spin

It is my understanding that that lag time was what was necessary to develop the gospel traditions, a development that we can partially see in the seams in Mark and then the relationship between the synoptic gospels.

stephan huller

But again we are dealing with the Catholic notion of who 'Paul' was. The Marcionite apostle seems to have lived and flourished at the time of the destruction and after. In other words, the gospel could still have been written c. 70 CE and the Marcionite recension of the Apostolikon date to post-70 CE. BUT the Catholics reformulated the Apostolikon in light of Acts to reflect a mission to the Gentiles of Asia Minor and Greece c. 50 CE.

The Catholics - and Tertullian especially - assume a late date for 'Marcion' and argue that the Catholic tradition is earlier because its literature dates from the so-called 'apostolic' period (i.e. pre-70 CE). The Marcionites had a completely different understanding of Paul's missionary activity. That it was pricipally to the Jewish proselytes and included Alexandria.

spin

I'm merely working with text here under the assumption that much of what is attributed to Paul in the Corinthian, Roman and Galatian letters reflect the thought of a single person. I take the Paul of the attitudes and thoughts expressed in those letters to be "Paul". And I'm not able to see indications of a post-cataclysmic world in those attitudes and thoughts.

stephan huller

Here's a place to start looking for a reworked Marcionite passage dated to 70 CE or later but altered in the Catholic canon:

It is difficult to believe that this ISN'T something originally written in 70 CE or later.

spin

Given our knowledge it certainly is suggestive, but it could simply be, for example, god's abandonment of the Jews in favor of Jesus believers. Gal 1 & 2 don't hint at any trouble regarding Jerusalem. I would expect that in the ten times he mentioned Jerusalem he would touch upon a war.

stephan huller

10 x in the Catholic NT = ? In the Marcionite NT
The only certain thing is that it was less
Gal 2 was certainly a hostile reference in the Marcionite NT

aa5874

So, you DO admit that you are USING bogus information for the history of Marcion.


You must be talking to yourself. You seem to like what the "Catholics" tell their customers.

spin

With the exception of 2:7-8 the passage is definitely not normative orthodoxy. It's quite hostile to the pillars of Jerusalem contra the rosy depictions in Acts.

stephan huller

Isn't it nice when two informed observers have a discussion. Notice the civility the decorum. I find it difficult to stay composed when engaging a chicken, a snake or a fly in a debate. Refreshing

aa5874

There is NO credible historical source of antiquity that can show that Marcion had a Canon.

There is no credible historical source that can show that Marcion wrote letters to the Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians or anyone.

There is virtually ZERO certainty about any Marcionite Canon since you have NO PRISTINE evidence from antiquity.

And further, the writing that Tertullian ATTRIBUTED to MARCION the "Gospel of the Antithesis" had NO AUTHOR.

"Against Marcion" 4.2 But, who INVENTED authors for the very Gospels? Was it TERTULLIAN? Who invented the authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Who claimed ALL the Epistles, including Hebrews, was written by "PAUL"

Who also claimed that an ANONYMOUS writing called "Gospel according to the Antithesis" was written by Marcion?

The information from the Church is NOT pristine.

There is just no credible source that can show that any Jesus cult, heretical or not, did have or did need a Canon similar to the NT Canon in the 2nd century.