Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Eusebius' Eccl. hist. II.1.10-12: (paraphrases Acts 8:9-13 and misrepresents Simon as being called the Great Power, as does Acts 8: Simon in both is an emphatic personification of Simonian theology) So much did divine grace cooperate with Philip than even Simon the magus, with many others, were draw...

Markion radicalized this dogma when he ventured his Antitheses and everything else he thought would impugn the Artificer of all things. 201 Loukianos his disciple taught the same. 202 Marcion and Loukianos---the original Mark and Luke? I wonder if the names were co-opted, eg. by Irenaeus. (I think ...

M David Litwa's very recently published book, Simon of Samaria a and the Simonians: Contours of an Early Christian Movement, outlines ... "a distinctly "Simonian" version of Christianity between the second and fourth centuries CE. ... "Anti-Simon(ian) stories and reports began to...

e Tertullian Against Marcion 1 .2 The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like the twin Symplegades of his own shipwreck: One whom it was impossible to deny, ie. our Creator; and one whom he will never be able to prove, ie. his own god. The unhappy man gained the first idea of his conceit from t...

From Refutation of al Heresies book 7: (M David Litwa's book version) 36.3 ... The Holy Spirit through the Revelation of John mocked his [Nikolaos's +/- others'] disciples and exposed them as “fornicators and eaters of meat sacrificed to idols”. 199 37. 1. A certain Kerdon likewise took his starting...

But it is noteworthy that many of the passages in Luke which they consider to be second-hand, that is, taken direct, and often word by word, from Mark, are precisely those [absent] from Marcion for no reason, doctrinal or otherwise, that can be discovered. For instance, take the account of the Puri...

Loisy's response to Couchoud concerning the two pericopes of material which are not attested in Luke: Loisy - Reply - Bottom 379.png Loisy - Reply - Top 380.png Loisy's argument against Couchoud, to put it simply, is that the attestation for attributing these two pericopes to Marcion is insufficien...

Giuseppe is quoting from this:

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2024 4:27 am
Couchoud's reply to the Loisy's reply is published in appendix here.

https://www.mythicistpapers.com/Couchoud_Creation_2.pdf

It is hardly surprising that an orthodox evangelist should have undertaken the task of re-editing, correcting and completing Marcion's gospel. The anonymous author of the Gospel which we call Luke's, alludes to his predecessors, who were fairly numerous (πολλοί) and he sets himself the task of dete...

More precisely, Couchoud replies to Loisy as to the Marcion/Luke question in the following way (p. 442-443): I will try to show that, to the four canonical Gospels, there must be added the Gospel of Marcion, now lost but almost completely reconstituted from quotations. M. Loisy assigns it “an inter...