A Conservative Scholar's Discovery -> Marcionite Priority

[Ulan]

It's turtles all the way down.

[MrMacSon]

Speaking as a moderator, I do think the thread title is misleading. I think the same point could be made just by inserting the word "accidental" into the title, perhaps with a question mark, i.e "A Conservative Scholar's Accidental Argument for Marcionite Priority?" that would preserve AA's intention without implying that it was intentional.

I'm not going to take any action, but I am going to ask Accidental Alias to try to use more accurately descriptive titles. I don't think you would have gotten any fewer clicks with the title I suggested.

It isn't a matter of deception. It's about available wording space allowed in the title bar when you create the thread.

• Perhaps go back to the OP and change the title to 'A Conservative Scholar's Accidental Marcionite Priority Argument' as I have done with this post??

[MrMacSon]

or 'Conservative Scholars Accidental Marcionite Priority Argument '

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And WTF is this "I'm not going to take any action" business? We have John Wayne as a moderator walking around the perimeter of the town with a loaded shotgun? Take any action based on what? Why not add more words to the title bar?

I'm about as hands off as it gets. I'm hardly a John Wayne. I can't remember the last time I've ever taken any action at all, but your title is misleading and it's not impossible to be accurate within the character limits. Even simply adding a single question mark to the title you used would have been sufficient. As for changing the number of allowed characters for titles - that's above my personal powers.

[Secret Alias]

Assuming for the sake of argument that we have evidence that Paul made use of a written Gospel which resembled Luke, how does this provide evidence that this text agreed with Marcion's Gospel rather than with canonical Luke?

The point isn't yet which gospel Paul's gospel resembled but which account of Paul's 'my gospel' statement makes more sense - i.e. the Marcionite understanding Paul had a written gospel and which was his gospel (as opposed to an intermediary) vs the Catholic explanation Luke wrote on behalf of Paul. Hands down it is the Marcionite account of 'my gospel' that makes more sense. That's a start toward Marcionite priority. Little steps, Andrew, little steps.

Remember Tertullian has an odd introduction to the issue of the gospel. He claims that Marcion read in Galatians about Judaizing gospel expansion attempts from Paul's own testimony which he (Marcion) misconstrued into an account of Pauline gospel primacy. It is difficult to know what the counter argument to the Marcionite position really was. Modern scholarship has construed the argument that Paul's gospel was something spoken or passed on by word of mouth. But this isn't explicitly posited by the earliest ancient authorities.

From what I remember Eusebius says that Luke was the gospel which Paul meant when he said 'my gospel.' That's a stupid and unlikely argument. If you substitute 'wife' for gospel Paul's wife could at once be Luke's wife. For certain the Catholics said that Luke was Paul's gospel but the question of Paul's statement is generally avoided. Origen I believe makes the connection between Mark 1:1 and 'my gospel.' Yet all this does is emphasize again that 'my gospel' was a written gospel which is the point of the link.

In light of a completely ambiguous picture of what Paul's gospel was from orthodox sources the Marcionite position is quite straightforward. Indeed the argument made by Tertullian can be turned around to be restated as - the Marcionite understanding of the Pauline gospel was consistent with Paul's own written testimony. That's a good thing right? Hard to see that as a difficulty. One would expect a Pauline tradition's understanding of 'my gospel' to square with Paul's written testimony. The association with Luke is only made by enigmatic references to Luke picking up books to write which were likely added to the ends of letters (and not part of the Marcionite edition). These clues are sprinkled throughout the Pauline canon as a means of directing people away from the 'my gospel' statement - at least according to my understanding.

[Secret Alias]

Another problem with identifying Luke as the 'my gospel' of Paul is squaring the testimony of multiple sources of Luke 1:1 - 4 with the 'uniqueness' of the Pauline gospel in the gospel origin story in Galatians chapters 1 and 2. If the pillars of the Jerusalem church weren't the sources for Luke, which sources could Luke have been referencing? It would seem Mark would have to be excluded because of its association with Peter. Could Matthew have been reasonably disassociated with the Jerusalem Church too? It would seem that Paul is saying that his gospel came to him without human intermediaries. Not so with respect to Luke's gospel. It seems to be a gospel derived from numerous human sources.

[MrMacSon]

Remember Tertullian has an odd introduction to the issue of the gospel. He claims that Marcion read in Galatians about Judaizing gospel expansion attempts from Paul's own testimony which he (Marcion) misconstrued into an account of Pauline gospel primacy. It is difficult to know what the counter argument to the Marcionite position really was.

And Tertullian was writing 60-80 yrs after Marcion.

If Tertullians is the best of "the earliest ancient authorities", the history is vague.

And there is lot of reliance on what "Eusebius says" -eg. "that Luke was the gospel which Paul meant when he said 'my gospel'.''

Yes, "That's a stupid and unlikely argument."

[Secret Alias]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[Peter Kirby]

The correct title would have been:

A Conservative Scholar's Discovery and Its Application For the Purpose of Establishing Marcionite Priority

Is that better?

I understood the original title and don't really care either way... but I went ahead and incorporated this idea into the thread title, with the obvious limitation that you only have so many characters (most of these suggestions, as you've expressed, hit the character limit). Feel free to change it back or to whatever you want; it's your thread title.

[arnoldo]

Could a major point for Marcionite Priority be staring us right in the face, i.e., the titles of the gospels themselves? The Muratorian Canon may provide a clue. Allegedly, Marcion began to alter gospel/pauline writings which were in circulation, perhaps untitled, which was a catalyst for a proto-orthodox faction of christianity to canonize, and presumably "title" these writings. Hence, we now have the gJohn, gMark, gLuke, g,John. Regarding the Pauline writings this document states that some were forged in order to support Marcion. However, how do we know that Marcion's writings aren't the prior authentic writings which were later altered by the proto-orthodox faction of christianity?

There is extant also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul according to the heresy of Marcion.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... latin.html