aa5874

What Tyson believes have no value as evidence. There is NO actual gospel according to Luke. What we have are False attribution.

There is no evidence in any non-apologetic sources of any Written stories about a character called Jesus up to the writing of the Plinly letters or up to c115 CE.

The first source "Against Heresies" to mention a gospel according to Luke has been rejected as erroneous.

We simply cannot rely on the very same questionable sources and false attribution to date the gospels.

The first Apologetic source to mention Marcion did NOT even mention any writer called Luke.

gLuke appears to be an anti-Marcionite Texts composed AFTER c 150 CE.

Toto

It is common knowledge that orthodox Christians claimed that Marcion took a copy of Luke and removed the parts he did not like. Marcion claimed that the orthodox added in material. Modern critical scholarship, which you claim to follow even if you can't give your sources and have to rely on wikipedia, tends to side more with Marcion, or to think that there are elements of truth in both claims.

outhouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Marcion


Church Fathers wrote, and the majority of modern scholars[2][3] agree, that Marcion edited Luke to fit his own theology


Ehrman
Metzger

outhouse

with all that beind said Tom has a point and im not beyond that some redactions could have happend, just not to the extent of tysons claims

stephan huller

So are dozens of people who are dead wrong about what they are writing about. Yes all the surviving evidence argues for Lukan primacy. The problem of Marcion is epistemological in nature. It's not something that can simply decided by what the Catholic texts say. It's like taking all the references to Jesus from Christian sources and shredding them and saying 'all the Islamic sources say that Jesus was a prophet for Mohammed.' The argument by its very nature assumes that 'what is' = 'God's will.'

I am not disputing who is correctly characterizing Tyson's POV. I am saying so what. The problem of Marcion will only solved by the invention of time travel or the discovery of some lost text or series of texts. No one has the last word here. It's like deciding whether or not Hess should have been imprisoned at Spandau for all those years. It depends on who you ask.

Duvduv

How would they possibly ever know that unless they rely solely on the claims of church heresiologists, who are hardly objective sources?? There isn't a shred of paper in the name of Marcion regarding anything, and even "2nd century Justin" never mentioned a word about any texts used by Marcion when they both ostensibly lived in the same town at the same time. This whole Marcion thing is way out in outer space if you ask me.

outhouse

exegesis

Toto

You can check Ehrman's Lost Christianities (or via: amazon.co.uk) on Amazon and read the page cited there for yourself - p.108.

Ehrman's sole source for claiming that Marcion edited the parts out of gLuke that he didn't like was none other than Tertullian!

There is no page number in the cite for Metzger, and no other modern scholars are cited.

Are you actually familiar with Tyson's arguments? What specific disagreement do you have?

Is there any way to get you to stop these casual insults to people, including prominent scholars? Can you stop citing wikipedia so uncritically?

:huh:

outhouse

is there any chance you could stop criticising modern scholarships ? and reading deeper then it should be?



I have read 108 and it does not refference Tertullian that way.

heres the whole book

http://sheekh-3arb.org/library/books...stianities.pdf

aa5874

There is no such thing as common knowledge that orthodox Christians claimed Marcion manipulated gLuke.

First of all there was no such thing as an "orthodox" Christian in the 2nd -3rd century based on Justin and Origen.

1. Justin mentioned Marcion but never mentioned gLuke.

2. Hippolytus mentioned Marcion but claimed Marcion plagerised Empedocles.

3. Origen claimed it was the followers of Marcion that corrupted the Gospels.

4. Ephraim the Syrian wrote Against Marcion and did NOT say that Marcion manipulated gLuke.

5. "Against Marcion" by Tertullian was UNKNOWN up to the 5th century.

6. No books called "Against Marcion" was attributed to Tertullian by Eusebius.

7. No books called "Against Marcion" was attributed to Tertullian by Jerome.


The evidence suggests that claims about Marcion in "Against Marcion" by Tertullian were Fabricated perhaps some time AFTER the 5th century.