aa5874

This discussion is not about the majority, it is about sources of antiquity that can support your PET theory. You are using ambiguous statements in the Pauline Epistles where the writer appear confused as evidence.

I do not represent the Dutvh Radicals.

I will always respond to those who present ambiguity as facts.

But, you are just taking the passages out of context. The author of Mark is very specific and appears to have fabricated his Jesus story from Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or a similar source.

The author of gMark may have used any of the many passages where the Lord spoke through clouds as found in Hebrew Scripture


Exodus 24:16 - Exodus 34:5 -
Even the Church writer Eusebius claimed that 2 Peter did not belong to the Canon and was not genuine.

Church History 3.3.1


I did not write that "I know", please read my posts carefully so that I would not have to repeat myself like a broken record.

I asked you a question. Look at the passage.

In the NT, Paul was introduced to Jesus after he had ascended to heaven. Paul was in contact with the post-ascended revealed Jesus.

And the author of Mark appears not to be aware of the revealed Jesus since his Jesus preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in parables ONLY to the Jews and the revealed Jesus told the Pauline writer to preach "Christ crucified and resurrected" to save all mankind from sin, both Jews and Gentiles.

And further gMark's Jesus spoke in parables so that the Jews would not understand him, but the revealed Jesus through the Pauline writer was very clear to all of mankind. Without the resurrection, there would have been no salvation, it seems that gMark's Jesus did not even know that, he did not teach his disciples the significance of the resurrection.

There is simple no evidence to support your pet theory that the Pauline Epistles and 2 Peter was used by the author of gMark.

The biography of gMark's Jesus is not from the Pauline Epistles.

spin

There were several in the post you were responding to.

At the same time, comparing all the various manuscripts containing Galatians, while there is some scribal fluctuation as to whether Cephas or Peter in other locations, regarding 2:7-8 they are always Peter, ie it was apparently added after the scribal indecision had occurred, but when the figure had been strongly decided to be Cephas = Peter and Peter had gained apostolic ascendancy.


spin

Solo

The bigger issue with Gal 2:7 is that it "pre-empts" 2:9 in dividing the missions. After the insert, 2:9 only ratifies a preexisting status quo, which is hard to fathom given that Paul goes to Jerusalem transparently to seek recognition from the saints. (The 'poor' in Gal 2:10 are transparently the the 'poor saints' of Rom 15:26). Instead, he ends up dealing with the 'pillars' whom he detests. The 2:7-8 mollifies and attempts to neutralize the brutal οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι (so-called pilars) in 2:9 which in the presumed original text followed directly οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο (those who seemed to be something contributed nothing to me) in 2:6.

Jiri

spin

This was all said in my first post in the thread.

Bringing out the negative regard Paul has for the pillars is an important issue and it is well to stress it. It certainly dims the glow of 2:7-8.


spin

show_no_mercy

Here is a version of Marcion's "Galatians" that was posted by Jake Jones a few months ago. This is from the introduction:

I think Marcion did do some editing of the Pauline writings, but I also think that the "Catholics" did not simply present "the originals". That they did some interpolating to combat the immensly popular Marcionites to tame the apostle of the heretics. I don't think either are to be trusted, but it seems as though Marcion is the first witness to a body of Pauline writings.

Roger Pearse

The texts are certainly lost. Indeed it isn't clear whether late antique Marcionites used Marcion's knackered text; there are no references to it, unless anyone knows better.

Tertullian, in his monster Adversus Marcionem, goes through Marcion's text, chunk by chunk, commenting on what Marcion has omitted; and on how what he has NOT omitted itself demonstrates Marcionism to be wrong. The stuff is in AM4 (the gospel) and AM5 (the letters).

So we have quite a bit of concrete evidence on how the text did read. It's not as good as a direct transmission, but a lot better than one might suppose.

Marcion's concern was to remove the Jewish element from the NT.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

avi

Thank you Roger, very instructive, as usual!!!
regards,
avi

spin

Spoken like a true believer. Of course, we don't know when the gospel of Luke was compiled. The earliest text we can date seems to be the gospel of Marcion, which naturally enough dates to the life of a historical person, ie Marcion himself, a good fifty years or so before Tertullian wrote his hackwork. The earliest we can date Luke is to the time prior to the writing of Irenaeus. There was plenty of time for good christian redactors to do their job.

One should, for literary/redactional purposes, consider Marcion as the fourth synoptic, though we are only reconstructing it after it's been through the grind of Tertullian destructive efforts.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

How do you know, as you seem to claim you do, that Marcion's text suffered at Tertullian's hands?

Jeffrey

aa5874

But, in "Against Macion" Adversus Marcionem, the writer using the name Tertullian did say that Marcion's name was NOT on the document, it was really ANONYMOUS.

This is the writer using the name Tertullian in Adversus Marcionem stating that the "Antithesis" has no ascribed author.

Adversus Marcionem 4.2 Adversus Marcionem appears to be filled with mistakes. The writer using the name Tertullian appears to be loaded with erroneous information about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

It is therefore very likely that the writer using the name Tertullian may have many errors about Marcion. It must be noted that Marcion may have been dead long before Adversus Marcionem.

There is really nothing concrete in Adversus Marcionem, even the writer called Tertullian claimed that there were three versions of Adversus Marcionem in his name.