Secret Alias wrote: ↑Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:19 pm
It doesn't matter. The logic is Moses not God said one thing God said another. It's worth noting that the DSS seem to echo the argument from Genesis 1.
In this case though Jesus says that God and Moses said both of these commandments.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
But you don't get it. It doesn't matter what the text we've inherited says. God said one thing. Moses another.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
John2 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 5:48 pm
Regarding Hippolytus' remark about Marcion using Mark in RH 7.18:
When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be.
This is a head scratcher, and after checking to see what others say about it I'm inclined to default to Roth, who writes in footnote 1 on page 7 of The Text of Marcion's Gospel:
Hippolytus's comment apparently calling Marcion's Gospel "Mark" is generally recognized as an error1 (cf. Harnack, Marcion, 240 *n1). It should be noted, however, that Tertullian, e.g., also attested that Marcion's disciples continually reshaped their Gospel, which would mean that it was not a static text (cf. Marc. 4.5.7).
I also found this article by our Andrew Criddle which notes that Hippoltyus' account of Marcion's gospel is Lukan:
It is possible that Hippolytus is genuinely claiming (rightly or wrongly) that Marcion’s Gospel was a version of Mark. However, his account of Marcion suggests otherwise:
"Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that under the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship— that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues."
This seems to be a reference to Luke 3:1 which other early sources regard as the beginning of Marcion’s Gospel.
I would sooner suppose that Hippolytus is in error about Marcion using Mark1, than that everyone else was wrong about Marcion using only a version of Luke, especially since the account he gives of Marcion's gospel is Lukan. But I suppose it's not out of the realm of possibilty that whatever text Hippoltyus saw had been re-worked by Marcion's disciples to include more things from Mark than had already been in all versions of Luke from the get go.
1 I don't think Hyppolytus is referring to Marcion using Mark in R.H. 7.18. I think he's saying Marcion didn't use Mark.
R.H. 7.18, -
When...Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.
Hippolytus is saying Marcion didn't use what [tenets] were announced or written in the Gospel according to Mark.
But why even mention that at all? Mentioning Paul sure, given the tradition of Markion and Paul, but why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
I was thinking the same thing. It's like saying 'I didn't know she was only 16.'
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
I think the problem is the 'careerizing' of Biblical scholarship. You have two types of scholars - those who are basically apologists and those who atheist or agnostic scholars. Both profess to 'seek after the truth.' Leaving aside the apologists for a moment, the 'career people' are almost worse because they just want to make noise. Whether its play-acting or real interest is hard to discern. But the pressure to write, write, write and stay relevant takes a toll.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 6:10 am
... why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition?
I think it's because Hippolytus is following a then contemporary (ie. contemporaneous) effort to misrepresent and rewrite the history of the early Christian texts and traditions, largely using Marcion as the fall guy. It may have started with Irenaeus or perhaps with Justin Martyr (+/- others who remains unnamed). See Ben's previous post quoted below, bold added, and my subsequent comment. 'Secret Alias' has alluded to clues about this in this thread (I will revisit them in this thread in coming days).
John2 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:04 pm
Regarding why Justin does not appear to have known of Marcion's writings, while I've seen it speculated that perhaps they weren't as important to him as they were to Irenaeus (assuming for the moment that the latter did know of them like he says), I wonder if instead it could be that they weren't published by the time Justin was writing.
I suspect it is simply a matter of which of Justin's writings we have at hand and which have been lost to us:
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 26.5-7: 5 And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. 6 All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians; just as also those who do not agree with the philosophers in their doctrines, have yet in common with them the name of philosophers given to them. 7 And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds — the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh — we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions. But I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed [σύνταγμα κατὰ πασῶν τῶν γεγενημένων αἱρέσεων συντεταγμένον], which, if you wish to read it, I will give you.
His Apologies and his Dialogue are written for very specific purposes, ones which we would not expect to entail a lot of discussion of Marcion. If we had this [alluded to] treatise of his, often referred to as the Syntagma, I bet the state of play would be different. We may, in fact, have it in an indirect way: embedded or plagiarized by Irenaeus and/or by Tertullian or others.
It's possible that "I have a treatise against all the heresies that have existed already composed" is a [much] later insertion, as later church people combed documents and touched them up to give the illusion there had been an orthodox tradition from the start (early, set/full Mark, Matthew, Luke, etc), and that Marcion had been a subsequent heretic outlier.
Several scholars in recent years have proposed Luke was written after Marcion, and some of them think all the canonical gospels were written [in a short space of time] after Marcion, starting with Mark. If that happened, what the likes of Irenaeus, Tertuallian and Hippolytus individually knew about that - and our perceptions of what they might have known - might be game-changing (and, as indicated above, 'Secret Alias' might well be on to it ...).
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2019 11:54 am
Several scholars in recent years have proposed Luke was written after Marcion ...
Some/several - even many - scholars (some different to those who've proposed Luke was written after Marcion) propose that Marcion simply acquired the Euaneglion [euanglion?].
Some scholars talk about a proto- or core- Luke ... would that be the same [or a very similar] text as Marcion's Euangelion??
eta [italics mine], -
Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:39 pm
... if you are speaking the Gospel of the Marcionite Sect, a group which may or may not have actually been Marcion's founding (I think not, simply they took the name of the early Apostle), then the Patristic evidence overwhelmingly points to an early version of Luke, frozen at the halfway point of it's final development, and probably earlier than all the Gospels in the forms that came down to us.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Justin Martyr tells us followers of Marcion were, in their time, called Christians -
Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 26.5-6a, -
.
5 And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he...has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. 6 All who take their opinions from these men are, as we before said,called Christians ... .
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
