Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
09-26-2012, 01:23 AM | #1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Marcion and the Synoptic Problem
In an earlier chart I moved an ur-Luke to prior to gMatthew.
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....03#post7038703 I’ve now moved an ur-Luke a step further - as in the chart below. Yes, obviously, lots of questions can be raised. So, please feel free to present them.....;-) The chart is based upon storyline development.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09-26-2012, 03:12 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 829
|
Hi MaryHelena, I studied your chart, a bit, and I remain perplexed. It looks to me as though you have combined two ideas: one derived from actual documents, the other wholly imaginary, without any documentary support.
For example, "ur-Matthew", is presumably a version of Matthew that preceded authorship of the gospel of Matthew. In your chart, Casearea Philippi appears, as though it had been noted in some sort of ancient text, but, so far as I understand, it is not found in any extant version of Matthew, regardless of the age of the ancient fragment. I question the value of such conjecture. I don't understand enough to make sense of the combination of real data and hypothetical writing. What is your goal in creating such a chart? How does the addition of imaginary writing assist us in better understanding the origins of Christianity? I would have thought it more productive to characterize the distinctions among various Greek versions of the synpoptic gospels, with the aim of elucidating which version of actual documents, came first. If we cannot even know which of three or four competing versions of the same Greek gospel arrived first on the scene, how are we to assess potential contributions of that particular Gospel on subsequent texts by completely different authors? First, we need clarity on which edition of Mark is the genuine article (if any), then, one can discuss the notion that Mark did or did not influence Matthew and/or Luke. :huh: |
09-26-2012, 03:41 AM | #3 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
[T2] Matthew 16:13 [ Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ ] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” Matthew 16:12-14 (in Context) Matthew 16 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations Mark 8:27 [ Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ ] And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” Mark 8:26-28 (in Context) Mark 8 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations[/T2] Quote:
Quote:
tanya, that is not my approach - as I have noted in the OP. I'm following a storyline. One story is dated early in the reign of Herod the Great. Another story is dated outside the rule of Herod the Great. My approach is to trace the transition from one story, the earlier dated story, to the later dated story. The synoptic problem is a long running problem. My opinion is that all relevant stories have to be considered, put on the table as it were, if the synoptic problem is ever going to be addressed adequately. |
|||
09-26-2012, 03:44 AM | #4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
CORRECTED CHART RE THE SPELLING OF Caesarea Philippi...
In an earlier chart I moved an ur-Luke to prior to gMatthew. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....03#post7038703 I’ve now moved an ur-Luke a step further - as in the chart below. Yes, obviously, lots of questions can be raised. So, please feel free to present them.....;-) The chart is based upon storyline development.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09-26-2012, 08:52 AM | #5 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
“The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion”
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/09/...ew-suggestion/ Quote:
|
|
09-26-2012, 10:33 AM | #6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
09-27-2012, 04:56 PM | #7 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
This entire topic becomes so interesting since there isn't even any proof of a single text authored by Marcion or the alleged Marcionites from the second or any other century. It is discussed within the realm of conjecture alone. Even good old Justin could say nothing about this guy's writing or texts who lived at the same time and in the same city and was conceived of as a big bogeyman.
|
09-28-2012, 07:56 AM | #8 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
|
Quote:
Luke and Josephus (2000) Richard Carrier http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...djosephus.html |
|
09-28-2012, 08:09 AM | #9 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
|
You mean a variation on Memoirs of the Apostles, unnamed in an alleged 2nd century Justin?
And the whole epistle transformation argument (which is all it is, despite being turned into a "fact" of history) via Marcion is without evidentiary foundation. Good old Justin doesn't mention anything about it. Of course this also means that at the time (later) that the Apology was written there wasn't yet the set of epistles. Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|