you have the name of this work?

Also, apologies to all for a rather heated previous post.

Jake Jones IV

Roger Pearse

Interesting, if true. Does he mean that the tradition is not based on local Marcionite practice? But I've read the suggestion that Eznik doesn't refer to Marcion's fake gospel, which perhaps suggests that it isn't part of Marcionite usage in his part of the world any more.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

spin

On what grounds do you refer to the work as "fake"? Can one trust antagonistic analyses? If so, why?


spin

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure what you mean. Marcion started with the four gospels, Acts, and the collection of Paul's letters, and produced a mutilated pair of books which he edited for his own purpose and then asserted were apostolic. I rather doubt that anyone denies that; the text of his gospel itself reveals his edits by what he left in, as Tertullian pointed out.

If you deny this, of course, I would be interested to hear your reasoning. But I was unaware that anyone does, at least since 1945. But of course I could be mistaken.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

Roger, there is nothing wrong with being mistaken. I often am.

I don't expect that you will agree with the priority of Marcion regarding the Pauline epistles, but this is an opportunity to become aware of the issues.

Joseph B.Tyson focuses on Luke/Acts and argues that both were second century works written to refute Marcion. He has a pretty good review of John Knox and the Von Harnack flip-flops, but doesn't get very deep into the Tübingen school.

Marcion and Luke-acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Joseph B. Tyson. University of South Carolina Press (October 15, 2006)
ISBN: 1570036500 It is available through Amazon.com

You may not have read any of Dr. Hermann Detering, or you would not have phrased your post above as you did. Try the Falsified Paul for an introduction to this subject.
Check the RadikalKritic and Journal of Higher Criticism web sites. Be ready to have your most chersihed beliefs challenged.

Here are Articles You Can Read NOW.

spin

Sorry. You called Marcion's gospel a fake. I figured you meant something by the word "fake", so I tried to elicit primary source indications that would inspire you to called Marcion's gospel a fake.

Most people only seem to acknowledge Luke when referring to Marcion, but if you have evidence that he "started with the four gospels", I'm happy to read it.

That's what is asserted post hoc by detractors of a few generations later, but do you have any evidence to support the assertion that that's what he did?

Tertullian was writing perhaps more than half a century after the Marcion's time. He could certainly attest to the state of both Luke and Marcion's gospel in his time, but how one could necessarily say which had primacy, I don't know. Do you? If so, could you explain it to me?

I'm not to bothered about whether "anyone denies that". What I'd like to know is why you give credence to Tertullian when he is in no position to give primacy to one text over the other. He wrote a large work against Marcion so we cannot say that he would represent him or his work faithfully. He will also be inclined to favour the text he respects, Luke, over that of the heretic, though this in no way indicates any real relationship between the two texts.

The issue is not a popularity contest -- no-one here is interested in what most people don't deny, but in what the evidence leads one to understand. And I cannot deny what hasn't been meaningfully sustained with reasonable evidence.

Roger, you dealt in part with the first question I asked, though it was only part of my interest:

On what grounds do you refer to the work as "fake"? Can one trust antagonistic analyses? If so, why?

Your response, though it cited the first question, seemed not to have anything directly to do with answering it. As to the other two questions, perhaps you might like to deal with them when you get around to answering my first.


spin

gstafleu

Hey, Peter Kirby has an article in there, right above Robert Price. Way to go Peter!

Gerard Stafleu

Roger Pearse

Nothing in this seems to require any reply from me. If we want to have a discussion, we have to contribute. Pardon me but few people spend much time on people who make an assertion or denial and then expect us to run around proving things to them while they think up cavils!

All the best,

Roger Pearse