Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by outhouse »

andrewcriddle wrote: IF Canonical Luke is contemporary with (or later than) Justin it would have followed Matthew here.

Andrew Criddle
Which is one small piece of possible evidence, that still proves nothing.


FWIW I think Luke was long before Marcion, and Marcion redacted the text to meet his personal theology.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by andrewcriddle »

outhouse wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:
Indicates that Justin used Matthew's account of the entry into Jerusalem.



Andrew Criddle
But your not refuting my comment in any way.


Basically your speaking over my statement to prove your original point, I may or may not have a problem with.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.

I thought you were implying that Matthew did not become the 'standard' Gospel until too late a period to be relevant to the relation of canonical Luke to Marcion's Gospel. If so, then evidence that Matthew's version was the one used by Justin, is relevant to the issue.

If you meant that Matthew did not become the 'standard' Gospel until after 100 CE then I agree that Justin is not relevant.

Andrew Criddle
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Aleph One »

What you have here is interesting AC. It sure seems like a lot of weight to place on "the interpolator would copy Matthew because it was orthodox" though. I'd say any of the four or more conjectures that go into it could be questioned to SOME extent, even if they're agreed upon by the majority of scholars. For example, what if Matt postdates Luke? I tend to think not, but that would obviously throw a wrench in your reasoning.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by MrMacSon »

andrewcriddle wrote:This is a possible argument for the priority of the Gospel of Luke over Marcion's Gospel. I'm not sure how strong it is.

Marcion's Gospel almost certainly omitted Luke 19:29-46 (The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on a donkey).

If the passage in canonical Luke is a later (2nd century CE) addition to a Gospel which originally lacked it, then this is presumably an interpolation to conform the Gospel to the "orthodox" or "proto-orthodox" account. If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel, would almost certainly have been used as a basis for correcting Marcion's Gospel. The passage in canonical Luke, however, agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew, (it lacks the explicit citation of Zechariah the mention of two animals etc).

Since the passage in canonical Luke agrees with Mark and not Matthew, it is part of the original form of the Gospel and not a later interpolation. Therefore canonical Luke is prior to the Gospel of Marcion.

Andrew Criddle
Ben C. Smith wrote: Similarly, Luke 18.31-33 appears to have been absent from Marcion, and verses 32-33a are closer to Mark than to Matthew, although in verse 33b Luke shares "on the third day" with Matthew against Mark's "after three days" (typical synoptic problem stuff; nothing is clear cut).

And Luke 3.21-22, the baptism of Jesus, appears to have been absent from Marcion, and Luke shares with Mark the direct address, "You are my beloved son," against Matthew's "This is my beloved son."
Andrew's consideration - that Luke may be prior to the Gospel of Marcion - seems to reasonably counter Klinghardt's 2008-published deduction that "the 'Gospel Marcion' had influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke" -
Matthias Klinghardt (2008) 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion'
  • Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27.
  • Abstract: 'The most recent debate of the Synoptic Problem resulted in a dead-lock: The best-established solutions, the Two-Source-Hypothesis and the Farrer-Goodacre-Theory, are burdened with a number of apparent weaknesses. On the other hand, the arguments raised against these theories are cogent. An alternative possibility, that avoids the problems created by either of them, is the inclusion of the gospel used by Marcion. This gospel is not a redaction of Luke, but rather precedes Matthew and Luke and, therefore, belongs into the maze of the synoptic interrelations. The resulting model avoids the weaknesses of the previous theories and provides compelling and obvious solutions to the notoriously difficult problems.'
Full article: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B75F1hK ... edit?pli=1

notes: presents an argument that the Marcionite Evangelion text ('the Gospel of the Lord') more than likely preceded the canonical Gospel of Luke. Klinghardt deduced that the 'Gospel Marcion' had influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
There may be a pertinent response to that Klinghardt 2008 paper here -
  • Christopher M. Hays (2008) Marcion vs. Luke: A Response to the Plädoyer of Matthias Klinghardt
    • Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche. 99(2): pp. 213–232.
      ISSN (Online) 1613-009X, ISSN (Print) 0044-2615, DOI: 10.1515/ZNTW.2008.017
But how does Andrew's consideration fit with the more recent propositions/arguments of Klinghardt & Vinzent that all four canonical gospels are all or mostly post-Marcion productions? -

Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters.
  • Summary: Are the Synoptic Gospels at odds with Early Christian art and archaeology? Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings (Erich Dinkler); can the Synoptic Gospels step in? Their narratives, however, are as absent from the first hundred and fourty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976). The present volume is the first systematic study of all available early evidence that we have about the first witness to our Gospel narratives, Marcion of Sinope. It evaluates our commonly known arguments for dating the Synoptic Gospels, elaborates on Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD.

    Discussed further here by Vinzent - http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com.au/20 ... ospel.html
Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien
  • Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher
  • title translation:
    The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants

    (via Google Translate) "Volume I: The oldest gospel is The Gospel, which was in the 2nd century by Marcion and [which] others received. The exact reconstruction of this text, as well as proof that all canonical gospels are dependent on him, allow significant insights for important fields of New Testament scholarship: The origin, tradition, and history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canon of the New Testament, and the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs. Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest Gospel is the basis of the examination of the canonical Gospels tradition of/for the oldest version to the canonical four gospels book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of the Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses, and the interpretations. In the explanation of each reconstruction decision shall be fully explained and the single logia and pericopes Überlieferungsweg traced. This is complemented by a reconstruction translation and a list of variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch with the text of the oldest gospel."

    Referred to recently by René Salm - http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/04/ ... -solution/
(Maybe more pertinent information here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 180#p38180)
.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Giuseppe,
2) Lk 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the law to fail." NKJV
gMarcion "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, ... than one tittle of my [Jesus] words to fail." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel4.html
Comment by Ben C. Smith: "Marcion apparently has "one tittle of my (Jesus') words", yet a "tittle" (Greek κεραία) is a written mark, a stroke or a serif on certain letters. Such a term makes far more sense when applied to the law, which had been written for centuries, than it does applied to Jesus' own (as yet unwritten) words while he is still speaking them."
But we know that Marcion was selling his Gospel as New Testament replacing entirely all the previous scriptures. The use of 'tittle' fits well for that goal: the ''scriptures'' of Jesus (really: words) are in antithesis with the old (physical) scriptures.
But when Jesus allegedly spoke these words, there was no scriptures of Jesus yet. Actually, Jesus is never said to have written anything.
A similar saying is in gMatthew 5:18, and therefore would be part of Q; and in it, the tittle is about the Law, as it is in Lk 16:17. So "Luke", most likely, followed the Q saying and did not copy on gMarcion.
3) Lk 21:32 "... this generation will not pass away till all has taken place." RSV
gMarcion: "... The heaven and the earth shall in no wise pass away, till all things be accomplished." http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel5.html
Marcionite apocalypticism cannot fail by definition: if the god of Jesus isn't the creator of this world, then the fate of this world is indifferent for him (after the crucifixion). Therefore the prophecy of the marcionite Jesus is fully fulfilled: at least until the death of Jesus (his true and only goal in this world), 'the heaven and the earth will not pass away.' A contradiction arises when the prophecy is referred to parusia on this world: that prophecy becomes clearly failed in the eyes of the same first proponents of it, but they put it on Jesus to make him more a Jewish prophet (claiming justice in this world within short time) and so virtually an anti-marcionite prophet.
Sure, Marcion rephrased that passage so his apocalyptic message cannot fail because of elapsed time.
But by 130 AD, the apocalyptic alleged words of Jesus (according to Lk 21:32) had failed. However when gLuke was written (around 85-90 AD), that alleged prophecy (also in gMark and gMatthew) had not failed yet.
My question is: if gLuke had been written after gMarcion, why would "Luke" put forward a Jesus' failed prophecy?
Another question: Why would "Luke" not follow gMarcion in that regard, avoiding Jesus making a false prophecy?
Furthermore, "Luke" also copied from gMark (9:1) the following verse:
9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." KJV
Note: the same verse also appears in Mt 16:28, but is not reported to exist in gMarcion.
4) Lk 5:33 "And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink?"
Tertullian's 'Against Marcion', IV, 11: "Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system."
The antithesis is evident behind the common rapid appearance of both John and Jesus: although both make a short 'Toccata and Fugue' on Earth, Jesus is far superior to John, the latter being the last prophet of Demiurge and therefore no in need of presentation.
Does not work on literature. A new character is very unlikely to be first presented abruptly with no detail on who he is.
More, in gMarcion, further in the text, John is identified with many details (Lk 7:18-28). So he was of great importance for Marcion.
Note: According to Epiphanius, Marcion changed "And blessed is he who takes no offense at me." by "And blessed is John who takes no offense at me."

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Aleph One wrote:What you have here is interesting AC. It sure seems like a lot of weight to place on "the interpolator would copy Matthew because it was orthodox" though. I'd say any of the four or more conjectures that go into it could be questioned to SOME extent, even if they're agreed upon by the majority of scholars. For example, what if Matt postdates Luke? I tend to think not, but that would obviously throw a wrench in your reasoning.
With a traditional date of canonical Luke of say c 90 CE there is no great problem in having canonical Matthew later than canonical Luke.

If however canonical Luke (as distinct from Marcion's Gospel) is post-Marcionite then I would have problems with dating canonical Matthew later than canonical Luke.

I.E. either canonical Luke is earlier than Marcion's Gospel or it is in all probability later than canonical Matthew.

Andrew Criddle
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by andrewcriddle »

MrMacSon wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:This is a possible argument for the priority of the Gospel of Luke over Marcion's Gospel. I'm not sure how strong it is.

Marcion's Gospel almost certainly omitted Luke 19:29-46 (The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on a donkey).

If the passage in canonical Luke is a later (2nd century CE) addition to a Gospel which originally lacked it, then this is presumably an interpolation to conform the Gospel to the "orthodox" or "proto-orthodox" account. If so then Matthew, which from early on became the standard authoritative Gospel, would almost certainly have been used as a basis for correcting Marcion's Gospel. The passage in canonical Luke, however, agrees on the whole with Mark rather than Matthew, (it lacks the explicit citation of Zechariah the mention of two animals etc).

Since the passage in canonical Luke agrees with Mark and not Matthew, it is part of the original form of the Gospel and not a later interpolation. Therefore canonical Luke is prior to the Gospel of Marcion.

Andrew Criddle
Ben C. Smith wrote: Similarly, Luke 18.31-33 appears to have been absent from Marcion, and verses 32-33a are closer to Mark than to Matthew, although in verse 33b Luke shares "on the third day" with Matthew against Mark's "after three days" (typical synoptic problem stuff; nothing is clear cut).

And Luke 3.21-22, the baptism of Jesus, appears to have been absent from Marcion, and Luke shares with Mark the direct address, "You are my beloved son," against Matthew's "This is my beloved son."
Andrew's consideration - that Luke may be prior to the Gospel of Marcion - seems to reasonably counter Klinghardt's 2008-published deduction that "the 'Gospel Marcion' had influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke" -
Matthias Klinghardt (2008) 'The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion'
  • Novum Testamentum; 50(1):1-27.
  • Abstract: 'The most recent debate of the Synoptic Problem resulted in a dead-lock: The best-established solutions, the Two-Source-Hypothesis and the Farrer-Goodacre-Theory, are burdened with a number of apparent weaknesses. On the other hand, the arguments raised against these theories are cogent. An alternative possibility, that avoids the problems created by either of them, is the inclusion of the gospel used by Marcion. This gospel is not a redaction of Luke, but rather precedes Matthew and Luke and, therefore, belongs into the maze of the synoptic interrelations. The resulting model avoids the weaknesses of the previous theories and provides compelling and obvious solutions to the notoriously difficult problems.'
Full article: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B75F1hK ... edit?pli=1

notes: presents an argument that the Marcionite Evangelion text ('the Gospel of the Lord') more than likely preceded the canonical Gospel of Luke. Klinghardt deduced that the 'Gospel Marcion' had influenced the formation of both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke.
There may be a pertinent response to that Klinghardt 2008 paper here -
  • Christopher M. Hays (2008) Marcion vs. Luke: A Response to the Plädoyer of Matthias Klinghardt
    • Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und Kunde der Älteren Kirche. 99(2): pp. 213–232.
      ISSN (Online) 1613-009X, ISSN (Print) 0044-2615, DOI: 10.1515/ZNTW.2008.017
But how does Andrew's consideration fit with the more recent propositions/arguments of Klinghardt & Vinzent that all four canonical gospels are all or mostly post-Marcion productions? -

Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters.
  • Summary: Are the Synoptic Gospels at odds with Early Christian art and archaeology? Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings (Erich Dinkler); can the Synoptic Gospels step in? Their narratives, however, are as absent from the first hundred and fourty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976). The present volume is the first systematic study of all available early evidence that we have about the first witness to our Gospel narratives, Marcion of Sinope. It evaluates our commonly known arguments for dating the Synoptic Gospels, elaborates on Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD.

    Discussed further here by Vinzent - http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com.au/20 ... ospel.html
Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien
  • Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher
  • title translation:
    The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels: Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants

    (via Google Translate) "Volume I: The oldest gospel is The Gospel, which was in the 2nd century by Marcion and [which] others received. The exact reconstruction of this text, as well as proof that all canonical gospels are dependent on him, allow significant insights for important fields of New Testament scholarship: The origin, tradition, and history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canon of the New Testament, and the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs. Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest Gospel is the basis of the examination of the canonical Gospels tradition of/for the oldest version to the canonical four gospels book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of the Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses, and the interpretations. In the explanation of each reconstruction decision shall be fully explained and the single logia and pericopes Überlieferungsweg traced. This is complemented by a reconstruction translation and a list of variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch with the text of the oldest gospel."

    Referred to recently by René Salm - http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2016/04/ ... -solution/
(Maybe more pertinent information here - http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 180#p38180)
.
I haven't read Vinzent's and Klinghardt's latest books but my immediate response is that it is highly unlikely that canonical Mark is later than Marcion's Gospel.

(Any real response would have to deal, among other things, with the evidence for synoptic tradition in Papias Ignatius, the Apocalypse of Peter etc and the date/authenticity of these works, and would take this thread way off course.)

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias »

Why do people always give Church documents the earliest possible date to avoid conflict with our (biased) sources? So most everyone agrees that Luke used Josephus and the superficial earliest possible dating of Josephus = 80 - 90 CE. So in order for this 90 CE dating of Luke to be true you'd have to imagine that Luke ran home with one of the earliest editions of Josephus (again based on a prima facie reading of Josephus's own text) and after digesting the contents wrote the gospel on behalf of Paul. But there are countless problems with this thesis the most obvious being the points brought up in previous threads of Josephus - namely that the Antiquities actually is likely dated a bit later than 80 - 90 CE. So a second century dating of Luke is in my mind (and that of many others who have cast off the chains of 'defending the status quo/faith').

But let's take go back to the original context of Luke ALLEGEDLY writing on behalf of Paul. Paul references in many places in his letters 'my gospel' which SUPPOSEDLY is an allusion to 'oral teachings' later formulated into a written gospel by Paul. The natural reading of 'my gospel' is that of a written gospel. Many early traditions read it this way. But even if you suppose the substitution that 'oral gospel' was meant how could Luke have decided to add a Jewish historian's perspective to a gospel originally based on a revelation in heaven on behalf of a third party = Paul? This is the height of mendacity.

Let's supposed another mystical leader - say Jacob Frank - claimed to have had a heavenly ascent and then made reference to the title of a book which narrated the basis to his heavenly revelation (i.e. in terms of common characters, events etc) wouldn't we be surprised to stumble across a written text written by an associate of this mystical leader who decided on his own to add historical references by a wholly separate contemporary author? In other words, a 'visionary experience' is entirely incompatible with a 'historical framework' (for why would you need 'historical clarity' to explain a vision from heaven? It's absolutely and obvious absurd! It's just that we've been trained to see Luke alongside Matthew and Mark. Irenaeus was so fucking clever! You forget that Luke is pretending to be the gospel of a madman.

People have visions and spiritual ascents and take away from that one sort of knowledge and this knowledge is absolutely antithetical with the kind of information associated with historical narratives. On that basis alone we should go back to our original premise and suppose that Luke was after Marcion's gospel as Luke's gospel is obvious incompatible with the kind of document we'd expect to come from Paul or his authentic group of followers.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote:Why do people always give Church documents the earliest possible date to avoid conflict with our (biased) sources? So most everyone agrees that Luke used Josephus and the superficial earliest possible dating of Josephus = 80 - 90 CE. So in order for this 90 CE dating of Luke to be true you'd have to imagine that Luke ran home with one of the earliest editions of Josephus (again based on a prima facie reading of Josephus's own text) and after digesting the contents wrote the gospel on behalf of Paul. But there are countless problems with this thesis the most obvious being the points brought up in previous threads of Josephus - namely that the Antiquities actually is likely dated a bit later than 80 - 90 CE. So a second century dating of Luke is in my mind (and that of many others who have cast off the chains of 'defending the status quo/faith').

But let's take go back to the original context of Luke ALLEGEDLY writing on behalf of Paul. Paul references in many places in his letters 'my gospel' which SUPPOSEDLY is an allusion to 'oral teachings' later formulated into a written gospel by Paul. The natural reading of 'my gospel' is that of a written gospel. Many early traditions read it this way. But even if you suppose the substitution that 'oral gospel' was meant how could Luke have decided to add a Jewish historian's perspective to a gospel originally based on a revelation in heaven on behalf of a third party = Paul? This is the height of mendacity.

Let's supposed another mystical leader - say Jacob Frank - claimed to have had a heavenly ascent and then made reference to the title of a book which narrated the basis to his heavenly revelation (i.e. in terms of common characters, events etc) wouldn't we be surprised to stumble across a written text written by an associate of this mystical leader who decided on his own to add historical references by a wholly separate contemporary author? In other words, a 'visionary experience' is entirely incompatible with a 'historical framework' (for why would you need 'historical clarity' to explain a vision from heaven? It's absolutely and obvious absurd! It's just that we've been trained to see Luke alongside Matthew and Mark. Irenaeus was so fucking clever! You forget that Luke is pretending to be the gospel of a madman.

People have visions and spiritual ascents and take away from that one sort of knowledge and this knowledge is absolutely antithetical with the kind of information associated with historical narratives. On that basis alone we should go back to our original premise and suppose that Luke was after Marcion's gospel as Luke's gospel is obvious incompatible with the kind of document we'd expect to come from Paul or his authentic group of followers.
I'm not sure that the non-Pauline nature of Luke is good evidence for a late date of Luke. One issue is that it is unclear that Marcion's Gospel (as normally reconstructed) was particularly Pauline.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias »

So you're shifting the burden of proof to Marcion? This when I've demonstrated that Luke is obviously not on keeping with the visionary nature of Paul's revelation? Come on. It's almost impossible to prove anything with regards to Marcion. But Luke is obviously a fraud. So it's Marcion or give up on rescuing Paul's gospel in written form. There's no slipping away unless you want to defend Luke's Pauline nature
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply