Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8148RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

Expand Messages
  • jovial1000
    Oct 28, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

       (((((((
      *** You state categorically just below that both Mk and Lk preceded Marcion. That would appear to make them at least part of what you are calling the PMS, wouldn’t it? If not, then I’m completely misunderstanding what you mean by a PMS.
      )))))))

      Yes, Mark and Luke were published before Marcion was born.  I am saying PMS is the text that you are theoretically claiming to be input to Luke that was not Q or some other Gospel, if such a text exists.


      (((((((((
      I believe that in important ways we have MORE evidence than they did
      ))))))))))

      Given that they had a manuscript of Marcion and we don't....no.....I'd say they had way more evidence than us.



      ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      Please see my additional comments below: (***)

       

      David Inglis

       

      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
      Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:48 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

       

      (((( Surely we KNOW that what you are calling PMS existed ))))) 

      No, we don't even KNOW that a Q existed.  It is just a theory. 

      *** You state categorically just below that both Mk and Lk preceded Marcion. That would appear to make them at least part of what you are calling the PMS, wouldn’t it? If not, then I’m completely misunderstanding what you mean by a PMS.

      (((( could he be the actual author of the first version of Lk, using Mk as his source? I think it unlikely (the dating would seem to be the biggest problem), but I we can’t rule it out completely. ))))

      The dating would rule it out completely given Marcion was born after both Mark and Luke were published.

      *** I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek there, but I do dispute the traditional 1C dating of Lk for (at least) it’s final version. Here I follow Tyson, and see Luke-Acts (as we see them today) as a reaction to Marcion.

      (((( However, if you are saying that we can’t draw conclusions from what Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, etc. report about Marcion )))))

      I didn't say that at all.  On the contrary; I am suggesting we accept their conclusions....that Marcion's Gospel came from Marcion editing Luke.  That's what they told us.  Why argue with that when we have less evidence at our disposal than they did?

      *** So, you are saying believe the Fathers, not Marcion? Clearly Marcion had the ‘best’ evidence of all, and he doesn’t agree with them! However, I maintain my position that NO-ONE presents any actual evidence for Marcion having edited Lk other than the OPINIONS of the Fathers, who we know were heavily anti-Marcion (Arch Heretic, anyone?). With regard to the evidence, I believe that in important ways we have MORE evidence than they did – we are much more aware of the variants (e.g. they claim Marcion made changes that we know as typical variants), and the literary relationships between the synoptics than they ever were. For example, none of the Fathers ever comments on the similarities between Marcion’s gospel and Mk, or that (if Marcion edited Lk) then he removed much more Sondergut Lk material than anything else (which is odd assuming he actually CHOSE Lk). My ‘mantra’ (taken from a security ‘guru’ called Bruce Schneier) is “Trust, but Verify.” So, I trust that Marcion, Tertullian, etc. all believed what they said, but then use whatever evidence I can find to verify both positions, and in doing so have found no evidence to support the Fathers opinions.

    • Show all 29 messages in this topic