Layman

I want to add that I finished reading Knox's Marcion and the New Testament. And he's not quite as radical as some have represented. He concedes that Marcion engaged in wholesale cutting and slashing of his "Gospel" and his "Pauline letters."

Marcion undoubtedly believed quite sincerely that the theological position he had come to hold was Paul's position.... When, therefore,he discovered in one of the epistles of Paul a statement which could not be harmonized with what he knew to be the true Pauline positionn, it was inevitable that he should have construed it as an interpolation, as the result of later tampering with the letters of Paul by "Jewish" editors or copyists.... This editing of the text in the itnerest of his peculiar theological doctrines is what we would have expected in the case of both "Gospel" and "Apostle," and that is what we undoubtedly find.

Knox, at 50.

These cuttings are a result of Marcion's strong desire to "cleanse" his works from existing Jewish influence or references. For example, Knox argues that it is "all but certain that [Romans] 4:1-25", which dealt with the faith of Abraham, was deleted by Marcion. Id. at 51.

As for the "Gospel of Luke," Knox admits that Marcion excised important passages from his version of that Gospel to suit his own theological outlook:

That Marcion, for example, did not have he the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are the inconsistent with marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synotpic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already depenent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible.

Id. at 95.

In fact, Marcion does not seem to even suggest any widespread altering of Paul's epistles on the part of the Orthodox Response. He rejects the idea that the Orthodox used his versions of Paul's epistles and "added" symphathetic texts. Rather, he argues that the Orthodox relied on their own tradition of Pauline epistles that had not been corrupted by Marcion.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: And most date 2 Clement before 150 CE.

Can I get references for that?

I quote Grant in _The Anchor Bible Dictionary_ as stating that "A.D. 140-160" is "the epistle's approximate date" (v. 1, p. 1061). So I actually subtracted 10 years from the terminus a quo as compared to my source -- I am not attempting to push 2 Clement later for some tendentious reason.

Perhaps more importantly, what evidence exists to fix the limits of 2 Clement's time of composition?

best,
Peter Kirby

Radorth

How ironic that the later we push the dates of first writing, the less time is left for the final redactions.

Looks like another self-defeating argument to me.

Radorth

Peter Kirby

Radorth,

Wouldn't that depend on whether a person was advocating a long period of redaction? A person could postulate that a document was written as a whole at the latest possible date, and that would leave little time for change between the time of writing and the time of the manuscript evidence, but the person would have their late date, and that might be all they care about.

Of course, this is all in the abstract; do you have a particular modern person, ancient document, and alleged dating in mind when you make your comments?

best,
Peter Kirby

Steven Carr

The reference you have has the obscure note in it
1 Clement (95 CE): Acts 26:18; Acts 20:35, 4:2

Could you unpack these allusions for me? (With actual cites for example)


Please bear in mind that they have to be stronger than the word for word copying I show in
<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm</a> before Christians will accept that there are allusions.


1 Clement does make a definite reference in 47:1-3 to the Epistle of Paul to the Corinithians, a striking contrast to the vague nature of the allusions claimed for Acts.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Steven Carr

Layman wrote in his article 'An examination of the early Christian literature reveals that many of them used phrases and terms unique to the Acts of the Apostles.'

As is well known, Acts of the Apostles uses many phrases and terms unique to Josephus.


L follows J in calling the Jewish sects (including Christianity) philosophical schools, haireseis, a term that would later take on a negative meaning among Christians as "heresy" (Acts 5:17, 15:5, 26:5; on Christianity as a hairesis: 24:5, 24:14-5, 28:22). We know of no other author but Josephus to have done this--it is a creative feature of his own apologetic program and therefore likely his own idea.


L calls the Pharisees the "most precise school" (Acts 26:5), yet no one else but Josephus uses this idiom (JW 1.110, 2.162; JA 17.41; Life 189

All comes , of course, from Richard Carrier's article

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html</a>

Now, I haven't seen Layman's allusions to Acts in 1 Clement, but I would be very willing to think that they are not as convincing as Acts allusions to Josephus.

Layman also wrote 'Valentinus was a gnostic contemporary of Marcion who, as discussed above, refers authoritatively to Acts around 140 CE'.

I wouldn't mind being shown this 'authoratitive reference' to Acts in the Gospel of Truth. Who knows, perhaps Layman will point it out to me.

Vorkosigan

Hey Layman! Good work! We need more contributions like this. I hope you take Peter up on his offer.

Michael

Layman

If you are patient, I could try and get to this sometime in the near future.

Since we have never discussed these topics, I suppose you are just being silly.

Steven Carr

(Message deleted)

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Steven Carr ]</p>

Steven Carr