There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
Why does the author accuse Marcion of falsifying a gospel, having Luke as his gospel but inevitably identifies the falsification almost exclusively in terms of Matthean content (often a Luke vs Matthew comparison where Lukan readings are proof of forgery) and especially the very Marcionite sounding Antitheses said to be "added falsely" to the gospel? Why is Galatians 2 the historical context of these falsifications (i.e. Judaizers falsifying Paul's gospel)?
My solution is to look at the Preface where it says Against Marcion where it says the text was rewritten 3 times by multiple authors and where the third version introduces a new understanding (which I take to be Luke) not present in the original draft. Papias doesn't mention Luke. But the synoptic gospels are based on his justification for counterfeiting Mark. As such a second-century invention of Luke is a way of getting around an apparent backhanded acknowledgement of Marcionite gospel primacy.
It follows a pattern of reinventing Christian origins away from two communities (Paul & Peter) locked in a vicious power struggle.
My solution is to look at the Preface where it says Against Marcion where it says the text was rewritten 3 times by multiple authors and where the third version introduces a new understanding (which I take to be Luke) not present in the original draft. Papias doesn't mention Luke. But the synoptic gospels are based on his justification for counterfeiting Mark. As such a second-century invention of Luke is a way of getting around an apparent backhanded acknowledgement of Marcionite gospel primacy.
It follows a pattern of reinventing Christian origins away from two communities (Paul & Peter) locked in a vicious power struggle.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
FWIW I think version 1 of Against Marcion was written by Justin, version 2 Irenaeus who may have been Tatian and version 3 = Tertullian.
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
Just curious, what leads you to suspect that Irenaeus and Tatian are the same person?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
Flavor of the month I guess. The relationship with Justin, the reference to the second author of Against Marcion as an apostate, the fourfold gospel, the fact that Eusebius is the first person to identify a continuous "gospel harmony" with Tatian, the fact that Rhodon addresses Callistos (Callistiwn) so Tatianites were close to Roman power. The argument against it is Tatian is referenced in Against Heresies Book 1 as a heresy.
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
Interesting.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:51 pm Flavor of the month I guess. The relationship with Justin, the reference to the second author of Against Marcion as an apostate, the fourfold gospel, the fact that Eusebius is the first person to identify a continuous "gospel harmony" with Tatian, the fact that Rhodon addresses Callistos (Callistiwn) so Tatianites were close to Roman power. The argument against it is Tatian is referenced in Against Heresies Book 1 as a heresy.
I don't follow the highlighted part though. Who or what is Callistiwn?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries ... riter.html. Hilgenfeld takes it as an example of an affectionate diminutive
-
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
Marcion was said to be the son of a bishop, he was part of the establishment
What might have been the trigger for him to break away?
Given what SA has observed about Marcion's handiwork first affecting Matthew
Then maybe it was the introduction of Matthew's gospel that triggered his revolt and initially he was opposing Matthew not a corrupted Luke which didn't exist yet?
What might have been the trigger for him to break away?
Given what SA has observed about Marcion's handiwork first affecting Matthew
Then maybe it was the introduction of Matthew's gospel that triggered his revolt and initially he was opposing Matthew not a corrupted Luke which didn't exist yet?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
The better line of inquiry is to ask what prompted the Fathers to write these things
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
For instance, what if we were to make a thread containing 'all the verifiable facts about early Christianity.' Imagine how small a list that would be. Maybe I should start that thread ...
Re: There is No Actual REAL Evidence Marcion Ever Falsified Luke
Please do!Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:01 am For instance, what if we were to make a thread containing 'all the verifiable facts about early Christianity.' Imagine how small a list that would be. Maybe I should start that thread ...