Alternating Marcionite and synoptic priority & posteriority?

[Adam]

In the bad old days here and particularly on FTDB, if ever anyone gave me any support, it was Andrew Criddle. Now here comes a thread in which everyone in advance has taken my position (like my Evolving Proto-Gospel) EXCEPT for Andrew.

[Giuseppe]

What I find suggestive, when you accept that

both copied from a previous text of some kind, each making its own changes to that text in some cases yet leaving it alone in other cases.

is that this previous text (according to prof Klinghardt, better preserved by Marcion) reflects already a strong clash between opposing views (the topic of 'Jesus versus disciples', in primis, or even better the inner dialectic 'Jesus versus John the Baptist') that comes back to a different Jewish context from the more gentile later context where marcionites opposed proto-orthodox.

[Secret Alias]

... and does a prosecuting attorney need to provide a motive in order to charge someone with an offence?

[Secret Alias]

It's great to have so many referees and no discernable rule book (apparatus). Scholarship is a sport with no athletes and countless referees all calling infractions in matches going on only in their own imagination where is this Marcionism gospel? You got all these referees and no ball

[Secret Alias]

... but the psychological need to establish "order" trumps everything. Man would even will nothingness than not will at all.

[Secret Alias]

I would counter where our canon rules in favor of Marcionism ... probably Marcionism is older. If you can beat a rigged game, you probably deserved to win

[Secret Alias]

Can we stop acting as if these 'Marcionite texts' are certainly THE Marcionite texts? What is the fucking evidence for this? How many times does Tertullian actually say 'this is the Marcionite text'? Twenty times at most? Ten? Have any of the intelligent people having this discussion actually read Adv Marc from end to end? I will bet none have. What is the point of this discussion other than to irritate me?

[Secret Alias]

They both look like quotes from Marcion

They both look like quotes from Marcion because the work as a whole has been remade into something it likely wasn't originally. A lot of this reminds me of going food shopping when you haven't eaten all day. You grab way too much stuff. If Tertullian doesn't say 'this is Marcion's' you can't be sure it's from Marcion. This especially given the fact that (a) the author has very strange variants of his own (i.e. Paul saying 'we did submit for an hour' as an example) and (b) the treatise has been written by at least two (likely three) different people (see the beginning and end of Adv Marc). Keep on shopping though. It's fun to end up with four different kids of fruit flavored potato chips.

[Secret Alias]

What I always find hilarious about these discussions is that it is based on the (unrecognized) assumption that when Tertullian (or his source) makes reference to something or other it has to be an accurate reflection of what the Marcionites believed. Indeed this works two ways. On the one hand there are the explicit references to the Marcionites. That they said X or believed Y. The idea that in antiquity rhetoric strictly adhered to the facts is laughable. It was instead developed mostly from hyperbole. Why for instance should we allow for Marcus Minucius Felix to lie about this or that about 'Christianity' - i.e our religion - but when Tertullian says X or Y about the Marcionites it always has to be factual. In the old days the assumption was that pagans were 'sinners' and Church Fathers 'saints' or something close. But now why do we perpetuate this nonsense? Because they were 'good scholars'? Ha ha ha.

And then there is about three times as much in Tertullian where the Church Father just starts riffing about some concern or other - not specifically saying what the Marcionites believe - but the assumption is that whatever he is saying must have some basis in reality because again ... well ... we wouldn't have anything to talk about!

[Secret Alias]

This illustrates how pointless this whole approach is. For Ephrem says that the 'super-gospel' he shared with Marcion (*cough*) Nazareth https://books.google.com/books?id=Ad1JA ... &q&f=false was replaced by Bethsaida in at least part of this early section. We wouldn't know that from Tertullian. So what is the point of this massive endeavor? You're chasing after shadows, phantasms and will'o wisps.

Which of the two meets the criterion of 'priority' or 'posteriority'? Nazareth or Bethsaida? Hard to have a fishing village situated on a precipice, if you asked me. Oh, that must mean that Nazareth is the original. But Nazareth sounds suspiciously like an attempt to re-identify the Nazarenes as 'those of (Jesus of) Nazareth.' Hmmm. Maybe Nazareth is only in Ephrem's gospel but the Marcionite text reads as Tertullian has it. Yes that's the ticket because that means we can continue to believe that all the 'discovered' anomalies in Tertullian and Epiphanius lead us to the promised land. And believing you're going to the promised land is the basis of our inherited religious hope.

Continue if you must with the fruitless endeavor but you aren't 'getting at' Marcion's gospel. You're simply reaching into muddy waters and haphazardly grabbing (a) off-handed things said by Tertullian's source (b) corrections made by a second and (c) third editor of the work and (d) Epiphanius's typical misunderstandings and misrepresentations. There is no way to know what Marcion's text looked like. Continue this if you must but thrusting your pelvis into a love doll in the shape of a supermodel isn't the same as being intimate with the actual supermodel. It might be better. I don't know. I guess its a matter of perspective (for one the doll won't talk back to you like this phantom text that's been created allegedly 'Marcion's gospel') But the copy isn't the original thing. We can be certain of that.

What a universe it would be if one could know with exact precision a lost holy text from a thrice copied work antagonistically referencing (not - as you would have it - copying exactly) the differences between 'the correct' text and the 'false text' of the gospel of Paul and at the same time never exactly specifying which is being described (because the author has a habit of citing material which 'proves' his case). Yes what an amazing world that would be! That same world would have it that not a single drop of gasoline would escape out of the nozzle when you go to the station. That same world would have it that your hard drive only crashes AFTER you've backed up all the information that was on said hard drive. In that same world love is always answered with love, justice rules and good always triumphs over evil. Sadly though, the text is lost never to be recovered. Get over it.