Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Secret Alias wrote:The only answer can be - in light of the explicit statement in the Prescription - that T is using Luke against Marcion's Antitheses in Adversus Marcionem. The text tells us nothing or very little about the gospel of Marcion.

Yes -

Secret Alias wrote:
Just noticed a different rendering is used in the Prescription. The opening line of that text originally written by Irenaeus:

.
Condicio praesentium temporum etiam hanc admonitionem prouocat nostram non oportere nos mirari super haereses istas, siue quia sunt, futurae enim praenuntiabantur, siue quia fidem quorumdam subuertunt, ad hoc enim sunt ut fides habendo temptationem haberet etiam probationem

... we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold* that they should come to pass; nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it [orthodox faith] also the opportunity of being "approved."

And then the most important example of all:

.
Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above, all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. (15)

* claiming it was 'foretold' ....


And you had also said -

Secret Alias wrote:

• What T is doing in A.M. is submitting the Antitheses to the test by provoking it's doctrines by means of comparison with what is written in the true "apostolic" text of Luke.

Foretold in Corinthians

Dunn thinks pretty much like I do (that Prescription's "rule" is necessarily related to what is going on in AM). But he argues T is already breaking his own rule. I think Dunn isn't thinking things through assuming that T is citing from the Marcionite gospel. T is not citing from any Marcionite text anywhere in AM and he is careful to avoid doing so because of the rule. If T is actually addressing a Catholic audience affirming the faith by means of Luke (which I suppose) the rule remains intact. Note that he never cites from the Antitheses anywhere after acknowledging its/their existence. I would argue the gospel allusions have to be interpreted in light of that odd silence regarding the Antitheses. T would never allow M's gospel (or M's Antitheses for that matter) to be disseminated into the Church by means of his treatise. He won't break the rule of faith.

This will be the subject of my next paper after my most recent submission to VC is published this spring. I think it has legs.