Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But I don't think that any of my thoughts about Marcion should be taken as canonical law to develop an understanding of how this or that ACTUAL THING viz. the gospel of Mark arose. They're just thoughts, observations, beliefs but not actual evidence. I am not here to insult scholars nevertheless not...

This is what makes the forum so intolerable at times - people who can't see the difference between evidence and interpretation. Funny how Jesus is certainly a 'myth' but Marcion is 'real' for you. Marcion might be real - it's possible but not certain. But the issue at hand isn't the existence of Mar...

Yes but so what THERE IS NO ACTUAL DIRECT OR INDIRECT EVIDENCE for the reading in question. It's just a supposition or a hunch. You can't start using this sort of marginalia to develop theories about why Mark is the way it is. Marcionite studies should not be taken very seriously. There seems to be ...

Basically if your argument was a formula you'd be saying:

IF Couchoud's reconstruction of a certain 'gospel of Marcion' is correct THEN is it correct to say X about the gospel of Mark?

The IF is a big IF and one that is so uncertain the THEN is 'who cares'

Just to make it clearer for you. There is what I would call 'category 1' evidence viz. actual manuscripts of the gospels and then 'category 2' explicit decisive evidence of references to readings from gospels in other ancient manuscripts and then 'category 3' evidence 'reconstructed' by scholars fro...

Of what value is taking a modern reconstruction and giving it precedence and preferring it to ACTUAL EVIDENCE FROM ANTIQUITY. I come to this forum to watch mental illness at work. Not just from you Giuseppe but in truth most often from you.

Very cool. Thank you for sharing this.

And the date of Clement doesn't really matter because he clearly connects with Tatian and Justin before him as 'harmony gospel' witnesses. It's like Irenaeus and possibly Polycarp are encircled by the older tradition.

Let me reframe your question for people who like Marcion. Tertullian and later rescensions of Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses claim that Marcion falsified Luke. Fine. That's an argument. That's not a fact. But pretending that the gospel of Marcion was a version of Luke keeps everyone speaking about 'Lu...

I guess another way of saying it is: 1. Clement never says in QDS he is citing from Luke 2. it makes little sense to think that he is arguing from Luke without explicitly citing Luke as he is arguing up until that point from an explicit comparison or reconciliation of gospels he calls 'Mark' and 'Ma...