Toto

In this case, you are the one rejecting modern scholarship, unless you think that scholarship ended with Ehrman

Well then, quote the specific passage that shows that Ehrman has some source other than Tertullian for his claims.

Tom Verenna

Outhouse thanks for the note but, please, call me Tom. I haven't gone by my fake radio show name in four years.

I would generally recommend not using Wikipedia. For a long time, Thomas L. Thompson's Wikipedia page was wrong; whoever had edited it confused him with another Thomas Thompson who is of the Baha'i faith. Tyson is a friend and we've talked a lot about his positions on Luke-Acts, going back to 2008 at least. My advice on matters like this is really quite simple: If the scholar is alive, has an email address, then sending over a quick hello with some questions is the best way to get an honest and direct answer without having to bother with trying to exegete them. Exegeting ancient literature is hard enough!

Now more to the point. The question in my mind is what exactly is 'Ur-Lukas'? The fact is 'Ur-Lukas' is just a placeholder for an earlier manifestation of our canonical version, but that doesn't mean it has to be written by someone named Luke, nor that it has to be a completely new Gospel of which no one has heard. One would be hardpressed to suggest that 'Ur-Lukas' is not an earlier gospel that we know well (i.e., Mark could easily represent 'Ur-Lukas') that Marcion than elaborated upon slightly, with instances of docetism for example, that underwent addition changes by the canonical author(s) with additional theological content to overturn Marcion's theology (by trying to further place the figure of Jesus into a historical context, mimicking Josephus' style). But even if this were not the case it seems to me that it would be difficult to differentiate 'Ur-Lukas' from Mark and Matthew (at least in terms of archetypes and topoi) and what was included in a variant of Luke and what is now canonical. So all of this really feels a little pointless outside a very specialized source-critical/literary-critical approach--which is fine, but not sure if such an issue will be narrowed here.

As for Tertullian, he also suggested Marcion wrote Galatians (either in its current form or another version of Galatians I don't know), and his details about Marcion in general conflict with other heresiologists to the point where it is difficult to know what is polemics and what is true--if much at all.

As for Bart Ehrman, I generally like him and find he has a lot of interesting things to say--especially about textual criticism. But Ehrman appears to have missed a great deal of scholarship on more specialized topics. He still recommends Charles Talbert on Gospel genre, for example--a book published in 1977--and while it is a good book, it is quite dated. Mary Ann Tolbert's excellent analysis of the literary function of Mark was groundbreaking and that was published a few decades after Talbert's volume What Is a Gospel?. So while Ehrman may be a fantastic scholar from which to springboard away (as a partially conservative mainstream scholar) into more dedicated texts dealing with these specific issues, I wouldn't recommend sticking with him on issues outside his direct expertise (which I believe is textual criticism--though I'm aware he is a scholar of New Testament).

Lots of questions I'm afraid. More questions than answers. Hope some of this was a help.

outhouse

Thanks for the well thought out reply, im impressed over what I had thought I had known about you from past vids and forums. Im glad you posted. Ill keep a positive outlook.

Fair enough as far as Tyson is concerned, but I still believe Marcion changed his GLuke, not the other way around. Not by Ehrmans account, but based on what little I know about Marcion, and not just how these early works were redacted to final form, but how they were composed using multiple sources. these pieces often evolved making exegesis difficult, I do understand.

I dont follow any one scholar whole hearted because as you stated, they all have specialties. I normally follow Meyers, Reed, Crosson, Borg, Ehrman, Carrier, and then some of the classics as well Sanders, Gunkel ect ect ect

Even Carrier had limited knowledge on a subject of study after emailing and I highly respect him despite his middle of the road stance on certain topics.

aa5874

Ur-Lukas is NOT a fact. Ur-Lukas is hypothetical. No document has ever been recovered and identified as Ur-Lukas.


It is time the available evidence is Exposed so that it can be seen clearly that "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a fabrication to give the impression that Marcion was aware of gLuke and the Pauline writings when no such thing happened.

We can go through "Church History" and we will see that "Against Marcion" is NOT listed as one of the books written by Tertullian.

We can go through "De Viris Illustribus" by Jerome and we will see that "Against Marcion" is NOT listed as one of the Texts composed by Tertullian.

When we examine "Refutation Against All Heresies 7" by Hippolytus again, the claims in Against Marcion are Contradicted.

But, most alarming are the THREE Prose "Against Marcion" by Ephraim the Syrian, they virtually contain NOTHING at all like Tertullian's "Against Marcion"--Ephraim the Syrian hardly mentions gLuke or the Pauline letters.

Remarkably we have FIVE Aologetic Sources who Contradict "Against Marcion" and NONE of them claimed Tertullian wrote books called "Against Marcion".

"Against Marcion" by Tertullian is an extremely clear case of a forgery.

stephan huller

Most scholars ignore the complexity that emerges from the various reports about the Marcionite gospel. This is what is wrong about scholarship. It has a tendency to overstate how much we know and the certainty about what is known in order to demonstrate that the authority to say something authoritative in a paper. On the subject of the Marcionite gospel - even Irenaeus isn't as certain as scholars like to make him seem about the Marcionite gospel. Yes for certain he references - and likely originates - the corrupt Luke story. But there is also a possible reference to a Marcionite gospel of Mark story that is so prominent in the Philosophumena in AH 3.7.11.

The fundamental point of interest here is that Hippolytus - the supposed author of the Philosophumena - is supposed to be Irenaeus's devoted student. The text of the Philosophumena references Irenaeus as 'the blessed' at one point. How then does the Philosophumena not know that Marcion corrupted Luke and instead claim that he added things of a mystical nature to Mark?

There is also a consistent structure to Book Three of Irenaeus's work which references an anonymous 'other' or 'certain' sect related to but distinct from the Marcionites who corrupt Luke.

In chapter 11 Irenaeus reference the gospel of John and demonstrates the pattern that will dominate the section:

Harnack was puzzled by the reference to Marcion in a section dealing with the gospel of John, but for our purposes we should just notice the order - (a) Marcion (b) 'certain' others and (c) Valentinus. Then in section 7 which follows in the same chapter:

The same ordering once again, now which corresponds to an unusual ordering of the gospels - Matthew, Luke, Mark and John and then:

The secret to making sense of the Marcionite sect comes down to figuring out who this 'middle sect' between the Marcionites and Valentinians are. The Marcosians are my bet. But notice that these ideas seem always to be connected to the Marcionites such as a little later we see this 'they can't accept Paul' idea resurface with respect to the same anonymous sect.

Chapter 13 begins with a sweeping judgement against 'those who think Paul alone knew the truth' and at the end of the section he references the Marcionites and the Valentinians specifically:

But at the beginning of chapter 14 the sect addressed formerly as 'certain gnostics,' 'those' and 'others' reappears intimating that the sect did not accept Saul as the former name of Paul too:

I think the sect here are the followers of Mark (= Marcosians). But it is important to note that the sect is reported in the Philosophumena as disagreeing with Irenaeus's account of their sect. I wonder if this is why the name has been erased from book 3.

outhouse

Understood

I usually use it as a source for material I already know.

as example and I know you have probably run across the guy claiming Karsag is the original garden of eden. I think he spammed every board last year. I watched him try and manipulate wiki with his horrible work.

Ive even had other guy went and tried to change wiki to say paul wasnt a roman citizen, some of his stuff stuck for a few weeks.

Thanks for the heads up anyway

aa5874

It is most disturbing to me that Scholars whether MJ or HJ appear to be refusing to Expose the serious historical problems with the Pauline writer.

I am just an ordinary poster and have found Massive historical problems for the Pauline writings.

The very Apologetic sources that claim Paul preached Christ crucified since the time of Aretas and wrote letters to Churches and was Executed under Nero are the same sources that CONTRADICT themselves and seem NOT to know when Paul really lived.

1. Irenaeus claimed the Pauline writings are authentic yet still claimed Jesus was Crucified under Claudius at about 50 years of age.

This would mean Jesus was Crucified at at about 47-50 CE if he was about 30 years at around the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius. See "Against Heresies" 2.22.5

The Pauline writer could NOT have preached Christ Crucified since c 37-41 when Aretas was King if Jesus was Crucified under Cladius. 2 Cor 11.32

Irenaeus has CONTRADICTED his own claims about Paul.

2. Examine "Church History" 2.25.5, it is claimed Paul was executed under Nero but in very same "Church History" 6.25 Paul was STILL ALIVE AFTER gLuke was written.

Eusebius has CONTRADICTED his own claims about Paul.

3. Examine "Commentary on Matthew" 1 by Origen, it is claimed Paul Commended gLuke so Origen has CONTRADICTED the very Church that Paul was executed under Nero since 68 CE.

The Pauline writer has the very WORST "historical record".

1. Irenaeus contradicted himself about Paul.

2. Origen contradict the Church about Paul.

3. Eusebius Contradicted himself about Paul.

4. Justin did NOT account for Paul.

5, Aristide did NOT account for Paul.

6. Hippolytus Contradicted Tertullian about Paul.

7. Jerome did NOT know of Against Marion by Tertullian.

8. Eusebius did NOT know of Against Marcion by Tertullian.

9. Ephraim the Syrian Contradicted Tertullian's "Against Marcion".

10. Tertullian claimed that there are manipulated works of "Against Marcion".

11. The author of Acts did NOT acknowledge Paul wrote letters to Churches.

12. The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed PAUL wrote After Revelations.

13. Letters between Seneca and Paul are considered forgeries.

14. No Pauline writings have been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

15. The Pauline letters show the very least variants per page.

It is time for Scholars to start doing History and stop doing Apology.

The Pauline writings are hopelessly historically fraudulent and is confirmed by an Abundance of EVIDENCE.

Tom Verenna

Don't you know? Everything on the internet is true so long as it doesn't have an 'LOL' after it (or so says Bill Maher). About five years ago, those criticisms would have been at least partially true. People change. One of the hard lessons I learned is that sometimes your critics are right. Not as much as they think they are, but they don't have to be right all the time--just once is enough. One of the downfalls of being a public figure on the internet is that you can't take back the mistakes you make (time doesn't exist on the internet--you can Google a name and the first thing that pops up might be something written 6 years ago but since you're reading it for the first time, it gives false impressions). You can only work to correct them in other ways. Anyway, thanks for understanding.

It's certainly possible. I just wouldn't know where to start or how to go about proving it.

Outstanding. Unfortunate about Meyer, he died before his time. Brilliant scholar and one who really got me thinking about Christian origins in a whole new way.

stephan huller

If we get back to the original thread and we accept the idea that the Marcionites and/or some related sects DID NOT think Paul was originally named Saul, where did this myth come from? The obvious answer is Paul's alleged role as a persecutor of Christ and/or his Church. "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?" The parallel is obviously king Saul's persecution of David, Christ being the alleged 'son of David.'

stephan huller

And we shouldn't forget how important this narrative was in early Christianity. Origen apparently invoked 1 Samuel throughout his discussion of the initiation of Theodore (aka Gregory) and Athenodorus. This narrative has long been claimed by gay Christians as 'speaking to them.'

It is kind of unusual when you think of the application. Saul not only eventually prefers David to his own son but at the same time David and Jonathan become one. Curious mysticism here. Saul eventually kills both Jonathan and himself becoming exemplar of martyrdom.