Forgers just fake the letter they want (see 3 Corinthians, for example). They don’t construct awkward Frankenstein’s monsters as if from some previous collection of material. Only someone who is editing an already-existing collection of material does that—and in this case, that already-existing collection demonstrably pre-date’s Marcion’s, because his collection of these letters already shows this redactional activity.
Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/27161
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
Carrier confirms himself for the real genius he is!
the real Paul says he went immediately to Arabia after his conversion, not Damascus, whereas Acts deletes the Arabian adventure altogether—even though it would obviously have better explained the Damascus incident described in 2 Cor. 11 (since having just fled Arabia would explain why Arabian marshals were chasing him, a detail Acts simply eliminates altogether, converting Paul’s enemies into local ‘Jews’ rather than foreign royal deputies).
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
I have written to him to know what he thinks about what is for me the strongest case for the Marcionite priority over Mark.
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
It has surprised me that Carrier portrayes Trobisch as someone who is more mythicist than himself.
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
It seems to me that Carrier has not understood fully the my comment, so I have posted another comment, where I make it more clear what is the strongest argument for marcionite priority: the secrecy is peculiar to *Ev, while it is broken inexcusably by Mark precisely where the latter is disturbed by the anti-YHWH implications of a such secrecy.
In whiletime, Vinzent is read to answer.
In whiletime, Vinzent is read to answer.
-
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
I suspect we all get that by now, Carrier too. We are probably just less convinced of the strength of the argument.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 10:11 am It seems to me that Carrier has not understood fully the my comment, so I have posted another comment, where I make it more clear what is the strongest argument for marcionite priority: the secrecy is peculiar to *Ev, while it is broken inexcusably by Mark precisely where the latter is disturbed by the anti-YHWH implications of a such secrecy.
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
He has answered but I am sincerely disappointed out by the core of the his objection:
It is clear for me that both *Ev and Mark have the secrecy.
In whiletime I enjoy lewdly
when I realize the wonder of the reader:
I also don’t see how Mark can be disturbed by the secrecy element. His text is more littered with it than any version of Luke.
It is clear for me that both *Ev and Mark have the secrecy.
- In *Ev for a rational motive: an alien is secret by definition.
- In Mark for an unknown reason (effect black box), that becomes understandable only when I realize that Mark breaks the secrecy in the same points where the secrecy is preserved in *Ev (with serious anti-YHWH implications). Hence the secrecy in Mark is inherited by *Ev and that is the reason because in Mark the secrecy has lost the reason of the its presence.
In whiletime I enjoy lewdly
when I realize the wonder of the reader:Oh, you don’t mean Luke erasing most of the Messianic Secret stuff (as he does), you mean something more obscure. You are saying Vinzent is arguing that somehow Luke’s text includes allusions to a different origin for Jesus (between the OT God and the “True” one).
Re: Richard Carrier against Trobisch and against Vinzent
Dr Bilby is cruel against Carrier but tremendously just (in bold where I agree a lot):
Very interesting when he says that older items can emerge again in a late layer. Is the presence of a celestial crucifixion among Valentinians then the coming back of a previous old belief?
Mark G. Bilby
On Carrier's Reviews of Trobisch and Vinzent
This is not a review of Carrier's entire review, but a retort to certain aspects, particularly as related to studies of Marcion and his texts. Note that my positions are not identical to those of Trobisch and Vinzent, but I think their work is crucial to invert many of the commonplace assumptions that govern studies of the New Testament, and for that reason I am here defending them both.
Carrier states, "But he says Marcion did that by admitting those gospels were written by Apostles but then claiming those Apostles perverted the message (apostolos praevaricationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur usque ad evangelii depravationem, ‘Marcion complains that the Apostles are suspected of prevarication and pretense, all the way to perverting the gospel’). Which means Marcion made, in fact, the opposite claim to what Vinzent alleges."
The quotation and translation problematically omits the quite important conditional opening of the sentence. Si apostolos… "If Marcion is complaining that the apostles are held suspect…".
The scenario is not a verbatim quote or even paraphrase of Marcion, but rather Tertullian's hypothetical characterization of Marcion's position, one of two hypothetical positions stated in the immediate context. Both hypotheticals stem from Tertullian's difficult predicament: having to defer to--yet wiggle out of--the text of Galatians held in common between the Marcionites and proto-Orthodox, in which Paul himself accuses other apostles of falsifying and altering the gospel.
In his early 3rd century proto-Orthodox context, Tertullian reads that term, gospel, as a document and as a known genre, but that claim is almost certainly anachronistic for someone of Marcion's time, given what Marcion's younger contemporary Justin has to say about apostolic remembrances, as opposed to canonical texts or even well-defined, well-known, insular Christian textual genres.
Tertullian does not confirm or even claim that Marcion's stated position was that the canonical Gospels derived from the Apostles, as Carrier alleges. What Tertullian repeatedly and emphatically clarifies is Marcion's position that his Evangelion and Apostolos were apostolic (i.e., Pauline) in origin, and that other gospels and other versions of the letters of Paul were subsequent falsifications.
At the outset of 4.3.3, Tertullian admits the accusations of falsification run both ways, and that other criteria must determine authenticity, most especially, greater antiquity.
While concurring with Vinzent's Resetting in regard to anachronisms of the 4th century and subsequent, Carrier doesn't seem to have grasped its significance for the 3rd through 1st centuries CE. He continues to date texts such as 1 Clement and Hebrews in the 60s (!) as pre-Jewish-war texts because—as he states—"These texts all contain features that are only probable if they were composed before the Jewish War."
The way stratification and critical historical analysis works is precisely the opposite, whether in textual studies or geology. Earlier elements are always present in later layers. Stones quarried in the Iron age become repurposed foundations and pillars of Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Muslim buildings.
It is in the features and reframing of the most recent layer--the trace elements deposited from, and new structural lines caused by, the most recent earthquake--that provide the basis to determine the last point of structural stabilization.
Assuming that Tertullian's early 3rd century proto-Orthodox characterization of Marcion has historical merit, then assuming further that Marcion's mid-2nd century characterization of texts written by figures in the mid-1st century has historical merit, is a house of cards, and ignores the actual, systematic, and deep divergent data patterns seen on careful analysis and comparison of the Marcionite and canonical texts.
It's clear that Carrier has yet to engage seriously and carefully with the Marcionite textual data and various reconstructions, which belies his self-characterization as one who deals only in data-driven conclusions and non-fallacious reasoning. Consider the relevant data carefully, sir, before drawing conclusions, if a probabilistic data scientist you strive to be.
I'm puzzled by his excuses for not actually reading several of the texts on which he opines, including his frank admission that he lacks the means to read Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels. Columbia Library has a copy, as do dozens of other libraries in the US.
On Carrier's Reviews of Trobisch and Vinzent
This is not a review of Carrier's entire review, but a retort to certain aspects, particularly as related to studies of Marcion and his texts. Note that my positions are not identical to those of Trobisch and Vinzent, but I think their work is crucial to invert many of the commonplace assumptions that govern studies of the New Testament, and for that reason I am here defending them both.
Carrier states, "But he says Marcion did that by admitting those gospels were written by Apostles but then claiming those Apostles perverted the message (apostolos praevaricationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur usque ad evangelii depravationem, ‘Marcion complains that the Apostles are suspected of prevarication and pretense, all the way to perverting the gospel’). Which means Marcion made, in fact, the opposite claim to what Vinzent alleges."
The quotation and translation problematically omits the quite important conditional opening of the sentence. Si apostolos… "If Marcion is complaining that the apostles are held suspect…".
The scenario is not a verbatim quote or even paraphrase of Marcion, but rather Tertullian's hypothetical characterization of Marcion's position, one of two hypothetical positions stated in the immediate context. Both hypotheticals stem from Tertullian's difficult predicament: having to defer to--yet wiggle out of--the text of Galatians held in common between the Marcionites and proto-Orthodox, in which Paul himself accuses other apostles of falsifying and altering the gospel.
In his early 3rd century proto-Orthodox context, Tertullian reads that term, gospel, as a document and as a known genre, but that claim is almost certainly anachronistic for someone of Marcion's time, given what Marcion's younger contemporary Justin has to say about apostolic remembrances, as opposed to canonical texts or even well-defined, well-known, insular Christian textual genres.
Tertullian does not confirm or even claim that Marcion's stated position was that the canonical Gospels derived from the Apostles, as Carrier alleges. What Tertullian repeatedly and emphatically clarifies is Marcion's position that his Evangelion and Apostolos were apostolic (i.e., Pauline) in origin, and that other gospels and other versions of the letters of Paul were subsequent falsifications.
At the outset of 4.3.3, Tertullian admits the accusations of falsification run both ways, and that other criteria must determine authenticity, most especially, greater antiquity.
While concurring with Vinzent's Resetting in regard to anachronisms of the 4th century and subsequent, Carrier doesn't seem to have grasped its significance for the 3rd through 1st centuries CE. He continues to date texts such as 1 Clement and Hebrews in the 60s (!) as pre-Jewish-war texts because—as he states—"These texts all contain features that are only probable if they were composed before the Jewish War."
The way stratification and critical historical analysis works is precisely the opposite, whether in textual studies or geology. Earlier elements are always present in later layers. Stones quarried in the Iron age become repurposed foundations and pillars of Greek, Roman, Byzantine, and Muslim buildings.
It is in the features and reframing of the most recent layer--the trace elements deposited from, and new structural lines caused by, the most recent earthquake--that provide the basis to determine the last point of structural stabilization.
Assuming that Tertullian's early 3rd century proto-Orthodox characterization of Marcion has historical merit, then assuming further that Marcion's mid-2nd century characterization of texts written by figures in the mid-1st century has historical merit, is a house of cards, and ignores the actual, systematic, and deep divergent data patterns seen on careful analysis and comparison of the Marcionite and canonical texts.
It's clear that Carrier has yet to engage seriously and carefully with the Marcionite textual data and various reconstructions, which belies his self-characterization as one who deals only in data-driven conclusions and non-fallacious reasoning. Consider the relevant data carefully, sir, before drawing conclusions, if a probabilistic data scientist you strive to be.
I'm puzzled by his excuses for not actually reading several of the texts on which he opines, including his frank admission that he lacks the means to read Vinzent's Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels. Columbia Library has a copy, as do dozens of other libraries in the US.
Very interesting when he says that older items can emerge again in a late layer. Is the presence of a celestial crucifixion among Valentinians then the coming back of a previous old belief?