Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9641
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:34 am

Adding historical details to a visionary text can only be understood as an attempt to falsify the context of the original document/experience
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9641
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:34 am

... unless you have some brilliant arguments of course and you often do
“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: 1568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:35 am

Secret Alias wrote: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 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
I'm sorry I may have been unclear.

IMO neither canonical Luke nor Marcion's Gospel are particularly Pauline. Neither represent (or claim to represent) Paul's Gospel in written form.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1568
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by andrewcriddle » Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:40 am

Secret Alias wrote:Adding historical details to a visionary text can only be understood as an attempt to falsify the context of the original document/experience
Can you give internal evidence that Marcion's Gospel is a visionary text ?
According to most reconstructions it begins something like
In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,
Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,
Jesus descended [out of heaven] into Capernaum, a city in Galilee,
and was teaching [in the synagogue] on the Sabbath days;
And they were astonished at his doctrine,
This has less historical detail than canonical Luke but more than in the beginnings of the other canonical Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to add

I probably won't be able to follow this up till Thursday sorry.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:30 am

to 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 the evidence points that "Luke" knew about Josephus' Wars, but did not about 'Antiquities':
http://historical-jesus.info/58.html
But let's take go back to the original context of Luke ALLEGEDLY writing on behalf of Paul.
You said it: ALLEGEDLY. By whom? Probably as late as by Irenaeus.
... later formulated into a written gospel by Paul. The natural reading of 'my gospel' is that of a written gospel.
No, this "good news" (=gospel) (about salvation) were either listened directly from Paul or read through his epistles. There is no inference of a written gospel (as stories dealing with Jesus on earth) in Paul's letters.
Many early traditions read it this way
Not before Irenaeus, even if sometimes a written Gospel is specified (by Aristides and Justin), it most likely means the ensemble of several written gospels. After Irenaeus, it was speculated by different apologists that the "gospel" referred in the Pauline epistles was in fact gLuke.
You forget that Luke is pretending to be the gospel of a madman.
Where did you get that? Is the madman Jesus or Paul?
Luke's gospel is obvious incompatible with the kind of document we'd expect to come from Paul or his authentic group of followers.
You are right here. But that does not mean "Luke" copied on gMarcion.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9641
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:36 am

Well does this sound like something historical to you?
he has hated me, and he has not kept his compact with me, I will create many gods, and I will fill up the world with them completely so that he will seek who might be God, but he will not find." And she created, they say, many idols, and she named them gods, and she filled the world with them. And the name of God who is the Lord of creatures was sunk in the midst of the names of many gods, and nowhere was He being found. And his progeny were led astray by them, and they were not worshipping him, because Matter lured them all back to herself, and she did not allow any one from among them to worship him. At that time, they say, the Lord of creatures was angered because they left him and paid attention to Matter. And angrily he was throwing into Gehenna those ones who were departing from their bodies, one after another. And he threw Adam into Gehenna because of that tree. And so he was continuing to throw everyone into Gehenna, up to twenty-nine centuries.

And, they say, the Good God and Stranger, who was residing in the third heaven, saw that between these two deceivers, the Lord of creatures and Matter, so many people had been lost and tortured, and it grieved him because of their having fallen into fire and their having been tortured.

He sent his Son to redeem them and 'to take on the likeness of a slave and to come into being in the form of man' [Phil 2:7] in the midst of the sons of the God of the Law. 'Heal' he said 'their lepers and give life to their dead and open their blind and make very great healings as a gift to them, so that the Lord of creatures might see you and be jealous and raise you on a cross.'

'And then having become dead you will descend into the Harsh (or, Hell) and you will raise them thence because it is not customary for the Harsh to accept life into its midst. And for the same reason you will go up to the cross so that you might resemble the dead and so that you might open the mouth of Hell to take you and enter into the middle of it and empty it.'

And when he had raised him on a cross, they say, he descended into the Harsh and emptied it. And having raised the souls from the middle of it he led them into the third heaven, to his Father.

And the Lord of creatures having become angry, in his anger he rent his robe and the curtain of of his temple. And he darkened his sun and he clothed his world in umber. And in his affliction he dwelt in mourning. Then when Jesus descended a second time in the form of his divinity to the Lord of creatures, he brought a lawsuit against him on account of his death.

And when the Lord of the world saw that divinity of Jesus, he discovered that another God apart from himself existed. And Jesus said to him, 'I am in litigation with you, and let no one judge between us, but the laws that you wrote.'

And when they had placed the Law in the middle, Jesus said to him "Did you not write in your Law, 'Whoever will murder he will die, (cf Num 35.30 - 34)?' and 'Whoever sheds the blood of a righteous one, his blood will be shed (Gen 9:6)?'" And he said, 'Yes, I wrote."

And Jesus said to him "So give yourself into my hands, so that I might slaughter and shed your blood, because rightly am I more lawful than you, and great favors have I bestowed on your creatures." And he began to reckon up those favors that he had bestowed on that one's creatures.

And when the Lord of creatures saw that he had gained victory over him - neither did he know what to say in reply because by his own Law he was condemned; nor did he find an answer to give because he came forth condemnation in exchange for his death - so having fallen down in supplication, he was praying to him "Whereas I sinned and slaughtered you ignorantly because I did not know that you were a god, but rather I considered you a man, let there be given to you in exchange, for revenge, all of those who wish to believe in you to take wheresoever you wish."

So Jesus having released him, he carried off Paul from the astonished ones, and he revealed to him their prices, and he sent him forth to preach that we have been bought for a price, and everyone who believes in Jesus has been sold by that Just One to the Good One.

This is the beginning of the sect of the Marcion, leaving aside many irrelevancies - and what not everyone knows, but rather a few from among them, and they transmit that teaching to one another by mouth. They say, "By means of the price of the Stranger we were purchased from the Lord of creatures," and "How or in what way is the purchase, this no one knows."
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9641
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:41 am

Bernard:
But let's take go back to the original context of Luke ALLEGEDLY writing on behalf of Paul.

You said it: ALLEGEDLY. By whom? Probably as late as by Irenaeus.

... later formulated into a written gospel by Paul. The natural reading of 'my gospel' is that of a written gospel.

No, this "good news" (=gospel) (about salvation) were either listened directly from Paul or read through his epistles. There is no inference of a written gospel (as stories dealing with Jesus on earth) in Paul's letters.

Many early traditions read it this way

Not before Irenaeus, even if sometimes a written Gospel is specified (by Aristides and Justin), it most likely means the ensemble of several written gospels. After Irenaeus, it was speculated by different apologists that the "gospel" referred in the Pauline epistles was in fact gLuke.

You forget that Luke is pretending to be the gospel of a madman.

Where did you get that? Is the madman Jesus or Paul?

Luke's gospel is obvious incompatible with the kind of document we'd expect to come from Paul or his authentic group of followers.

You are right here. But that does not mean "Luke" copied on gMarcion.
So where is Paul's 'my gospel'? The Marcionites lied then when they said 'that's our gospel.' That's a cheap way out of the problem. Remember:

1. Paul says 'my gospel'
2. MANY EARLY TRADITIONS (not just Marcionites) assume this means what we'd expect - viz. a written gospel.
3. The Catholics come along and say (a) he meant 'oral' and (b) Luke wrote Paul's gospel

Why do the Catholics ascribe Luke to be Paul's gospel? Irenaeus/Tertullian make this plain. Because the world before Catholicism assumed that they had a gospel in their possession which was Paul's 'my gospel.'

So the Patristic sources 'solve' this problem by saying:

a. Luke = Paul's gospel
b. it wasn't really written by Paul. Paul only inspired it.

But for you to get around this by saying that Luke isn't Paul's gospel doesn't address the reason for ALL the Catholic sources struggling to challenge the assumption that

i. Paul wrote a text
ii. it resembled Luke in some way.

The lie (viz. Luke being Paul's gospel) proves the need to develop a lie in the fact of widespread tradition.
“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

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3045
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:05 pm

to Secret Alias,
1. Paul says 'my gospel'
Yes
2. MANY EARLY TRADITIONS (not just Marcionites) assume this means what we'd expect - viz. a written gospel.

These traditions were not so early: they started from Irenaeus. What are these Marcionite traditions?
3. The Catholics come along and say (a) he meant 'oral' and (b) Luke wrote Paul's gospel
Yes they did, from Irenaeus and after him.
Why do the Catholics ascribe Luke to be Paul's gospel? Irenaeus/Tertullian make this plain. Because the world before Catholicism assumed that they had a gospel in their possession which was Paul's 'my gospel.'
The Catholics & others are/were trying to show that in the time of Paul, the synoptic gospels existed (pure propaganda!). And since "Luke" is described as a companion of Paul, naturally, they assume/ed the gospel of Luke was what Paul considered "my gospel" (at a time when the gospels were deemed more important than the epistles)
Therefore it is of no surprise that in the NT, the gospels come first, then the Pauline epistles.
So the Patristic sources 'solve' this problem by saying:
a. Luke = Paul's gospel
b. it wasn't really written by Paul. Paul only inspired it.
The Patristic sources, more so from the mid 2nd century, are not to be trusted. These "fathers" are full of pious bias (= lies) in order to serve their agenda and totally isolated by time from the 1st century (when Jesus & Paul lived and the gospels were written).
Was it inspired by Paul? gLuke is clear about that: the gospel was written for a mysterious excellency called Theophilus. This is not Paul.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9641
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:07 pm

they (the traditions) started from Irenaeus
Come on. If I write a historical study of Alexander the Great today, that doesn't mean that Alexander the Great is a contemporary of mine. What is this?
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9641
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Luke prior to Gospel of Marcion ?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:08 pm

The Patristic sources, more so from the mid 2nd century, are not to be trusted.
But what would be in Irenaeus's interest to say that the heretics said this or that about Paul and his ascension? Surely this is based on something real.
“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