Horatio Parker

Are the terms equivalent or were there two questions? If two, which was he answering?

aa5874

Jesus answered the question in the affirmative and was immediately accused of Blasphemy.

gMark's Jesus was the Christ--the Son of the Blessed.

Mark 14 Leviticus 24:16 KJV The Temple of the Jewish God was made Desolate because the Jews Killed the Son of the Benefactor.

Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

jakejonesiv

Dear aa,

Thanks for the information.

You have a gaping hole of over 170 years where you have no idea what happened, at the end of which the Pauline Epistles appeared ca. 350 CE.

:huh:

Is there anything you can add to that?

jakejonesiv

So Mary, I now have a question for you. Who had the first collection of Pauline epistles from your point of view? Do not be shy!

maryhelena

Nice way out of that equation......not a simple equation but a complex equation - is that the way you want to go. Fancy footwork.......??

As to my view on who had the first collection of the Pauline epistles - I'll think about it.....right now I'm online watch the fancy dress parade of old men shuffling about.........

maryhelena

The OP states: Dating Paul

The evidence for this dating is?

How about a straight answer to the equation presented as Paul=Marcion. Please don't sidestep this question with "equivalency". A straight answer would be appreciated.

I'm not shy about presenting ideas.... Jake, you need to answer my questions without throwing the ball in my court. This is your thread: Dating Paul. So, do it - date Paul - or admit that you can't date Paul without making some linkage with Marcion. If that is so - then you need to explain what that linkage between Paul and Marcion is in your theory. That's the first step is it not? Why seek to sidestep this first step by asking questions about who had the first collection of the Pauline epistles - when you have not dated Paul....:huh:

What is the point of asking for the theories of other people - when you are not prepared to state your own theory. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....:wave:

Bingo the Clown-O

Leviticus 24:16 LXX doesn’t say anything about Blasphemy.

aa5874

You did not say anything about Leviticus 24.16 KJV or you did NOT see Leviticus 24.16 KJV

Leviticus 24:16 KJV

aa5874

My primary objective is to show that:

1. There is NO claim in the NT itself that the Pauline letters were composed Before the death of Nero.

2. There is ZERO corroboration by Non-Pauline writers in the NT itself for the Presumption that the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero.

3. The supposed contemporaries of the Pauline writer, the author of Acts and Clement, did NOT claim the Pauline letters were composed before the death of Nero.

4. No Pauline letters have been recovered and dated to the time of Nero.

5. Up to c 160 CE, a Non Apologetic writer wrote Nothing about Paul but wrote about the Jesus story.

6. Up to c 180 CE, Apologetic writers, were NOT aware of and NOT influenced by the Pauline letters.

7. Supposed early Apologetic sources up to c 180 CE that mentioned Paul and the Pauline letters are NOT credible.

Effectively, there is a BIG BLACK HOLE of at least 150 years c 30 -180 CE for the Pauline writings and all the Pauline letters are products of fraud, forgeries or manipulation AFTER c 180 CE.

stephan huller

Well here's the breakthrough I think that will help explain the name Marcion. I've been working at this for over twenty years (since I was at York University and I asked my professor of Aramaic studies how to explain the name - he suggested the idea of a Greek diminutive). While it is interesting to follow the idea in Ephrem of some sort of a relationship between Marcion and the Semitic root mrq, this may well be one of Ephrem's typical attempts at faux etymologies. The problem is the 'ion' suffix - it can only be Greek. But the other idea I have pursuing - viz. the idea that Μαρκίων was the designation of a collection of writings (= the Marcionite NT) has some new legs given the number of appearances of the term Κλήμεντίων to describe the collection of writings ascribed to Clement. I noticed it appears in this critical edition of what is commonly called the Pseudo-Clementine writings. Apparently one manuscript refers to the body of writings as the Κλήμεντίων (MS Regio 940).

http://books.google.com/books?id=KLf...%CE%BD&f=false

This would strengthen and perhaps ultimately prove that the references to Μαρκίων 'cutting' and 'self-castrating,' to him 'erasing' passages from the NT, to 'his' gospel and the like go back to Μαρκίων relative to Mark being the equivalent of Κλήμεντίων to Clement, Ὅμηρείων to Homer etc.

Yes, I finally have something to write about Marcion. Here is another manuscript (or perhaps it is the same) showing clearly that Κλήμεντίων is the equivalent of the Latin 'ex clementinis':

http://books.google.com/books?id=cqU...ed=0CC8Q6AEwAA

More:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bNY...%CE%BD&f=false

I don't know the dating of this one but it refers to τῶν Κλήμεντίων συγγραφές:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8IQ...%CE%BD&f=false

There we go. This is the most viable explanation to the sudden appearance of 'Marcion' in whatever year it was under Antoninus Pius. If you look at the same section of text in Against Marcion Book One of Tertullian you will see that the statement is made twice - once about the writings associated with 'Marcion' (= the gospel in particular) and then about 'Marcion' himself. The reason why this manifests itself in this way - and why there is such confusion in general about the dating of 'Marcion' is because the original debate was not about a man named Marcion but a collection of writings called Μαρκίων which were probably opposed by Justin. Justin is the first to make reference to 'Marcion' and Justin also happens to deny (or does not make reference to) the Pauline writings. The short (= 'mutilated') gospel and letters of Paul = Μαρκίων. Justin only knew the gospel, hence there is no 'collection', there is no collective form 'of Mark.' He demonized them.