Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But why even mention that at all? Mentioning Paul sure, given the tradition of Markion and Paul, but why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition? I made a suggestion of a possible explanation here Basically Hippolytus is arguing: i/ The Gospel tradition which Hippolytus, ...

and the handwaving away by Roth (and Harnack)is part of the larger problem in biblical scholarship when data doesn't fit the paradigm.

But why even mention that at all? Mentioning Paul sure, given the tradition of Markion and Paul, but why even bring up gMark unless their was a connection in the tradition?

Explains why Irenaeus doesn't even have a name for him yet. Your Peregrinus hypothesis look better and better

Maybe, maybe not. I'm fine either way, but I think it would make more sense if Marcion removed it because of his docetism rather than the orthodox adding it The docetism was first. Look at the record in the NT of when Jesus became lord or messiah. In the kenosis hymn and Roman's at his resurrection...

I'm keen on Vinzent's idea that Marcion wrote first, his gospel became very popular and spread. The proto-orthodox responded with the published NT (think Trobisch) and then Marcion formally published a response adding the antithesis to his gospel and apostolikon. But I'm guessing Markion's first ver...

2 Peter 1&2 Timothy, Titus, Acts, pastoral stratum in Paul, anti-dcoetic/gnostic/valentinian/markionite tendencies, I'd say they had no trouble making big changes in the mid second century

Noice xpost with davidm

He's a cipher for a 'major pivotal' character that joined johannine christianity with markionite christianity and ultimately subsumed under Peter's authority. Give it up about acts, its mid 2nd century