What is the final legacy of Marcion at the end?

[Giuseppe]

Apart conservatives who think that not even Luke's priority is touched by Marcion (and not even partially), what is left after the passage of the storm called Marcion?

Put simply, what is definitely collapsed is the certainty that some gospels can be still dated in the first century CE.

This is corroborated widely by the fact that even Matkan prioritists place now Mark in the 100/110 CE. They have given up to place Mark shortly after the 70 CE.

[Peter Kirby]

If I weren't already interested in the subject, you'd certainly help steer me away from it. That's a legacy.

[Giuseppe]

My point is more sound: once a canonical synoptic gospel is placed around the time of Marcion (second century) there are no reasons to place the others (one or all) still in the first century.

[Peter Kirby]

Are you assuming that Marcion was responsible for the authorship of the Gospel that he published?

If not, how are you dating *Ev?

[Peter Kirby]

My point is more sound: once a canonical synoptic gospel is placed around the time of Marcion (second century) there are no reasons to place the others (one or all) still in the first century.

Never mind, you're talking about Luke.

[Peter Kirby]

It's an argument only a mother could love. Haven't there always been gospels dated to the second century?

[Giuseppe]

My point here is different:

Even assuming the more subtle concession a conservative reader may give to the storm called Marcion, i.e. that both Marcion and Luke are based on a proto-Luke (in turn based on Matthew), the result is still a strong shadow of doubt on the certainty that a first gospel (Mark or proto-Mark) could have been written in the first century.

Said that, I follow Klinghardt at the moment.

[Peter Kirby]

My point here is different:

Even assuming the more subtle concession a conservative reader may give to the storm called Marcion, i.e. that both Marcion and Luke are based on a proto-Luke (in turn based on Matthew), the result is still a strong shadow of doubt on the certainty that a first gospel (Mark or proto-Mark) could have been written in the first century.

Why?

[Giuseppe]

Because the implication is that at least some Gospel pericopes in a canonical gospel are, strange to say, affected by marcionism and/or anti-marcionism. Which implies that given the other known fact that the synoptical pericopes of different gospels are strictly connected between them, probably also other pericopes may be affected by the same spirit (or by a similar spirit), i.e. the spirit of a typical controversy from the second century, not from the first century.

[dabber]

... the fact that even Matkan prioritists place now Mark in the 100/110 CE. They have given up to place Mark shortly after the 70 CE.

Not me Mark 9:1 and Mark chapter 13 reflect the expectation of the Second Coming during the lifetimes of those then present.

The end times were imminent, about to happen any time.

Mark 9:1 was copied by Matthew and Luke but left out by John.

These early believers thought JC would return/come to earth in their lifetimes, all strongly indicative of 1st century composition. 1 Thess, Mark, Revelation - end times were about to happen there and then around 70 ce. Cheers Adam