Re: Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posterior
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2015 1:18 pm
I am pulling out of this conversation. Bye.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
So we as the readers of this account would naturally assume that the Marcionite text doesn't differ at all from our own. It would be natural to assume - given that Tertullian is such a wonderful scholar, consistently providing us with the exact evidence from the Marcionite canon - that in the Marcionite text Jesus says what we have in Luke:It is well also that the disciples' unbelief persisted, so that right to the end our claim should stand that to the disciples Christ Jesus had declared himself no other than the Christ of the prophets. For when two of them were on a journey, and the Lord had joined himself with them, while it did not appear that it was he himself, and he even pretended not to be aware of the things that had happened, they said, But we were thinking that he himself was the Redeemer of Israel, evidently Israel's, and the Creator's, Christ. To that extent had he never declared himself any other. Otherwise they would not have supposed him the Creator's: and when he was supposed to be the Creator's, he would not have tolerated this supposition about himself if he had not been who he was supposed to be. Otherwise he must be thought of as the author of error and a renegade from the truth: and this will not suit your description of him as a god supremely good.
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
So now we find ourselves at an impass. Clearly Tertullian is not using the Marcionite text to develop his arguments. He often cites from Luke or whatever text he had before him. But clearly Epiphanius isn't the end of the story. It can't simply be a simple change of words. All of vv 26 and 27 too have to be expunged. But now we go beyond what our sources tell us and where do you stop finding 'unmentioned' corrections of text? How do we have any confidence in anything Tertullian tells us is 'in' the Marcionite text when in fact it is demonstrable that he simply used the Catholic gospels most of the time.But you (Marcion) have replaced, 'Is not this what the prophets have spoken?' Marcion, with, 'Is this not what I said unto you?'
I revised my blog post on the topic http://historical-jesus.info/53.html. I even quoted you. I hope you don't mind. If you do, I can paraphrase your quote. And I got 2 arguments relative to the epistles http://historical-jesus.info/73.html.(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)
No problem. You can keep it. All of this is highly contingent and in the earliest of stages.Bernard Muller wrote:To Ben,I revised my blog post on the topic http://historical-jesus.info/53.html. I even quoted you. I hope you don't mind. If you do, I can paraphrase your quote.(Bernard, I know you will not agree with any of the indicators I have posted recently, since they lean toward Marcionite priority; but do you know of any other examples for Marcionite posteriority? You have given 2 so far, I think, and I have added 1. But, if there are more, I would love to have them.)
Thanks. I will be looking at the epistles soonish, but independently, since it is possible for Marcion to be completely derivative in one area but original in another.And I got 2 arguments relative to the epistles http://historical-jesus.info/73.html.
Good, good.All these arguments are mostly or totally independent of: if gMarcion is witnessed to have changes or deletions which can be explained by Marcion stated beliefs, then that means Marcion worked from gLuke.
All factors to be considered, to be sure.Of course I think we have enough evidence gLuke was written in the first century, which would make Marcion copying on gLuke: http://historical-jesus.info/62.html.
And Q as a separate document and "Luke" not knowing gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html and even the complete gMark (the great omission http://historical-jesus.info/62.html).
Understood.All of that add up. And I did not develop these website pages in order to prove the posteriority of gMarcion.
But of course.By the way, I found all your arguments for posteriority of gLuke very weak.
is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)
I certainly agree with that.By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)
Thanks, Joe. I totally agree that the bloody sweat is an addition to the text, and agree that it was almost certainly aimed at the docetics.JoeWallack wrote:JW:
@Ben, By an Act of Providence, legendary Textual Critic Bart Ehrman has recently finished a series of posts arguing that Luke 22:44
is an orthodox addition with the purpose of countering Docetics like Marcion.And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. (ASV)
Summary of Ehrman's argument:
Spot on evidence for purposes of this Thread. Orthodox Christianity citing as evidence, against Docetics like Marcion, in their version of GLuke verses here likely not in the original GLuke.
- 1) Style = There is a clear Chiasm for Jesus' related prayer here without the offending verse.
2) Context Change = GMark's context here is Jesus distress. GLuke changes the context of the same story to prayer delivering from temptation.
3) Manuscript = Good support for omission.
4) Tone = The source GMark, has a tone of Jesus distress. GLuke has exorcised every other indication of distress in the story.
5) Theme = The Verse goes against GLuke's theme as compared to GMark of presenting Jesus as calm and in control.
6) Transmission Motivation = Three Patristics of the second century, Justin, Irenaeus and Hippolytus, cite the offending verse against Docetics like Marcion.