Ben C Smith

Toto got it right. We have to rely on Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Adamantius in the main, with occasional hints from other fathers, for what Marcion included and excluded in his Gospel (a version of Luke) and his Apostle (a version of ten Pauline letters, the pastoral epistles not included).

I must also amend my statement about Galatians 1.19, at which I said Marcion omitted a phrase. He actually probably omitted, according to Harnack, all of Galatians 1.18-24. Pauline ties to the Jerusalem set would not make the anti-Jewish Marcion very happy.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

No, there are no extant copies of the Pauline epistles that date to before Marcion. For that matter, there are no extant copies of Marcion at all, only what we can determine on a careful reading of Tertullian, Epiphanius, and Adamantius.

For the approximate dates of the Pauline epistles we rely on arguments based on the internal and external evidence.

Ben.

Richbee

What Did Paul Know About Jesus?

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com

Cut and Paste removed for reasons of copyright and bandwidth: please use this link:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...sus-it-is.html

Vorkosigan

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

Vorkosigan

The OP cites Bede, and now Richbee cites Layman. A twofer of apologetic comedy. That first one is especially funny:

• 1. Jesus was divine and pre-existent
  • Col. 1:15-16 (John 1:1)

How could anyone have deduced from his life on earth that Jesus was divine and pre-existent?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

hatsoff, what's "evidence?" You seem to have confused "DATA" and "EVIDENCE."

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Do you really think the gospel Marcion had was Luke? What if the "pared-down" Luke was actually Mark? That's the way I read that, and read Mark as well. Since Luke is essentially an expansion and reworking of Mark, it makes a certain sense. I find it difficult to believe that Marcion had such an obviously proto-orthodox gospel.

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

Yes, I do:

1. The Marcionite gospel was in the Lucan order, not the Marcan. Just as one example, it has the raising of the son from Luke 7.11-17, then the inquiry of John the baptist from Luke 7.18-35, neither of which appears in Mark, then the anointing of Jesus from Luke 7.36-50, which Mark places much later.

2. The Marcionite gospel had many pericopes present in Luke but not in Mark. For instance, it had at least part of the sermon on the plain and prominent sections of the central section, both of which Mark lacks.

3. The Marcionite gospel had many Lucan distinctives not found in any other gospel, such as the resurrection passage from Luke 24.37-38.

It was definitely a recension of Luke, not of Mark. Whether it represented a mutilation of Luke or the original of Luke is, of course, another matter.

Ben.

tovarij

But the quotes are still there, and they show that there isn't a total silence in Paul about the human Jesus. It seems like it takes a lot of assuming to get rid of them (they were interpolations, they refer to Jesus in another realm).

The interpolations argument can be a good one, but what is the evidence for it?

Steven Avery

Interpolation arguments that have no textual base should start with a simple presumption of falsity, with a very steep evidentiary/theoretical climb from there ... As the Bede article brought the only hard data to the table, isn't it interesting that he is the one attacked (although hopefully Ben was being ironic and irenic) based on the fanciful conjuctural theories of what might have been in an unknown text of a minor figure.