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

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

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    The Q theory has high probability. Knowledge is based on degrees of probability. Q is on the high scale. Just a theory ---the common old comment.
    Message 1 of 29 , Dec 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      
      The Q theory has high probability.  Knowledge is based on degrees of probability.  Q is on the high scale.  "Just a theory"---the common old comment.  EVERYTHING is a theory.  The question is that of probability based on evidence and reason: yep: scientific method.
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:47 PM
      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.

       

      ((((

      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.

       

      ((((

      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?

       

       

       

       



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

      Joe(?), I’m not quite sure what points you are trying to make here.  Surely we KNOW that what you are calling PMS existed, if all you are saying that it was one or more items of source material, e.g. Mk. If not, what do you really mean by PMS? Also, I do not understand your distinction between “adding things to PMS” and “normal scribal evolution.” If you are suggesting that the latter is basically just revising existing text but not adding anything new, then I take your point that we don’t know what Marcion may or may not have done to his source material (Sondergut Marcion?). For example, 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. This is one of the reasons I refer to Marcion’s gospel as ‘Mcg’ and the author as ‘aMcg,’ to try to avoid the unspoken assumption that it was Marcion who actually created it, rather than possibly just promoted it. In exactly the same way, I don’t refer to ‘Luke’ as the author of ‘Luke.’ Apart from the ambiguity, it precludes the possibility of multiple different authors, each working on different versions, possibly with ‘Luke’ only having added the finishing touches.

       

      Re. the veracity of quotes, references, allusions, etc., we are in no worse position with regard to Marcion than any other biblical author. This surely is one of the things that NT dating is based on, e.g. “Father X has a quotation/allusion to/whatever to Y, therefore Y must have been in existence by Z.” Even though we cannot be 100% certain that ANY of the ‘quotations’ from the fathers are completely accurate, we construct hypotheses around what we believe to be the case, and only revise our hypotheses if, on being tested, they are found to be unworkable, or contradictory evidence comes to light. At that point we may well go back to our assumptions (e.g. about the accuracy of quotes) and revise them.

       

      However, if you are saying that we can’t draw conclusions from what Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, etc. report about Marcion, then we can’t draw conclusions from what any of the fathers reported about anyone or any text. This is clearly unworkable, so we do what we always do: draw conclusions based on the evidence we are presented with, and then test the viability of those conclusions. In my case, my basic conclusions are that Marcion’s gospel appears to be an earlier version of Lk (I am not stating whether it is the earliest or an intermediate version) that was seen by both aMt and aLk, and can take the place of Q in the synoptic problem. This is not a new conclusion, but I believe that some of the details I have presented on my website are new. Therefore, I am asking for comment on the validity of my results, based on the evidence I have presented.

       

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

       

      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
      Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:14 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

       

      Essentially what you are saying is that there was some sort of Pre-Marcion Script that was also Pre-Luke. For the sake of discussion, let's call this manuscript PMS. To many people, PMS is simply that subset of Matthew or Mark that Luke USED. Some consider it Aramaic Q, or some subset thereof. Or perhaps it was some subset of the Gospel According to the Hebrews. It is impossible to prove that PMS was not a subset of one of those documents. But correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that Luke came from adding things to PMS and Marcion was a normal scribal evolution from PMS.

      We have no manuscript of the alleged PMS, and no manuscript of Marcion. We know that Marcion existed, but we don't know that PMS even existed. We can reconstruct an approximation to the content of Marcion from a few sparse quotations of his theological opponents, but that's about it. Those quotations come from late copies of manuscripts of Early Church Pioneers who disagreed with him, making their quotations less than reliable. It is probably that they did not quote him word-for-word, because they did not consider his text to be inspired , but corrupted. Perhaps the wording they specifically argued against could be considered accurately worded. But since many of them did not even take the care to quote the manuscripts they considered very important with 100% word-for-word accuracy, we should not conclude they are quoting a text they considered corrupt on a word-for-word level either. On an approximation of content level, yes, but you need a word-for-word level to really cone to the type of conclusions being proposed.

      Secondly, we really don't have a good analysis of the textual transmission of the writings of the Early church Pioneers, one reason why I think there is a problem with trying to use their quotes to correct a manuscript for the sake of a critical reading, unless there was some extensive analysis to the text that eliminates the possibility of scribal influence. Often Jerome or others gave enough extensive analysis to make clear some wordings we don't have extant today. But I think way too much has been read into the wording of quotations in this regard.

      The only conclusions we can really come to from quotations of Marcion is that there were some differences in how Marcion and Luke were worded. It really is not possible to prove one was more original by comparing Luke with isolated and sparse quotations of Marcion from those who disagreed with Marcion. Without a complete manuscript of Marcion, and a complete manuscript of the alleged PMS, it is really overbroad and premature to conclude that PMS even existed. Concluding Marcion came from it is overbroad and premature and contrary to the testimony of those who did have access to his manuscript.

    • jovial1000
      (((( In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of
      Message 2 of 29 , Oct 23, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ((((
        In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY
        textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and
        removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the
        other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion
        who created it,
        )))))

        To disagree with ante-nicean witnesses of the contents of Mcn without an ante-Nicean manuscript is to rely on opion over fact. If you have manuscript evidence of a Gospel that predates Luke that was not written by Marcion, then why are we even calling it Marcion's Gospel? Whatever Marcion put together, it could not possibly be a source to Luke. Perhaps one can make a case that Marcion shortened what Luke used as a source (Q, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, etc) instead of shortening Luke, if the early witnesses we have from Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc had not seen the contents of such an alleged source. But it is probably safe to say that Marcion's Gospel was a subset of Luke.

        It is probably also safe to say that if Luke had a source (such as Q, or The Gospel According to the Hebrews or something else [and perhaps Q=The Gospel According to the Hebrews]), it is also possible that what you are seeing in what is identified as "Mcn" may have simply drawn from that same source [Q,GAH,etc], and not be Luke's source.

        J. Vie1
      • David Inglis
        In response to J. Viel: I don’t believe I disagree with the witnesses to any significant degree. Basically, there is no disagreement that what Marcion had
        Message 3 of 29 , Oct 23, 2013
        • 0 Attachment

          In response to J. Viel: I don’t believe I disagree with the witnesses to any significant degree. Basically, there is no disagreement that what Marcion had was approximately 25% shorter than what we know as Lk, and did not have any of Lk 1-2, or virtually all of Lk 3. What disagreement there is, is due largely to differences in interpreting the comments of Tertullian and Epiphanius. I don’t think there’s any objection from anyone regarding Marcion’s Gospel being a subset of Lk, but that in itself does not imply any directionality. I find it interesting that you mention “opinion over fact” but then suggest that Marcion may have drawn from Q and/or Gos Heb. Given that we are much more certain of the content of Marcion’s gospel than Gos Heb, and Q is a hypothetical document ‘manufactured’ to solve a particular synoptic problem, I would say that of any of them we should be looking to see whether Marcion’s gospel works as a source for Mt and/or Lk (IMHO it does) before thinking about Gos Heb, or inventing a completely new family of documents such as the many suggested forms of Q.

           

          I believe that I have demonstrated (see https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first) that the content of Marcion’s gospel (in so much as it can be determined) is entirely consistent with it being an early version of Lk (Lk A, perhaps), and the opinions of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that it is instead a later ‘cut down’ Lk are based entirely on their inability to even consider that Lk (or any of the other gospels) might have gone various stages of development or interpolation. I would very much welcome comment from anyone regarding holes in my arguments on this point. Regarding the naming, on my website I use ‘Mcg’ as a short form of ‘Marcion’s Gospel’ (I can’t use just ‘M’ because we use that for Mark, and don’t want to use ‘Mcn’ [per Klinghardt] in order to allow for McRom, McGal, etc. later), but have refrained from using ‘LkA’ even though, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate.

           

          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

           

          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
          Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:28 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

           

          ((((
          In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion who created it,
          )))))

          To disagree with ante-nicean witnesses of the contents of Mcn without an ante-Nicean manuscript is to rely on opion over fact. If you have manuscript evidence of a Gospel that predates Luke that was not written by Marcion, then why are we even calling it Marcion's Gospel? Whatever Marcion put together, it could not possibly be a source to Luke. Perhaps one can make a case that Marcion shortened what Luke used as a source (Q, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, etc) instead of shortening Luke, if the early witnesses we have from Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc had not seen the contents of such an alleged source. But it is probably safe to say that Marcion's Gospel was a subset of Luke.

          It is probably also safe to say that if Luke had a source (such as Q, or The Gospel According to the Hebrews or something else [and perhaps Q=The Gospel According to the Hebrews]), it is also possible that what you are seeing in what is identified as "Mcn" may have simply drawn from that same source [Q,GAH,etc], and not be Luke's source.

          J. Vie1._,_.___

        • jovial1000
          Marcion lives early 2nd century. The Gospels , including Luke, were all in circulation before he was born. So Marcion was not the source of Luke s Gospel.
          Message 4 of 29 , Oct 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            Marcion lives early 2nd century.  The Gospels , including Luke, were all in circulation before he was born.  So Marcion was not the source of Luke's Gospel.



            ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

            In response to J. Viel: I don’t believe I disagree with the witnesses to any significant degree. Basically, there is no disagreement that what Marcion had was approximately 25% shorter than what we know as Lk, and did not have any of Lk 1-2, or virtually all of Lk 3. What disagreement there is, is due largely to differences in interpreting the comments of Tertullian and Epiphanius. I don’t think there’s any objection from anyone regarding Marcion’s Gospel being a subset of Lk, but that in itself does not imply any directionality. I find it interesting that you mention “opinion over fact” but then suggest that Marcion may have drawn from Q and/or Gos Heb. Given that we are much more certain of the content of Marcion’s gospel than Gos Heb, and Q is a hypothetical document ‘manufactured’ to solve a particular synoptic problem, I would say that of any of them we should be looking to see whether Marcion’s gospel works as a source for Mt and/or Lk (IMHO it does) before thinking about Gos Heb, or inventing a completely new family of documents such as the many suggested forms of Q.

             

            I believe that I have demonstrated (see https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first) that the content of Marcion’s gospel (in so much as it can be determined) is entirely consistent with it being an early version of Lk (Lk A, perhaps), and the opinions of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that it is instead a later ‘cut down’ Lk are based entirely on their inability to even consider that Lk (or any of the other gospels) might have gone various stages of development or interpolation. I would very much welcome comment from anyone regarding holes in my arguments on this point. Regarding the naming, on my website I use ‘Mcg’ as a short form of ‘Marcion’s Gospel’ (I can’t use just ‘M’ because we use that for Mark, and don’t want to use ‘Mcn’ [per Klinghardt] in order to allow for McRom, McGal, etc. later), but have refrained from using ‘LkA’ even though, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate.

             

            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

             

            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
            Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:28 AM
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

             

            ((((
            In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion who created it,
            )))))

            To disagree with ante-nicean witnesses of the contents of Mcn without an ante-Nicean manuscript is to rely on opion over fact. If you have manuscript evidence of a Gospel that predates Luke that was not written by Marcion, then why are we even calling it Marcion's Gospel? Whatever Marcion put together, it could not possibly be a source to Luke. Perhaps one can make a case that Marcion shortened what Luke used as a source (Q, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, etc) instead of shortening Luke, if the early witnesses we have from Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc had not seen the contents of such an alleged source. But it is probably safe to say that Marcion's Gospel was a subset of Luke.

            It is probably also safe to say that if Luke had a source (such as Q, or The Gospel According to the Hebrews or something else [and perhaps Q=The Gospel According to the Hebrews]), it is also possible that what you are seeing in what is identified as "Mcn" may have simply drawn from that same source [Q,GAH,etc], and not be Luke's source.

            J. Vie1._,_.___

          • David Inglis
            I have not anywhere suggested that Marcion was the source of Luke’s Gospel, not do I believe it. What I (and others) are suggesting is that Marcion had
            Message 5 of 29 , Oct 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment

              I have not anywhere suggested that Marcion was the source of Luke’s Gospel, not do I believe it. What I (and others) are suggesting is that Marcion had access to a shorter version of Lk that pre-dates canonical Lk (e.g. LkA), and promoted that is being the ‘original’ version of that gospel. How, when, and where, Marcion came across it is of course unknown.

               

              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

               

              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
              Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:32 AM
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
               

              Marcion lives early 2nd century.  The Gospels , including Luke, were all in circulation before he was born.  So Marcion was not the source of Luke's Gospel.

              ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

              In response to J. Viel: I don’t believe I disagree with the witnesses to any significant degree. Basically, there is no disagreement that what Marcion had was approximately 25% shorter than what we know as Lk, and did not have any of Lk 1-2, or virtually all of Lk 3. What disagreement there is, is due largely to differences in interpreting the comments of Tertullian and Epiphanius. I don’t think there’s any objection from anyone regarding Marcion’s Gospel being a subset of Lk, but that in itself does not imply any directionality. I find it interesting that you mention “opinion over fact” but then suggest that Marcion may have drawn from Q and/or Gos Heb. Given that we are much more certain of the content of Marcion’s gospel than Gos Heb, and Q is a hypothetical document ‘manufactured’ to solve a particular synoptic problem, I would say that of any of them we should be looking to see whether Marcion’s gospel works as a source for Mt and/or Lk (IMHO it does) before thinking about Gos Heb, or inventing a completely new family of documents such as the many suggested forms of Q. 

              I believe that I have demonstrated (see https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first) that the content of Marcion’s gospel (in so much as it can be determined) is entirely consistent with it being an early version of Lk (Lk A, perhaps), and the opinions of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that it is instead a later ‘cut down’ Lk are based entirely on their inability to even consider that Lk (or any of the other gospels) might have gone various stages of development or interpolation. I would very much welcome comment from anyone regarding holes in my arguments on this point. Regarding the naming, on my website I use ‘Mcg’ as a short form of ‘Marcion’s Gospel’ (I can’t use just ‘M’ because we use that for Mark, and don’t want to use ‘Mcn’ [per Klinghardt] in order to allow for McRom, McGal, etc. later), but have refrained from using ‘LkA’ even though, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate. 

              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

               

              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
              Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:28 AM
              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
               

              ((((
              In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion who created it,
              )))))

              To disagree with ante-nicean witnesses of the contents of Mcn without an ante-Nicean manuscript is to rely on opion over fact. If you have manuscript evidence of a Gospel that predates Luke that was not written by Marcion, then why are we even calling it Marcion's Gospel? Whatever Marcion put together, it could not possibly be a source to Luke. Perhaps one can make a case that Marcion shortened what Luke used as a source (Q, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, etc) instead of shortening Luke, if the early witnesses we have from Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc had not seen the contents of such an alleged source. But it is probably safe to say that Marcion's Gospel was a subset of Luke.

              It is probably also safe to say that if Luke had a source (such as Q, or The Gospel According to the Hebrews or something else [and perhaps Q=The Gospel According to the Hebrews]), it is also possible that what you are seeing in what is identified as "Mcn" may have simply drawn from that same source [Q,GAH,etc], and not be Luke's source.

              J. Vie1

            • tom630965
              David It does seem to me that you are conflating two propositions: that Marcion had access to a different (and maybe earlier) Luke text from that transmitted
              Message 6 of 29 , Oct 24, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                David

                It does seem to me that you are conflating two propositions: that Marcion had access to a different (and maybe earlier) Luke text from that transmitted as canonical Luke; and that Tertullian and Irenaeus were mistaken in accusing Marcion of circulating a cut-down version of Luke. Marcion's gospel could as easily be a cut-down version of your hypothetical Luke(A), as of canonical Luke. Hence, even if we suppose that Marcion had access to a Luke(A), that is no reason to suppose that Luke(A) must have lacked chapters 1, 2 & 3 before Marcion did his business on it. Can you suggest any independent evidence to support your view that Marcion is trustworthy in his account of his method, and Tertullian is not?

                regards

                Tom

                --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
                >
                > I have not anywhere suggested that Marcion was the source of Luke’s Gospel, not do I believe it. What I (and others) are suggesting is that Marcion had access to a shorter version of Lk that pre-dates canonical Lk (e.g. LkA), and promoted that is being the ‘original’ version of that gospel. How, when, and where, Marcion came across it is of course unknown.
                >
                >
                >
                > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                >
                >
                >
                > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
                > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:32 AM
                > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                >
                > Marcion lives early 2nd century. The Gospels , including Luke, were all in circulation before he was born. So Marcion was not the source of Luke's Gospel.
                >
                > ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <davidinglis2@> wrote:
                >
                > In response to J. Viel: I don’t believe I disagree with the witnesses to any significant degree. Basically, there is no disagreement that what Marcion had was approximately 25% shorter than what we know as Lk, and did not have any of Lk 1-2, or virtually all of Lk 3. What disagreement there is, is due largely to differences in interpreting the comments of Tertullian and Epiphanius. I don’t think there’s any objection from anyone regarding Marcion’s Gospel being a subset of Lk, but that in itself does not imply any directionality. I find it interesting that you mention “opinion over fact” but then suggest that Marcion may have drawn from Q and/or Gos Heb. Given that we are much more certain of the content of Marcion’s gospel than Gos Heb, and Q is a hypothetical document ‘manufactured’ to solve a particular synoptic problem, I would say that of any of them we should be looking to see whether Marcion’s gospel works as a source for Mt and/or Lk (IMHO it does) before thinking about Gos Heb, or inventing a completely new family of documents such as the many suggested forms of Q.
                >
                > I believe that I have demonstrated (see https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first) that the content of Marcion’s gospel (in so much as it can be determined) is entirely consistent with it being an early version of Lk (Lk A, perhaps), and the opinions of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that it is instead a later ‘cut down’ Lk are based entirely on their inability to even consider that Lk (or any of the other gospels) might have gone various stages of development or interpolation. I would very much welcome comment from anyone regarding holes in my arguments on this point. Regarding the naming, on my website I use ‘Mcg’ as a short form of ‘Marcion’s Gospel’ (I can’t use just ‘M’ because we use that for Mark, and don’t want to use ‘Mcn’ [per Klinghardt] in order to allow for McRom, McGal, etc. later), but have refrained from using ‘LkA’ even though, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate.
                >
                > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                >
                >
                >
                > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@
                > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:28 AM
                > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                >
                > ((((
                > In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion who created it,
                > )))))
                >
                > To disagree with ante-nicean witnesses of the contents of Mcn without an ante-Nicean manuscript is to rely on opion over fact. If you have manuscript evidence of a Gospel that predates Luke that was not written by Marcion, then why are we even calling it Marcion's Gospel? Whatever Marcion put together, it could not possibly be a source to Luke. Perhaps one can make a case that Marcion shortened what Luke used as a source (Q, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, etc) instead of shortening Luke, if the early witnesses we have from Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc had not seen the contents of such an alleged source. But it is probably safe to say that Marcion's Gospel was a subset of Luke.
                >
                > It is probably also safe to say that if Luke had a source (such as Q, or The Gospel According to the Hebrews or something else [and perhaps Q=The Gospel According to the Hebrews]), it is also possible that what you are seeing in what is identified as "Mcn" may have simply drawn from that same source [Q,GAH,etc], and not be Luke's source.
                >
                > J. Vie1
                >
              • jovial1000
                Essentially what you are saying is that there was some sort of Pre-Marcion Script that was also Pre-Luke. For the sake of discussion, let s call this
                Message 7 of 29 , Oct 24, 2013
                • 0 Attachment

                  Essentially what you are saying is that there was some sort of Pre-Marcion Script that was also Pre-Luke. For the sake of discussion, let's call this manuscript PMS. To many people, PMS is simply that subset of Matthew or Mark that Luke USED. Some consider it Aramaic Q, or some subset thereof. Or perhaps it was some subset of the Gospel According to the Hebrews. It is impossible to prove that PMS was not a subset of one of those documents. But correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that Luke came from adding things to PMS and Marcion was a normal scribal evolution from PMS.


                   

                  We have no manuscript of the alleged PMS, and no manuscript of Marcion. We know that Marcion existed, but we don't know that PMS even existed. We can reconstruct an approximation to the content of Marcion from a few sparse quotations of his theological opponents, but that's about it. Those quotations come from late copies of manuscripts of Early Church Pioneers who disagreed with him, making their quotations less than reliable. It is probably that they did not quote him word-for-word, because they did not consider his text to be inspired , but corrupted. Perhaps the wording they specifically argued against could be considered accurately worded. But since many of them did not even take the care to quote the manuscripts they considered very important with 100% word-for-word accuracy, we should not conclude they are quoting a text they considered corrupt on a word-for-word level either. On an approximation of content level, yes, but you need a word-for-word level to really cone to the type of conclusions being proposed.


                  Secondly, we really don't have a good analysis of the textual transmission of the writings of the Early church Pioneers, one reason why I think there is a problem with trying to use their quotes to correct a manuscript for the sake of a critical reading, unless there was some extensive analysis to the text that eliminates the possibility of scribal influence. Often Jerome or others gave enough extensive analysis to make clear some wordings we don't have extant today. But I think way too much has been read into the wording of quotations in this regard.


                  The only conclusions we can really come to from quotations of Marcion is that there were some differences in how Marcion and Luke were worded. It really is not possible to prove one was more original by comparing Luke with isolated and sparse quotations of Marcion from those who disagreed with Marcion. Without a complete manuscript of Marcion, and a complete manuscript of the alleged PMS, it is really overbroad and premature to conclude that PMS even existed. Concluding Marcion came from it is overbroad and premature and contrary to the testimony of those who did have access to his manuscript.


                   



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

                  I have not anywhere suggested that Marcion was the source of Luke’s Gospel, not do I believe it. What I (and others) are suggesting is that Marcion had access to a shorter version of Lk that pre-dates canonical Lk (e.g. LkA), and promoted that is being the ‘original’ version of that gospel. How, when, and where, Marcion came across it is of course unknown.

                   

                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                   

                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
                  Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 3:32 AM
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                   

                  Marcion lives early 2nd century.  The Gospels , including Luke, were all in circulation before he was born.  So Marcion was not the source of Luke's Gospel.

                  ---In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, <davidinglis2@...> wrote:

                  In response to J. Viel: I don’t believe I disagree with the witnesses to any significant degree. Basically, there is no disagreement that what Marcion had was approximately 25% shorter than what we know as Lk, and did not have any of Lk 1-2, or virtually all of Lk 3. What disagreement there is, is due largely to differences in interpreting the comments of Tertullian and Epiphanius. I don’t think there’s any objection from anyone regarding Marcion’s Gospel being a subset of Lk, but that in itself does not imply any directionality. I find it interesting that you mention “opinion over fact” but then suggest that Marcion may have drawn from Q and/or Gos Heb. Given that we are much more certain of the content of Marcion’s gospel than Gos Heb, and Q is a hypothetical document ‘manufactured’ to solve a particular synoptic problem, I would say that of any of them we should be looking to see whether Marcion’s gospel works as a source for Mt and/or Lk (IMHO it does) before thinking about Gos Heb, or inventing a completely new family of documents such as the many suggested forms of Q. 

                  I believe that I have demonstrated (see https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/marcion/did-mcg-or-mt-come-first) that the content of Marcion’s gospel (in so much as it can be determined) is entirely consistent with it being an early version of Lk (Lk A, perhaps), and the opinions of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that it is instead a later ‘cut down’ Lk are based entirely on their inability to even consider that Lk (or any of the other gospels) might have gone various stages of development or interpolation. I would very much welcome comment from anyone regarding holes in my arguments on this point. Regarding the naming, on my website I use ‘Mcg’ as a short form of ‘Marcion’s Gospel’ (I can’t use just ‘M’ because we use that for Mark, and don’t want to use ‘Mcn’ [per Klinghardt] in order to allow for McRom, McGal, etc. later), but have refrained from using ‘LkA’ even though, in my opinion, it is entirely appropriate. 

                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                   

                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
                  Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 4:28 AM
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                   

                  ((((
                  In the 8 years I have spent looking into the relationship between Mcn and Lk, I have not been able to find ANY textual evidence to support the opinions of Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. that Mcn was created by Marcion taking Lk and removing approximately 25% of the text, while adding virtually nothing. Instead, all the textual evidence points in the other direction, i.e. that Mcn came before Lk (and looks very much like an early version of Lk), and it was NOT Marcion who created it,
                  )))))

                  To disagree with ante-nicean witnesses of the contents of Mcn without an ante-Nicean manuscript is to rely on opion over fact. If you have manuscript evidence of a Gospel that predates Luke that was not written by Marcion, then why are we even calling it Marcion's Gospel? Whatever Marcion put together, it could not possibly be a source to Luke. Perhaps one can make a case that Marcion shortened what Luke used as a source (Q, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, etc) instead of shortening Luke, if the early witnesses we have from Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc had not seen the contents of such an alleged source. But it is probably safe to say that Marcion's Gospel was a subset of Luke.

                  It is probably also safe to say that if Luke had a source (such as Q, or The Gospel According to the Hebrews or something else [and perhaps Q=The Gospel According to the Hebrews]), it is also possible that what you are seeing in what is identified as "Mcn" may have simply drawn from that same source [Q,GAH,etc], and not be Luke's source.

                  J. Vie1

                • David Inglis
                  Tom: Taking your second point first, Marcion was not accused of circulating a cut-down version of Lk, but of actually creating the cut-down version by
                  Message 8 of 29 , Oct 24, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment

                    Tom: Taking your second point first, Marcion was not accused of circulating a cut-down version of Lk, but of actually creating the cut-down version by ‘adulterating’ canonical Lk. Instead, I (and others) are the ones suggesting that Marcion circulated a different, earlier, cut-down version of Lk. My example designation ‘LkA’ may suggest the earliest version of Lk, but I’m quite happy with suggesting that Marcion’s gospel was LkB, created by editing LkA. The reality is that we know (to a large extent) the content of Marcion’s gospel, and we know the content of canonical Lk, but we don’t have any information regarding even earlier versions, how many there were, or what their content might have been.

                     

                    It is, of course, true that there MIGHT have been a version of Lk prior to Marcion’s version that contained all of Lk 1-3, or indeed, might have contained additional material that is in neither Marcion’s version nor canonical Lk, but that seems to me to be pure speculation, and hence not worth spending time over. With regard to who was more trustworthy, I don’t distrust either Marcion or Tertullian. What I do believe is that Tertullian (and Irenaeus, with his insistence that there could be only 4 gospels) were a product of their time, and could not remotely accept (like plenty of Christians still today) that the gospels might have existed in different versions. Given that, what else could they say about the gospel that Marcion was promoting, except that he must have created it?

                     

                    David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                     

                    From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tom630965
                    Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:29 PM
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                     

                    David

                    It does seem to me that you are conflating two propositions: that Marcion had access to a different (and maybe earlier) Luke text from that transmitted as canonical Luke; and that Tertullian and Irenaeus were mistaken in accusing Marcion of circulating a cut-down version of Luke. Marcion's gospel could as easily be a cut-down version of your hypothetical Luke(A), as of canonical Luke. Hence, even if we suppose that Marcion had access to a Luke(A), that is no reason to suppose that Luke(A) must have lacked chapters 1, 2 & 3 before Marcion did his business on it. Can you suggest any independent evidence to support your view that Marcion is trustworthy in his account of his method, and Tertullian is not?

                    regards

                    Tom

                    --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I have not anywhere suggested that Marcion was the source of Luke’s Gospel, not do I believe it. What I (and others) are suggesting is that Marcion had access to a shorter version of Lk that pre-dates canonical Lk (e.g. LkA), and promoted that is being the ‘original’ version of that gospel. How, when, and where, Marcion came across it is of course unknown.
                    >
                    > David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                  • David Inglis
                    Joe(?), I’m not quite sure what points you are trying to make here. Surely we KNOW that what you are calling PMS existed, if all you are saying that it was
                    Message 9 of 29 , Oct 25, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Joe(?), I’m not quite sure what points you are trying to make here.  Surely we KNOW that what you are calling PMS existed, if all you are saying that it was one or more items of source material, e.g. Mk. If not, what do you really mean by PMS? Also, I do not understand your distinction between “adding things to PMS” and “normal scribal evolution.” If you are suggesting that the latter is basically just revising existing text but not adding anything new, then I take your point that we don’t know what Marcion may or may not have done to his source material (Sondergut Marcion?). For example, 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. This is one of the reasons I refer to Marcion’s gospel as ‘Mcg’ and the author as ‘aMcg,’ to try to avoid the unspoken assumption that it was Marcion who actually created it, rather than possibly just promoted it. In exactly the same way, I don’t refer to ‘Luke’ as the author of ‘Luke.’ Apart from the ambiguity, it precludes the possibility of multiple different authors, each working on different versions, possibly with ‘Luke’ only having added the finishing touches.

                       

                      Re. the veracity of quotes, references, allusions, etc., we are in no worse position with regard to Marcion than any other biblical author. This surely is one of the things that NT dating is based on, e.g. “Father X has a quotation/allusion to/whatever to Y, therefore Y must have been in existence by Z.” Even though we cannot be 100% certain that ANY of the ‘quotations’ from the fathers are completely accurate, we construct hypotheses around what we believe to be the case, and only revise our hypotheses if, on being tested, they are found to be unworkable, or contradictory evidence comes to light. At that point we may well go back to our assumptions (e.g. about the accuracy of quotes) and revise them.

                       

                      However, if you are saying that we can’t draw conclusions from what Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, etc. report about Marcion, then we can’t draw conclusions from what any of the fathers reported about anyone or any text. This is clearly unworkable, so we do what we always do: draw conclusions based on the evidence we are presented with, and then test the viability of those conclusions. In my case, my basic conclusions are that Marcion’s gospel appears to be an earlier version of Lk (I am not stating whether it is the earliest or an intermediate version) that was seen by both aMt and aLk, and can take the place of Q in the synoptic problem. This is not a new conclusion, but I believe that some of the details I have presented on my website are new. Therefore, I am asking for comment on the validity of my results, based on the evidence I have presented.

                       

                      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                       

                      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
                      Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:14 PM
                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                       

                      Essentially what you are saying is that there was some sort of Pre-Marcion Script that was also Pre-Luke. For the sake of discussion, let's call this manuscript PMS. To many people, PMS is simply that subset of Matthew or Mark that Luke USED. Some consider it Aramaic Q, or some subset thereof. Or perhaps it was some subset of the Gospel According to the Hebrews. It is impossible to prove that PMS was not a subset of one of those documents. But correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that Luke came from adding things to PMS and Marcion was a normal scribal evolution from PMS.

                      We have no manuscript of the alleged PMS, and no manuscript of Marcion. We know that Marcion existed, but we don't know that PMS even existed. We can reconstruct an approximation to the content of Marcion from a few sparse quotations of his theological opponents, but that's about it. Those quotations come from late copies of manuscripts of Early Church Pioneers who disagreed with him, making their quotations less than reliable. It is probably that they did not quote him word-for-word, because they did not consider his text to be inspired , but corrupted. Perhaps the wording they specifically argued against could be considered accurately worded. But since many of them did not even take the care to quote the manuscripts they considered very important with 100% word-for-word accuracy, we should not conclude they are quoting a text they considered corrupt on a word-for-word level either. On an approximation of content level, yes, but you need a word-for-word level to really cone to the type of conclusions being proposed.

                      Secondly, we really don't have a good analysis of the textual transmission of the writings of the Early church Pioneers, one reason why I think there is a problem with trying to use their quotes to correct a manuscript for the sake of a critical reading, unless there was some extensive analysis to the text that eliminates the possibility of scribal influence. Often Jerome or others gave enough extensive analysis to make clear some wordings we don't have extant today. But I think way too much has been read into the wording of quotations in this regard.

                      The only conclusions we can really come to from quotations of Marcion is that there were some differences in how Marcion and Luke were worded. It really is not possible to prove one was more original by comparing Luke with isolated and sparse quotations of Marcion from those who disagreed with Marcion. Without a complete manuscript of Marcion, and a complete manuscript of the alleged PMS, it is really overbroad and premature to conclude that PMS even existed. Concluding Marcion came from it is overbroad and premature and contrary to the testimony of those who did have access to his manuscript.

                    • Tommy Wasserman
                      David Inglis, Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals? If so, please provide references. Tommy Wasserman ... David Inglis,
                      Message 10 of 29 , Oct 25, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David Inglis,

                        Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals? If so, please provide references.

                        Tommy Wasserman

                        25 okt 2013 kl. 19:11 skrev "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...>:

                         

                        Joe(?), I’m not quite sure what points you are trying to make here.  Surely we KNOW that what you are calling PMS existed, if all you are saying that it was one or more items of source material, e.g. Mk. If not, what do you really mean by PMS? Also, I do not understand your distinction between “adding things to PMS” and “normal scribal evolution.” If you are suggesting that the latter is basically just revising existing text but not adding anything new, then I take your point that we don’t know what Marcion may or may not have done to his source material (Sondergut Marcion?). For example, 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. This is one of the reasons I refer to Marcion’s gospel as ‘Mcg’ and the author as ‘aMcg,’ to try to avoid the unspoken assumption that it was Marcion who actually created it, rather than possibly just promoted it. In exactly the same way, I don’t refer to ‘Luke’ as the author of ‘Luke.’ Apart from the ambiguity, it precludes the possibility of multiple different authors, each working on different versions, possibly with ‘Luke’ only having added the finishing touches.

                         

                        Re. the veracity of quotes, references, allusions, etc., we are in no worse position with regard to Marcion than any other biblical author. This surely is one of the things that NT dating is based on, e.g. “Father X has a quotation/allusion to/whatever to Y, therefore Y must have been in existence by Z.” Even though we cannot be 100% certain that ANY of the ‘quotations’ from the fathers are completely accurate, we construct hypotheses around what we believe to be the case, and only revise our hypotheses if, on being tested, they are found to be unworkable, or contradictory evidence comes to light. At that point we may well go back to our assumptions (e.g. about the accuracy of quotes) and revise them.

                         

                        However, if you are saying that we can’t draw conclusions from what Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, etc. report about Marcion, then we can’t draw conclusions from what any of the fathers reported about anyone or any text. This is clearly unworkable, so we do what we always do: draw conclusions based on the evidence we are presented with, and then test the viability of those conclusions. In my case, my basic conclusions are that Marcion’s gospel appears to be an earlier version of Lk (I am not stating whether it is the earliest or an intermediate version) that was seen by both aMt and aLk, and can take the place of Q in the synoptic problem. This is not a new conclusion, but I believe that some of the details I have presented on my website are new. Therefore, I am asking for comment on the validity of my results, based on the evidence I have presented.

                         

                        David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                         

                        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
                        Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:14 PM
                        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                         

                        Essentially what you are saying is that there was some sort of Pre-Marcion Script that was also Pre-Luke. For the sake of discussion, let's call this manuscript PMS. To many people, PMS is simply that subset of Matthew or Mark that Luke USED. Some consider it Aramaic Q, or some subset thereof. Or perhaps it was some subset of the Gospel According to the Hebrews. It is impossible to prove that PMS was not a subset of one of those documents. But correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that Luke came from adding things to PMS and Marcion was a normal scribal evolution from PMS.

                        We have no manuscript of the alleged PMS, and no manuscript of Marcion. We know that Marcion existed, but we don't know that PMS even existed. We can reconstruct an approximation to the content of Marcion from a few sparse quotations of his theological opponents, but that's about it. Those quotations come from late copies of manuscripts of Early Church Pioneers who disagreed with him, making their quotations less than reliable. It is probably that they did not quote him word-for-word, because they did not consider his text to be inspired , but corrupted. Perhaps the wording they specifically argued against could be considered accurately worded. But since many of them did not even take the care to quote the manuscripts they considered very important with 100% word-for-word accuracy, we should not conclude they are quoting a text they considered corrupt on a word-for-word level either. On an approximation of content level, yes, but you need a word-for-word level to really cone to the type of conclusions being proposed.

                        Secondly, we really don't have a good analysis of the textual transmission of the writings of the Early church Pioneers, one reason why I think there is a problem with trying to use their quotes to correct a manuscript for the sake of a critical reading, unless there was some extensive analysis to the text that eliminates the possibility of scribal influence. Often Jerome or others gave enough extensive analysis to make clear some wordings we don't have extant today. But I think way too much has been read into the wording of quotations in this regard.

                        The only conclusions we can really come to from quotations of Marcion is that there were some differences in how Marcion and Luke were worded. It really is not possible to prove one was more original by comparing Luke with isolated and sparse quotations of Marcion from those who disagreed with Marcion. Without a complete manuscript of Marcion, and a complete manuscript of the alleged PMS, it is really overbroad and premature to conclude that PMS even existed. Concluding Marcion came from it is overbroad and premature and contrary to the testimony of those who did have access to his manuscript.

                      • David Inglis
                        Tommy, no, I have not. The closest I came to even consider doing it was with my stylistic analysis of the synoptics (here
                        Message 11 of 29 , Oct 25, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment

                          Tommy, no, I have not. The closest I came to even consider doing it was with my stylistic analysis of the synoptics (here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem/stylometric-anal), and as my Marcion analysis runs to nearly 300 pages as a (landscape!) Word doc then it’s way too long anyway, I assume.

                           

                          David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                           

                          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
                          Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 11:11 AM
                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                           

                           

                          David Inglis,

                           

                          Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals? If so, please provide references.

                          Tommy Wasserman



                        • Ehrman, Bart D
                          I have not been following this conversation closely, but I do want to mention, in case others don’t know, that a full, exhaustive, and compelling of
                          Message 12 of 29 , Oct 25, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment

                                  I have not been following this conversation closely, but I do want to mention, in case others don’t know, that a full, exhaustive, and compelling of Marcion’s Euggelion has been written by Dieter Roth as his dissertation at Edinburgh, to be published by Brill eventually.   And an English translation of Marcion’s Gospel is soon to be published by Jason BeDuhn based on his own analysis (with copious notes explaining his textual decisions), with Polebridge Press.

                             

                            -          Bart Ehrman

                             

                            Bart D. Ehrman

                            James A. Gray Professor

                            Department of Religious Studies

                            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                             

                            Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                            At www.ehrmanblog.org

                             

                             

                             

                            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis
                            Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 6:33 PM
                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                             

                             

                            Tommy, no, I have not. The closest I came to even consider doing it was with my stylistic analysis of the synoptics (here https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonmarcion/Home/the-synoptic-problem/stylometric-anal), and as my Marcion analysis runs to nearly 300 pages as a (landscape!) Word doc then it’s way too long anyway, I assume.

                             

                            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                             

                            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
                            Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 11:11 AM
                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                             

                             

                            David Inglis,

                             

                            Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals? If so, please provide references.

                            Tommy Wasserman




                          • David Inglis
                            In reply to Professor Ehrman: Could you please confirm whether this is the book you refer to below: SCHOLARS TO ASSESS EARLIER VERSION OF NEW TESTAMENT AT
                            Message 13 of 29 , Oct 25, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment

                              In reply to Professor Ehrman:

                              Could you please confirm whether this is the book you refer to below:

                               

                              SCHOLARS TO ASSESS EARLIER VERSION OF NEW TESTAMENT AT WESTAR INSTITUTE CONFERENCE (http://www.westarinstitute.org/events/westar-fall-meeting-2013/  )

                              Religion scholars will assess a recently reconstructed version of the New Testament that pre-dates the canonical version on October 23–26, at the Westar Fall 2013 Meeting in Santa Rosa, California, the Institute announced.

                              The early church took hundreds of years to decide which books should be included in the Bible. The first recorded list of the exact twenty-seven books found in the modern New Testament was written by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE. But an early church leader known as Marcion endorsed a shorter version of Luke and a collection of Paul’s letters around 144 CE more than 200 years earlier. “Historians of Christianity widely acknowledge that Marcion of Pontus (circa 95–165 CE) compiled the first authoritative collection of distinctly Christian writings,” writes Guggenheim fellow Jason BeDuhn, “Yet this first New Testament has never been published in English, nor for that matter in any modern language.”

                              BeDuhn, Professor of the Comparative Study of Religions at Northern Arizona University, has reconstructed Marcion’s New Testament from references left behind in the scathing commentaries written by Marcion’s enemies. The reconstruction appears in BeDuhn’s forthcoming book The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon (Polebridge, 2013). BeDuhn will present “Marcion: Forgotten ‘Father’ and Inventor of the New Testament” on Thursday, October 24 from 1–3:30 p.m.

                              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                               

                              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
                              Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:56 PM
                              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                               

                              I have not been following this conversation closely, but I do want to mention, in case others don’t know, that a full, exhaustive, and compelling of Marcion’s Euggelion has been written by Dieter Roth as his dissertation at Edinburgh, to be published by Brill eventually.   And an English translation of Marcion’s Gospel is soon to be published by Jason BeDuhn based on his own analysis (with copious notes explaining his textual decisions), with Polebridge Press. 

                              -          Bart Ehrman 

                              Bart D. Ehrman

                              James A. Gray Professor

                              Department of Religious Studies

                              University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

                              Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                              At www.ehrmanblog.org

                            • jovial1000
                              (((( 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. (((( could he be the actual
                              Message 14 of 29 , Oct 25, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment

                                ((((

                                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.

                                 

                                ((((

                                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.

                                 

                                ((((

                                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?

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                 



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

                                Joe(?), I’m not quite sure what points you are trying to make here.  Surely we KNOW that what you are calling PMS existed, if all you are saying that it was one or more items of source material, e.g. Mk. If not, what do you really mean by PMS? Also, I do not understand your distinction between “adding things to PMS” and “normal scribal evolution.” If you are suggesting that the latter is basically just revising existing text but not adding anything new, then I take your point that we don’t know what Marcion may or may not have done to his source material (Sondergut Marcion?). For example, 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. This is one of the reasons I refer to Marcion’s gospel as ‘Mcg’ and the author as ‘aMcg,’ to try to avoid the unspoken assumption that it was Marcion who actually created it, rather than possibly just promoted it. In exactly the same way, I don’t refer to ‘Luke’ as the author of ‘Luke.’ Apart from the ambiguity, it precludes the possibility of multiple different authors, each working on different versions, possibly with ‘Luke’ only having added the finishing touches.

                                 

                                Re. the veracity of quotes, references, allusions, etc., we are in no worse position with regard to Marcion than any other biblical author. This surely is one of the things that NT dating is based on, e.g. “Father X has a quotation/allusion to/whatever to Y, therefore Y must have been in existence by Z.” Even though we cannot be 100% certain that ANY of the ‘quotations’ from the fathers are completely accurate, we construct hypotheses around what we believe to be the case, and only revise our hypotheses if, on being tested, they are found to be unworkable, or contradictory evidence comes to light. At that point we may well go back to our assumptions (e.g. about the accuracy of quotes) and revise them.

                                 

                                However, if you are saying that we can’t draw conclusions from what Tertullian, Epiphanius, Irenaeus, etc. report about Marcion, then we can’t draw conclusions from what any of the fathers reported about anyone or any text. This is clearly unworkable, so we do what we always do: draw conclusions based on the evidence we are presented with, and then test the viability of those conclusions. In my case, my basic conclusions are that Marcion’s gospel appears to be an earlier version of Lk (I am not stating whether it is the earliest or an intermediate version) that was seen by both aMt and aLk, and can take the place of Q in the synoptic problem. This is not a new conclusion, but I believe that some of the details I have presented on my website are new. Therefore, I am asking for comment on the validity of my results, based on the evidence I have presented.

                                 

                                David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                                 

                                From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jovial@...
                                Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:14 PM
                                To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                                 

                                Essentially what you are saying is that there was some sort of Pre-Marcion Script that was also Pre-Luke. For the sake of discussion, let's call this manuscript PMS. To many people, PMS is simply that subset of Matthew or Mark that Luke USED. Some consider it Aramaic Q, or some subset thereof. Or perhaps it was some subset of the Gospel According to the Hebrews. It is impossible to prove that PMS was not a subset of one of those documents. But correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that Luke came from adding things to PMS and Marcion was a normal scribal evolution from PMS.

                                We have no manuscript of the alleged PMS, and no manuscript of Marcion. We know that Marcion existed, but we don't know that PMS even existed. We can reconstruct an approximation to the content of Marcion from a few sparse quotations of his theological opponents, but that's about it. Those quotations come from late copies of manuscripts of Early Church Pioneers who disagreed with him, making their quotations less than reliable. It is probably that they did not quote him word-for-word, because they did not consider his text to be inspired , but corrupted. Perhaps the wording they specifically argued against could be considered accurately worded. But since many of them did not even take the care to quote the manuscripts they considered very important with 100% word-for-word accuracy, we should not conclude they are quoting a text they considered corrupt on a word-for-word level either. On an approximation of content level, yes, but you need a word-for-word level to really cone to the type of conclusions being proposed.

                                Secondly, we really don't have a good analysis of the textual transmission of the writings of the Early church Pioneers, one reason why I think there is a problem with trying to use their quotes to correct a manuscript for the sake of a critical reading, unless there was some extensive analysis to the text that eliminates the possibility of scribal influence. Often Jerome or others gave enough extensive analysis to make clear some wordings we don't have extant today. But I think way too much has been read into the wording of quotations in this regard.

                                The only conclusions we can really come to from quotations of Marcion is that there were some differences in how Marcion and Luke were worded. It really is not possible to prove one was more original by comparing Luke with isolated and sparse quotations of Marcion from those who disagreed with Marcion. Without a complete manuscript of Marcion, and a complete manuscript of the alleged PMS, it is really overbroad and premature to conclude that PMS even existed. Concluding Marcion came from it is overbroad and premature and contrary to the testimony of those who did have access to his manuscript.

                              • Ehrman, Bart D
                                Yes, that’s the book. Bart D. Ehrman James A. Gray Professor Department of Religious Studies University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Please Join My New
                                Message 15 of 29 , Oct 26, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment

                                      Yes, that’s the book.

                                   

                                  Bart D. Ehrman

                                  James A. Gray Professor

                                  Department of Religious Studies

                                  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                                   

                                  Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                                  At www.ehrmanblog.org

                                   

                                   

                                   

                                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Inglis
                                  Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:09 PM
                                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                                   

                                   

                                  In reply to Professor Ehrman:

                                  Could you please confirm whether this is the book you refer to below:

                                   

                                  SCHOLARS TO ASSESS EARLIER VERSION OF NEW TESTAMENT AT WESTAR INSTITUTE CONFERENCE (http://www.westarinstitute.org/events/westar-fall-meeting-2013/  )

                                  Religion scholars will assess a recently reconstructed version of the New Testament that pre-dates the canonical version on October 23–26, at the Westar Fall 2013 Meeting in Santa Rosa, California, the Institute announced.

                                  The early church took hundreds of years to decide which books should be included in the Bible. The first recorded list of the exact twenty-seven books found in the modern New Testament was written by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE. But an early church leader known as Marcion endorsed a shorter version of Luke and a collection of Paul’s letters around 144 CE more than 200 years earlier. “Historians of Christianity widely acknowledge that Marcion of Pontus (circa 95–165 CE) compiled the first authoritative collection of distinctly Christian writings,” writes Guggenheim fellow Jason BeDuhn, “Yet this first New Testament has never been published in English, nor for that matter in any modern language.”

                                  BeDuhn, Professor of the Comparative Study of Religions at Northern Arizona University, has reconstructed Marcion’s New Testament from references left behind in the scathing commentaries written by Marcion’s enemies. The reconstruction appears in BeDuhn’s forthcoming book The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon (Polebridge, 2013). BeDuhn will present “Marcion: Forgotten ‘Father’ and Inventor of the New Testament” on Thursday, October 24 from 1–3:30 p.m.

                                  David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                                   

                                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
                                  Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:56 PM
                                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                  Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                                   

                                  I have not been following this conversation closely, but I do want to mention, in case others don’t know, that a full, exhaustive, and compelling of Marcion’s Euggelion has been written by Dieter Roth as his dissertation at Edinburgh, to be published by Brill eventually.   And an English translation of Marcion’s Gospel is soon to be published by Jason BeDuhn based on his own analysis (with copious notes explaining his textual decisions), with Polebridge Press. 

                                  -          Bart Ehrman 

                                  Bart D. Ehrman

                                  James A. Gray Professor

                                  Department of Religious Studies

                                  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

                                  Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                                  At www.ehrmanblog.org

                                • David Inglis
                                  Please see my additional comments below: (***) David Inglis From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Oct 26, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment

                                    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.

                                  • Mike Ferrando
                                    THE MYTH, slain so many times in the past (by the Fathers as well as facts, scholars, near and far) just keeps being revived by the faithful. Muratori
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Oct 26, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      THE MYTH, slain so many times in the past (by the Fathers as well as facts, scholars, near and far) just keeps being revived by the faithful.

                                      Muratori published the fragment in 1740.

                                      >>The early church took hundreds of years to decide which books should be included in the Bible. The first recorded list of the exact twenty-seven books found in the modern New Testament was written by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE.

                                      -mike


                                      From: David Inglis <davidinglis2@...>
                                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 9:08 PM
                                      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel



                                      In reply to Professor Ehrman:
                                      Could you please confirm whether this is the book you refer to below:
                                       
                                      SCHOLARS TO ASSESS EARLIER VERSION OF NEW TESTAMENT AT WESTAR INSTITUTE CONFERENCE (http://www.westarinstitute.org/events/westar-fall-meeting-2013/  )
                                      Religion scholars will assess a recently reconstructed version of the New Testament that pre-dates the canonical version on October 23–26, at the Westar Fall 2013 Meeting in Santa Rosa, California, the Institute announced.
                                      The early church took hundreds of years to decide which books should be included in the Bible. The first recorded list of the exact twenty-seven books found in the modern New Testament was written by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 CE. But an early church leader known as Marcion endorsed a shorter version of Luke and a collection of Paul’s letters around 144 CE more than 200 years earlier. “Historians of Christianity widely acknowledge that Marcion of Pontus (circa 95–165 CE) compiled the first authoritative collection of distinctly Christian writings,” writes Guggenheim fellow Jason BeDuhn, “Yet this first New Testament has never been published in English, nor for that matter in any modern language.”
                                      BeDuhn, Professor of the Comparative Study of Religions at Northern Arizona University, has reconstructed Marcion’s New Testament from references left behind in the scathing commentaries written by Marcion’s enemies. The reconstruction appears in BeDuhn’s forthcoming book The First New Testament: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon (Polebridge, 2013). BeDuhn will present “Marcion: Forgotten ‘Father’ and Inventor of the New Testament” on Thursday, October 24 from 1–3:30 p.m.
                                      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA
                                       
                                      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
                                      Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 3:56 PM
                                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel
                                       
                                      I have not been following this conversation closely, but I do want to mention, in case others don’t know, that a full, exhaustive, and compelling of Marcion’s Euggelion has been written by Dieter Roth as his dissertation at Edinburgh, to be published by Brill eventually.   And an English translation of Marcion’s Gospel is soon to be published by Jason BeDuhn based on his own analysis (with copious notes explaining his textual decisions), with Polebridge Press. 
                                      -          Bart Ehrman 
                                      Bart D. Ehrman
                                      James A. Gray Professor
                                      Department of Religious Studies
                                      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
                                      Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog




                                    • jovial1000
                                      ((((((( *** 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
                                      Message 18 of 29 , 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.

                                      • Tommy Wasserman
                                        In the midst of debates where various claims are made, here is a very thoughtful blogpost by Larry Hurtado on the value of peer review as related to Biblical
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In the midst of debates where various claims are made, here is a very thoughtful blogpost by Larry Hurtado on the value of peer review as related to Biblical studies scholarship, i.e., also applicable to the discipline of textual criticism.

                                          http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/peer-review-and-biblical-studies-scholarship/

                                          Tommy Wasserman


                                          On Monday, October 28, 2013 12:23 PM, "jovial@..." <jovial@...> wrote:
                                           
                                           (((((((
                                          *** 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.


                                        • David Inglis
                                          Tommy Wasserman recently asked me on this list: “Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals?” (Simple answer: No, but see
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment

                                            Tommy Wasserman recently asked me on this list: “Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals?” (Simple answer: No, but see below)  I should perhaps have asked him why he was asking, because it appears that the issue is important to him, as indicated by the newer post below. I suspect (and would be happy to be wrong) that my answer makes him less likely to want to even begin to engage any of the work I have presented on my website.

                                             

                                            Having read the blogpost mentioned below, I find the comments at least as valuable as the post itself, and recommend that everyone reading the post should also read all the comments, since they make some good additional points. However, perhaps the most interesting point to me is in Larry Hurtado’s original post itself, where he writes: “This peer review takes place in a variety of ways.  It may well commence with sending one’s essay or other written work to another scholar for comment and critique.  It may also involve presentation of one’s work in a conference or seminar where other scholars are present to comment.  Indeed, often these seminars may involve the work being provided to other scholars in advance, so that they have the chance to check data, etc., and so come better prepared to engage the work.”

                                             

                                            Although I haven’t been asked (and don’t expect) to present my work at a seminar, doesn’t asking people on this list to critique my work count as “being provided to other scholars?” In other words, doesn’t this list also act as a form of peer review? If so, then to paraphrase Tommy Wasserman, I “have published my research in a peer-reviewed forum.” Now, although I have no scholarly credentials, I believe that by at least one definition (A specialist in a given branch of knowledge) I can claim to be a scholar. Also, I do believe that a ‘fresh face’ from a different discipline can sometimes see things that others may have missed. Of course, someone other than I has to decide whether that’s true in my case, but my continued acceptance on this list (and its predecessor) for the last 10 years suggests that at least some people find my contributions worth having.

                                             

                                            So, I will now ask Tommy Wasserman the question: Why did you ask whether I had published my research?

                                             

                                            David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                                             

                                            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
                                            Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:03 AM
                                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                                             

                                             

                                            In the midst of debates where various claims are made, here is a very thoughtful blogpost by Larry Hurtado on the value of peer review as related to Biblical studies scholarship, i.e., also applicable to the discipline of textual criticism.

                                             

                                             

                                            Tommy Wasserman

                                          • Tommy Wasserman
                                            David, I think it is an excellent opportunity to be able to express and test your ideas on a discussion list like this. As a student I joined a list like this,
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              David,

                                              I think it is an excellent opportunity to be able to express and test your ideas on a discussion list like this. 

                                              As a student I joined a list like this, but back then I basically posted questions to scholars (like Hurtado) and other well informed lay persons (the owner of this list is a very good example), or, when I posted answers it was with reference to publications I had read. I am not saying you have to do that, but I was rather cautious.

                                              I find it very valuable and important to be able to back up claims with references to published research that has been subject to peer review, whether it is your own or someone else's research. Being published is still no guarantee of the validity of your arguments, but to me (and Larry Hurtado) it means a lot, and to me it also indicates whether I should read arguments and interact or not (because there is a lot of arguments on this list and elsewhere). That is why I asked you. And, since you had made no references to publications, I did suspect the negative answer, but I asked for confirmation.

                                              Tommy 

                                              30 okt 2013 kl. 18:46 skrev "David Inglis" <davidinglis2@...>:

                                               

                                              Tommy Wasserman recently asked me on this list: “Have you published your research anywhere, e.g., in peer-reviewed journals?” (Simple answer: No, but see below)  I should perhaps have asked him why he was asking, because it appears that the issue is important to him, as indicated by the newer post below. I suspect (and would be happy to be wrong) that my answer makes him less likely to want to even begin to engage any of the work I have presented on my website.

                                               

                                              Having read the blogpost mentioned below, I find the comments at least as valuable as the post itself, and recommend that everyone reading the post should also read all the comments, since they make some good additional points. However, perhaps the most interesting point to me is in Larry Hurtado’s original post itself, where he writes: “This peer review takes place in a variety of ways.  It may well commence with sending one’s essay or other written work to another scholar for comment and critique.  It may also involve presentation of one’s work in a conference or seminar where other scholars are present to comment.  Indeed, often these seminars may involve the work being provided to other scholars in advance, so that they have the chance to check data, etc., and so come better prepared to engage the work.”

                                               

                                              Although I haven’t been asked (and don’t expect) to present my work at a seminar, doesn’t asking people on this list to critique my work count as “being provided to other scholars?” In other words, doesn’t this list also act as a form of peer review? If so, then to paraphrase Tommy Wasserman, I “have published my research in a peer-reviewed forum.” Now, although I have no scholarly credentials, I believe that by at least one definition (A specialist in a given branch of knowledge) I can claim to be a scholar. Also, I do believe that a ‘fresh face’ from a different discipline can sometimes see things that others may have missed. Of course, someone other than I has to decide whether that’s true in my case, but my continued acceptance on this list (and its predecessor) for the last 10 years suggests that at least some people find my contributions worth having.

                                               

                                              So, I will now ask Tommy Wasserman the question: Why did you ask whether I had published my research?

                                               

                                              David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA

                                               

                                              From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
                                              Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:03 AM
                                              To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [textualcriticism] Marcion's Gospel

                                               

                                               

                                              In the midst of debates where various claims are made, here is a very thoughtful blogpost by Larry Hurtado on the value of peer review as related to Biblical studies scholarship, i.e., also applicable to the discipline of textual criticism.

                                               

                                               

                                              Tommy Wasserman

                                            • James Miller
                                              ... On Thu, 10/31/13, Tommy Wasserman wrote: Larry Hurtado) it means a lot, and to me it also indicates whether I should read
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --------------------------------------------
                                                On Thu, 10/31/13, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:

                                                Larry Hurtado) it means a lot, and to me it also indicates
                                                whether I should read arguments and interact or not (because
                                                there is a lot of arguments on this list and elsewhere).
                                                That is why I asked you.

                                                Ok then, Tommy, do we infer from what you've said here that you did not (and perhaps will not) read David's arguments and interact with him on the subject about which he's posted to this list since he's not published anything in the peer-reviewed literature? I hope you'll understand that this is the implication.

                                                James
                                              • Ehrman, Bart D
                                                I ve been an outsider to much of this conversation, but I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance to accept the fact that peer-reviewed research
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                • 0 Attachment

                                                       I’ve been an outsider to much of this conversation, but I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance to accept the fact that peer-reviewed research has -- through the process itself -- been awarded its bona fides, and non-peer-reviewed research has not.  Is someone challenging that view?

                                                   

                                                        Or to put it differently: if someone has a good case to make (on any academic topic whatsoever), what is the argument *against* making this case available in a peer-reviewed format?

                                                   

                                                        If someone has research that can *not* pass the peer-review process, in almost every instance there is a reason for that.

                                                   

                                                  -          Bart Ehrman

                                                   

                                                  Bart D. Ehrman

                                                  James A. Gray Professor

                                                  Department of Religious Studies

                                                  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                                                   

                                                  Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                                                  At www.ehrmanblog.org

                                                   

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Miller
                                                  Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 3:15 PM
                                                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Peer review (was Marcion's Gospel)

                                                   

                                                   

                                                  --------------------------------------------

                                                  On Thu, 10/31/13, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:

                                                  Larry Hurtado) it means a lot, and to me it also indicates
                                                  whether I should read arguments and interact or not (because
                                                  there is a lot of arguments on this list and elsewhere).
                                                  That is why I asked you.

                                                  Ok then, Tommy, do we infer from what you've said here that you did not (and perhaps will not) read David's arguments and interact with him on the subject about which he's posted to this list since he's not published anything in the peer-reviewed literature? I hope you'll understand that this is the implication.

                                                  James

                                                • Tommy Wasserman
                                                  James, For me personally, the time factor is very important. I am very interested in most issues discussed on this list, and in this case issues concerning
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    James, 

                                                    For me personally, the time factor is very important. I am very interested in most issues discussed on this list, and in this case issues concerning Marcion. 

                                                    However, I have to make priorities everyday because I have administrative duties, research and teaching to do. In this situation, I skip reading most of the discussions on this list, but I did read a bit in this thread. In general, I think I read most messages on this list posted by established scholars, but much less else discussions.

                                                    Tommy 

                                                    30 okt 2013 kl. 20:14 skrev James Miller <jamtata@...>:

                                                     

                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                    On Thu, 10/31/13, Tommy Wasserman <tommy.wasserman@...> wrote:

                                                    Larry Hurtado) it means a lot, and to me it also indicates
                                                    whether I should read arguments and interact or not (because
                                                    there is a lot of arguments on this list and elsewhere).
                                                    That is why I asked you.

                                                    Ok then, Tommy, do we infer from what you've said here that you did not (and perhaps will not) read David's arguments and interact with him on the subject about which he's posted to this list since he's not published anything in the peer-reviewed literature? I hope you'll understand that this is the implication.

                                                    James

                                                  • James Miller
                                                    ... On Thu, 10/31/13, Ehrman, Bart D wrote:   I’ve been an outsider to much of this conversation, but I do have to say that I do not
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      --------------------------------------------
                                                      On Thu, 10/31/13, Ehrman, Bart D <behrman@...> wrote:

                                                        I’ve been an outsider to much of this conversation,
                                                      but I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance
                                                      to accept the fact that peer-reviewed
                                                        research has -- through the process itself -- been awarded
                                                      its bona fides, and non-peer-reviewed research has
                                                      not.  Is someone challenging that view?
                                                         
                                                           
                                                      Or to put it differently: if someone has a good case to make
                                                      (on any academic topic whatsoever), what is the argument
                                                      *against* making this case
                                                        available in a peer-reviewed format? 
                                                         
                                                          
                                                       If someone has research that can *not* pass the
                                                      peer-review process, in almost every instance there is a
                                                      reason for that.

                                                      Perhaps you'll want to take a look at David's site, Bart. That would explain a lot. But in case you're not inclined to do so owing to the fact that he's not publishing his findings in peer-reviewed journals, I'll offer some crib notes. David appears to be an older gent whose main work in life has been in a field not very closely related to TC, biblical studies, or the humanities in general (he seems to have been involved in the tech field). He recently converted to Christianity after being an agnostic/atheist--sort of the opposite path to what you've taken, if I understand correctly. Through his study of Christianity in connection with that conversion, David got interested in issues surrounding the biblical text. As he researches these issues, he writes down his findings: his web site is a sort of collection of those findings. In order to push the inquiries and research he's been doing a bit further, he has now turned to this list, where he can,
                                                      presumably, find more "expert opinions" (you've already put him on the trail of some research in his area that he was apparently unaware of). Is that a fair summary, David?

                                                      The question in connection with this thread, then, should be not whether or not peer-reviewed publishing is good or bad: that's obviously not at issue in the current circumstance. It's a bit too far beyond the current state of the discussion. For someone on this list to recommend to David, on the basis of reading and assessing his work, that he submit something for peer-reviewed publication might be appropriate--presuming someone actually reads it. But even then a preliminary question like how would someone with no formal training in this field and who came to it late in life even go about submitting something for peer-reviewed publication? Or if David feels he's not ready for that, or if some "expert" here deems his work too immature for the peer review process, will he still be allowed to interact with the experts and to deepen his understanding of the issues he's researching? Those questions are more germane to the matter at hand. Depending on your
                                                      answer, Bart, David's research may or may not progress further. What say you? Or are you ready to dispense summary judgment that David's research "can *not* pass the peer-review process?"

                                                      My own guess would be that David is not, at this point, even considering peer-reviewed publishing. Rather, he's looking to interact with those better informed in order to deepen his knowledge of the topics he's been researching. In any event, as I said, the virtues of the peer-review system appear to be not terribly relevant to David's recent inquiries. Shall we blame Tommy for dragging this red herring across David's path? :)

                                                      James
                                                    • Wieland Willker
                                                      The list is currently without moderation, as an experiment. Please stop this off-topic discussion now. Thanks! Best wishes Wieland
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        The list is currently without moderation, as an experiment.

                                                        Please stop this off-topic discussion now. Thanks!



                                                        Best wishes
                                                        Wieland
                                                        <><
                                                      • Ehrman, Bart D
                                                        Thanks. I understand now. I think David is perfectly right to seek outside help for his work. And I think it is perfectly understandable that established
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                        • 0 Attachment

                                                               Thanks.  I understand now.  I think David is perfectly right to seek outside help for his work.  And I think it is perfectly understandable that established scholars, with a limited number of hours in a day, choose rather to attend instead to peer-reviewed scholarship.   Best to all,

                                                           

                                                          -          Bart Ehrman

                                                           

                                                          Bart D. Ehrman

                                                          James A. Gray Professor

                                                          Department of Religious Studies

                                                          University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                                                           

                                                          Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                                                          At www.ehrmanblog.org

                                                           

                                                           

                                                           

                                                          From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Miller
                                                          Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:33 PM
                                                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Peer review (was Marcion's Gospel)

                                                           

                                                           

                                                          --------------------------------------------

                                                          On Thu, 10/31/13, Ehrman, Bart D <behrman@...> wrote:

                                                            I’ve been an outsider to much of this conversation,
                                                          but I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance
                                                          to accept the fact that peer-reviewed
                                                            research has -- through the process itself -- been awarded
                                                          its bona fides, and non-peer-reviewed research has
                                                          not.  Is someone challenging that view?
                                                             
                                                               
                                                          Or to put it differently: if someone has a good case to make
                                                          (on any academic topic whatsoever), what is the argument
                                                          *against* making this case
                                                            available in a peer-reviewed format? 
                                                             
                                                              
                                                           If someone has research that can *not* pass the
                                                          peer-review process, in almost every instance there is a
                                                          reason for that.

                                                          Perhaps you'll want to take a look at David's site, Bart. That would explain a lot. But in case you're not inclined to do so owing to the fact that he's not publishing his findings in peer-reviewed journals, I'll offer some crib notes. David appears to be an older gent whose main work in life has been in a field not very closely related to TC, biblical studies, or the humanities in general (he seems to have been involved in the tech field). He recently converted to Christianity after being an agnostic/atheist--sort of the opposite path to what you've taken, if I understand correctly. Through his study of Christianity in connection with that conversion, David got interested in issues surrounding the biblical text. As he researches these issues, he writes down his findings: his web site is a sort of collection of those findings. In order to push the inquiries and research he's been doing a bit further, he has now turned to this list, where he can,
                                                          presumably, find more "expert opinions" (you've already put him on the trail of some research in his area that he was apparently unaware of). Is that a fair summary, David?

                                                          The question in connection with this thread, then, should be not whether or not peer-reviewed publishing is good or bad: that's obviously not at issue in the current circumstance. It's a bit too far beyond the current state of the discussion. For someone on this list to recommend to David, on the basis of reading and assessing his work, that he submit something for peer-reviewed publication might be appropriate--presuming someone actually reads it. But even then a preliminary question like how would someone with no formal training in this field and who came to it late in life even go about submitting something for peer-reviewed publication? Or if David feels he's not ready for that, or if some "expert" here deems his work too immature for the peer review process, will he still be allowed to interact with the experts and to deepen his understanding of the issues he's researching? Those questions are more germane to the matter at hand. Depending on your
                                                          answer, Bart, David's research may or may not progress further. What say you? Or are you ready to dispense summary judgment that David's research "can *not* pass the peer-review process?"

                                                          My own guess would be that David is not, at this point, even considering peer-reviewed publishing. Rather, he's looking to interact with those better informed in order to deepen his knowledge of the topics he's been researching. In any event, as I said, the virtues of the peer-review system appear to be not terribly relevant to David's recent inquiries. Shall we blame Tommy for dragging this red herring across David's path? :)

                                                          James

                                                        • ysf_ismail
                                                          Dr. Ehrmann You write:- I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance to accept the fact that peer-reviewed research has -- through the process
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Dr. Ehrmann

                                                            You write:-

                                                            "I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance
                                                            to accept the fact that peer-reviewed research has -- through the process itself -- been awarded
                                                            its bona fides, and non-peer-reviewed research has not."

                                                            Understandably so. But in the process, it sometimes excludes otherwise legitimate and painstaking research by individuals whose conclusions at times bring discomfort to the academic world. You are a best-selling author. But much of your research cannot be deemed to fall outside the consensus of modern-day scholarship. This is not to detract from the fact that your work is indeed original.

                                                            But take for example the works of Michael Baigent or Richard Leigh. Their "work" falls outside the ambit of what can be viewed "mainstream, peer-reviewed scholarship". The popular "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" which was the source for Dan Brown's plagiarism, is viewed as radical, whacky and non-scholarly. Why? Is it because it is not peer-reviewed. They fall outside the ambit of academia.

                                                            you write:- " If someone has research that can *not* pass the

                                                            peer-review process, in almost every instance there is a

                                                            reason for that."

                                                            It is clear that their work does not pass the peer-review process, but the "reason" for this if at all, are that the conclusions they reach are extremely uncomfortable for conventional scholarship.

                                                            What then is the criteria? Is it perhaps that academia also has its artificial boundaries erected and will not traverse territory which could really "upset the apple-cart", proverbially speaking?

                                                            Kind Regards

                                                            Yusuf Ismail

                                                            Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone.

                                                            From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman@...>
                                                            Sender: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:43:15 +0000
                                                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com<textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
                                                            ReplyTo: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Peer review (was Marcion's Gospel)

                                                             

                                                                 Thanks.  I understand now.  I think David is perfectly right to seek outside help for his work.  And I think it is perfectly understandable that established scholars, with a limited number of hours in a day, choose rather to attend instead to peer-reviewed scholarship.   Best to all,

                                                             

                                                            -          Bart Ehrman

                                                             

                                                            Bart D. Ehrman

                                                            James A. Gray Professor

                                                            Department of Religious Studies

                                                            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

                                                             

                                                            Please Join My New Blog: Christianity in Antiquity (CIA): The Bart Ehrman Blog

                                                            At www.ehrmanblog.org

                                                             

                                                             

                                                             

                                                            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Miller
                                                            Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:33 PM
                                                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                                                            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Peer review (was Marcion's Gospel)

                                                             

                                                             

                                                            --------------------------------------------

                                                            On Thu, 10/31/13, Ehrman, Bart D <behrman@...> wrote:

                                                              I’ve been an outsider to much of this conversation,
                                                            but I do have to say that I do not understand the reluctance
                                                            to accept the fact that peer-reviewed
                                                              research has -- through the process itself -- been awarded
                                                            its bona fides, and non-peer-reviewed research has
                                                            not.  Is someone challenging that view?
                                                               
                                                                 
                                                            Or to put it differently: if someone has a good case to make
                                                            (on any academic topic whatsoever), what is the argument
                                                            *against* making this case
                                                              available in a peer-reviewed format? 
                                                               
                                                                
                                                             If someone has research that can *not* pass the
                                                            peer-review process, in almost every instance there is a
                                                            reason for that.

                                                            Perhaps you'll want to take a look at David's site, Bart. That would explain a lot. But in case you're not inclined to do so owing to the fact that he's not publishing his findings in peer-reviewed journals, I'll offer some crib notes. David appears to be an older gent whose main work in life has been in a field not very closely related to TC, biblical studies, or the humanities in general (he seems to have been involved in the tech field). He recently converted to Christianity after being an agnostic/atheist--sort of the opposite path to what you've taken, if I understand correctly. Through his study of Christianity in connection with that conversion, David got interested in issues surrounding the biblical text. As he researches these issues, he writes down his findings: his web site is a sort of collection of those findings. In order to push the inquiries and research he's been doing a bit further, he has now turned to this list, where he can,
                                                            presumably, find more "expert opinions" (you've already put him on the trail of some research in his area that he was apparently unaware of). Is that a fair summary, David?

                                                            The question in connection with this thread, then, should be not whether or not peer-reviewed publishing is good or bad: that's obviously not at issue in the current circumstance. It's a bit too far beyond the current state of the discussion. For someone on this list to recommend to David, on the basis of reading and assessing his work, that he submit something for peer-reviewed publication might be appropriate--presuming someone actually reads it. But even then a preliminary question like how would someone with no formal training in this field and who came to it late in life even go about submitting something for peer-reviewed publication? Or if David feels he's not ready for that, or if some "expert" here deems his work too immature for the peer review process, will he still be allowed to interact with the experts and to deepen his understanding of the issues he's researching? Those questions are more germane to the matter at hand. Depending on your
                                                            answer, Bart, David's research may or may not progress further. What say you? Or are you ready to dispense summary judgment that David's research "can *not* pass the peer-review process?"

                                                            My own guess would be that David is not, at this point, even considering peer-reviewed publishing. Rather, he's looking to interact with those better informed in order to deepen his knowledge of the topics he's been researching. In any event, as I said, the virtues of the peer-review system appear to be not terribly relevant to David's recent inquiries. Shall we blame Tommy for dragging this red herring across David's path? :)

                                                            James

                                                          • Bill Brown
                                                            Mr Ismail, Do you seriously not understand the difference between a fictional novel ( Holy Blood, Holy Grail ) and an academic, scholarly journal/article/work?
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Oct 30, 2013
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Mr Ismail,

                                                              Do you seriously not understand the difference between a fictional novel ("Holy Blood, Holy Grail") and an academic, scholarly journal/article/work?

                                                              Bill Brown

                                                              Sent from my iPhone
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.