Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 07-09-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

Quote:

Based on Tertullian, it can now be seen that Marcion mutilated passages found in gMatthew, and/or gMark and gLuke at the same time.

This is quite interesting...could it be possible that Tertullian knew a version of Luke that did not contain the Lukan nativity sequence?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here.

IF you are suggesting that Tertullian's Luke did not contain the Lukan nativity, ie that Tertullian did not know the Nativity story as we have it in Luke, then I think you are clearly wrong
http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-09.htm

Quote:

I recognise, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to "a virgin." But when he is blessing her, it is "among women," not among virgins, that he ranks her: "Blessed (be) thou among women."

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...raxeas_eng.htm

Quote:

it is enough that he who was
to be born of the virgin was by the angel messenger himself defined
as the Son of God: The Spirit of God shall come upon thee and
the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, wherefore that
which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.

Quote:

Yet they will be refuted also in another way in
that text. " Behold", they say, " it was announced by the angel,
Therefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the
Son of God : and so it was flesh that was born, and so the flesh
will be the Son of God."

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-31.htm

Quote:

These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God; "

This last reference actually comes from Against Marcion.

IF you are suggesting that as well as canonical Luke Tertullian knew of another version of Luke which was intermediate between canonical Luke and Marcion's Luke then this is possible but IMO unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

It's also true that P75 does not contain any nativity material...correct? Which could be due to decay, but is rather interesting.

P75 is a single quire manuscript which now lacks the beginning of Luke and the end of John. It probably originally had both.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey · 07-09-2008, 02:50 PM

I'm not sure if aa is mischievously trying to bait others with word games when he says Marcion "rejected Paul" but for the sake of the record, Marcion was early identified by all as a claimant to the authority of Paul:

Irenaeus (H 3.13.1):

Quote:

With regard to those (the Marcionites) who allege that Paul alone knew the truth, and that to him the mystery was manifested by revelation, let Paul himself convict them, when he says, that one and the same God wrought in Peter for the apostolate of the circumcision, and in himself for the Gentiles. Peter, therefore, was an apostle of that very God whose was also Paul; and Him whom Peter preached as God among those of the circumcision, and likewise the Son of God, did Paul [declare] also among the Gentiles. For our Lord never came to save Paul alone, nor is God so limited in means, that He should have but one apostle who knew the dispensation of His Son. And again, when Paul says, “How beautiful are the feet of those bringing glad tidings of good things, and preaching the Gospel of peace,” he shows clearly that it was not merely one, but there were many who used to preach the truth. And again, in the Epistle to the Corinthians, when he had recounted all those who had seen God after the resurrection, he says in continuation, “But whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed,” acknowledging as one and the same, the preaching of all those who saw God after the resurrection from the dead.

Tertullian (AM 1.15.1; 5.1.2, 6f): (okay, these quotes or some of them may already be discussed, but included here for completion)

Quote:

we come to discuss even your own apostle

Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you, that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him, who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings.

Thence I demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man;" thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I defend.

[Tertullian is saying that it was Marcion here who taunted the "orthodox" that they, the orthodox, denied the Apostle Paul.]

[Tertullian then complains that Marcion believed Paul was an apostle of the Alien God, not the biblical Creator God]:

even an apostle who is said not to belong to the Creator----nay, is displayed as in actual hostility to the Creator-

Origen (in Luc.hom.25) says that some Marcionites believed Paul and Marcion stood in heaven on right and left hand of Christ.

Neil

aa5874 · 07-09-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

I'm not sure if aa is mischievously trying to bait others with word games when he says Marcion "rejected Paul" but for the sake of the record, Marcion was early identified by all as a claimant to the authority of Paul.

Well, all you need to do is to show me why Marcion would not reject the Paul of Romans 1.

Romans 1.1-4

Quote:

Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which he had prophesied by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his son Jesus Christ, which was made of the SEED OF DAVID according TO THE FLESH. And declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.

And this is Tertullian in Against Marcion 5.2

Quote:

Now since the Acts of the Apostles thus AGREE with Paul, it becomes apparent why you REJECT them.

It is because they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator...

Tertullian again in Against Marcion 5.21

Quote:

.....His aim was, I suppose, to carry out his interpolating process even to the number of ( St. Paul's) epistles.

Marcion rejected and mutilated Paul's epistles, or in other words, Marcion had to mutilate Paul's epistles before he could accept them.

neilgodfrey · 07-09-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . or in other words, Marcion had to mutilate Paul's epistles before he could accept them.

which is what everyone else has been saying or understood all along

neilgodfrey · 07-09-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

The above has mixed information regarding whether Jesus knew Simon at this point in the narrative but generally favors "not". So for the supposed first meeting of Jesus and Simon in "ohLuke" the text implies they had already met
and for the supposed second meeting of Jesus and Simon in "ohLuke" the text implies they had not already met. The likely explanation is "ohLuke" simply switched the first two such stories in her source.

Again, probably the most objective determination of which was likely first, "ohLuke" or Marcion "Luke", is which is closer to the original source "Mark". On a Macrion level Marcion "Luke" is much closer. On a Micro level, for the story above, "ohLuke" is a long way from "Mark". We can not be sure what exactly Marcion had corresponding to "ohLuke's" excerpts above. It is speculative but, to have "ohLuke's" first meetings between Jesus and Simon be so out of whack suggests even more distance between "ohLuke" and "Mark", such as Marcion "Luke".

When we look at the apparent reason for the switch in order of Luke's narrative and other differences then we arguably have another piece in the mosaic that shows up canonical Luke as a reaction against Marcionism.

Firstly, Talbert suggests that canonical Luke has attempted to show that the disciples were commissioned in response to the growing need for help giving the escalating success of Jesus' ministry. The commissioning by the lake occurs just after Jesus is said to have attracted multitudes pressing around him. He uses the same trope in Acts.

Secondly, the Luke 5 lake scene is not a calling of the disciples as it is in Mark's gospel. Canonical Luke does not narrate the calling of the disciples but their commissioning. It is a real commissioning (From now on you will catch men!), unlike the contingent Markan hope (Follow me and I will make you fishers of men).

Both these points combined -- the need for the disciples on Jesus' part, and the commissioning of the disciples -- are not found in Mark, yet are consistent with canonical Luke's interest elsewhere in establishing the authority of the disciples as commissioned witnesses and coworkers of Jesus.

Canonical Luke would thus appear to be making changes that reflect his agenda to strengthen the foundational place of the disciples in the Church. If so, this may be seen as one more of many other arguably anti-Marcionite agendas in canonical Luke-Acts. Another gram on the side of the scale that represents canonical Luke as post-Marcion.

Incidentally, it also appears that Luke has melded the commissioning scene found at the end of John's gospel with the call of the disciples found in Mark's. John's account, of course, is also a clear commissioning. (But I know few are prepared to accept Luke edited John et al.)

Neil Godfrey

aa5874 · 07-09-2008, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . or in other words, Marcion had to mutilate Paul's epistles before he could accept them.

which is what everyone else has been saying or understood all along

So, Marcion rejected the Pauline Epistles all along.

neilgodfrey · 07-09-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

which is what everyone else has been saying or understood all along

So, Marcion rejected the Pauline Epistles all along.

as you wish. but unless you use words in the same sense as the broader community you are only going to end up talking to no-one but yourself and uselessly wasting time arguing with others.

aa5874 · 07-09-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, Marcion rejected the Pauline Epistles all along.

as you wish. but unless you use words in the same sense as the broader community you are only going to end up talking to no-one but yourself and uselessly wasting time arguing with others.

I do not argue. I present my position using my own words.

My position is clear. Marcion rejected Paul.

neilgodfrey · 07-10-2008, 04:54 AM

Another facet to this question could be the waning influence of Paul pre-Marcion. -- And again it is moving away from the textual one . . . .

If we are going to treat canonical Luke as part of the Luke-Acts duo, and date this pre-Marcion, then I think we might have a bit of an anomaly. Does not a pre-Marcionite date for Luke-Acts, lets say late first century, coincide at a time when interest in and the influence of Paul was on the wane? How to explain the production of a double volume that praised Paul to the highest in such a matrix?

Sure we can speculate reasons, but beyond speculation the question might maybe remain as another gram weight on the scales tipping against canonical Luke being pre-Marcionite.

The evidence that is used to point to a decline in influence of Paul among the "proto-orthodox" before Marcion seems to fall into 3 categories:

1. non-existent -- the absence of Pauline refs from those we might expect to find them

2. rejectionist -- such as James and the Johannine lit

3. modified and subsumed -- such as in the Pastorals

I've listed the evidence in more detail in the box below.

Where does Luke-Acts fit in here? Does the account of Paul in Acts seem low-key enough to really qualify to fit in with 3. Sure Acts modifies and subordinates Paul, but does its other side of the picture show a Paul too dominant and overpowering an influence from Jerusalem to Rome -- one that does not fit in comfortably with the other evidence we find in 3.?

So the question is, does Luke-Acts really fit the tenor of the rest of the pre-Marcionite (proto-orthodox) treatment of Paul? I don't know. I know this is not going to be the strongest argument either way whatever conclusions drawn -- but how many dynamic superhero arguments do we have anywhere re this?

Quote:

Evidence for the a-Pauline or anti-Pauline ambience before Marcion:

The ignoring types:

The silence of so-called epistle of Barnabas and Didache re Paul's activities

Justin’s Martyr negligible use of Paul's letters -- though Justin was a contemporary, assuming here he also reflects an earlier time too (Paul’s popularity with heretical groups was a main reason for this according to Bauer)

The rejectionist types

James 2.24, 2.18ff - replace the Pauline idea of faith with a belief in a doctrine; Christian liberty is replaced with "law" of freedom (2.12).

Ignatius' Eph.9.1 points to the success of heretics in Ephesus before the later(?) Johannine literature.

The eclipse of Paul's influence as per Rev 2.2, 9, 14-15, 20-24; 3.9; 21.14; 2 Ptr 3.16; Jas 2.17

The Johanine literature does not mention Paul, but there does appear to be a polemic against his teachings in Rev.2.14, 20, 24ff; 3.14 -- Was heretical Paulinism riddling Asia Minor?

The behave-and-fit-in types

Early disciples of Paul moderated severity of his theology in favour of edification - e.g. Luke and Pastorals; Or they subsumed it under a new theme, as in Ephesians.

In 1 Clement and Polycarp Paul's message is changed to a simple church piety

2 Ptr 3.16 suggests his teachings unintelligible by mid-2nd century, while reference to "twisting" his words = Irenaeus judgment of Marcion. The same passage subordinates Paul to Peter.

neilgodfrey · 07-10-2008, 09:01 PM

The Prologue to Luke's gospel (assuming it is original to canonical Luke) would seem to establish the authority of the gospel. It sets things "in order" so that the one "might know the certainty", draws on tradition and a good knowledge, etc.

If Marcion used this gospel this prologue would have been the first thing he'd have to delete. Maybe he did. But Marcionites, it seems from Irenaeus and Tertullian, did not see the gospel they used as an authoritative document at all. These Fathers both indicated that Marcion/Marcionites were continually editing Luke. "Mutilation" was an ongoing process.

Irenaeus, Haer. 3.2.1

Quote:

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce

Tertullian AM 4.5.7

Quote:

I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way----when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering.

Tertullian AM 4.4.5

Quote:

But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act

Tertullian AM 4.5.4

Quote:

And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke . . .

From these references we can understand that Marcion's real authority was Paul, and the gospel he used could only be rightly interpreted through Paul's teaching.

If so, this would run counter to the Prologue, surely.

So why would Marcion choose a gospel that began with a header that would seem directly to imply he was not allowed to do what he was about to do?

Okay, we can surmise that the command not to tamper provoked in him the desire to tamper, for he had not known tampering until the law said, 'thou shalt not tamper.'

But it is clear that the prologue was composed as a reaction to "many" variable preceding texts or accounts, and that what follows was to be a "final edition".

Would not this imply some other "free to tamper gospel" was likely available to Marcion -- and his followers over time? Does this make it more or less plausible that Marcion would choose a gospel with this prologue?

Does the prologue of Luke make a stronger suggestion that it (canonical Luke) is a response to ever changing and variable gospel accounts, of which Marcion would have been one?

But perhaps against this is the apparent fact that Marcion was the only one to radically edit a gospel in the way he did:

Irenaeus Haer 1.27.4

Quote:

But since this man is the only one who has dared openly to mutilate the Scriptures

But since the editing was not a once-only business, but an ongoing process by his disciples, too, in the light of their understanding of Paul's gospel, then how valid is it to attempt to compare canonical Luke with reconstructions of M's gospel from writings of a generation or two after Marcion? How can we be sure Tertullian and co are not using later Marcionite revisions of Marcion's gospel?

Neil Godfrey

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.