Even if he is the first to quote the orthodoxized gospel of John as far as the writings we have which the catholic church deemed worthy to not douse in the ancient equivalent of gasoline
Scholarly writing at its very best ...
he [Irenaeus] himself says one of the gnostic sects used only John
Yes but he does so (a) while putting forward that are only four gospels and (b) each of the four is assigned to one of four heretical groups. Not a very convincing historical framework I am afraid.
an earlier more original and heretical version of John to be sure but still John.
Really? Are we sure that Irenaeus is reliable here? The Valentinians also used the synoptic material but Irenaeus makes it seem as if 'John' was 'their' gospel. The most likely scenario IMHO is that they used a gospel harmony (one text which 'combined' John and the synoptics from our perspective but which may well have been a more original 'whole'). So I highly doubt that the Valentinian Johannine material was 'separated' after the manner of our canon.
I imagine that version also may have had some opponents of Jesus in THEIR 50s say to Jesus something like "You ain't even 50 yet and you think you're smarter than us, you smart-ass punk?"
More scholarly writing.
So your argument here gets you nowhere, even if your speculation about Irenaeus editing the orthodox John could in any way be substantiated.
Whatever. Not even worth discussing this with you.
“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
davidbrainerd wrote:
Or lets put it another way. Everyone falling for the silly notion that Christianity developed out of a reading of Daniel and the little "one like a son of man" passage has fallen for a giant hoax. Paul is way earlier than the synoptics and there are no "son of man" references there nor any dependence on Daniel. Again, the idea that without Jesus there would be no resurrection, Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15, shows a lack of acceptance of Daniel by Paul. So Christianity simply did not develop from the silly "son of man" misreading of Daniel. That was invented later when Christianity was monarchianized by introducing Daniel, general resurrection, and hell, and the "son of man" nonsense was just a way of explaining away Christianity's earlier two god dualism like we find in 2 Cor 4.
Christianity was monarchianized by introducing Daniel, general resurrection, and hell, and the "son of man" nonsense was just a way of explaining away Christianity's earlier two god dualism like we find in 2 Cor 4.
How is this 'interesting'? The universal proof text for a heavenly Son of Man in early Christianity is Daniel 7:13. The proof text for a heavenly Father who is distinct from the Son in Judaism is Daniel 7.13. How is this 'post-Christian'? How could the gospel have been written without Daniel 7:13? How did Jesus predict the destruction of Jerusalem without Daniel 9:24 - 27? Again how can these elements - the most Christian of Christian principles - have been added to Christianity after the gospel had already been written? This isn't interesting; it's stupid.
“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
I should note that the Melkhilta formula for two powers is found verbatim in Ephrem the Syrian:
He was in one place like an Old Man and the Ancient of Days (Daniel 7:6) : also He became like a Mighty Man (man of war = Exodus 15:3) active and a Warrior : for judgment He was an Old Man ; for battle He was an active One.
Compare that to what is preserved in the commentary on Exodus in the circle of R Ishmael:
The Lord is a Man of War, the Lord is His Name. Why is this said? For this reason. At the sea, He appeared to them as a mighty hero as it is said, “The Lord is a man of war.” At Sinai, He appeared to them as an old man full of mercy. It is said, “They saw the God of Israel” (Exodus 24:10). And of the time after they had been redeemed what does it say? “And the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). Again it says: “I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit” (Dan 7,9). And it also says: "A fiery stream issued", etc. (v. 10). Scripture, therefore, would not let the nations of the world have an excuse for saying that there are two Powers, but declares: The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name. He it is who was in Egypt and He who was at the sea. It is He who was in the past and He who will be in the future. It is He who is in this world and He who will be in the world to come, as it is said: See now that I, even I, am He (Deut. 32:39). And it also says: Who has wrought and done it? He that called the generations from the beginning. I the Lord, who am the first and with the last am the same. etc
And Eznik:
And He himself sometimes would appear like an old man, (cf. Dan 7:22) sometimes like a youth, for one or another [manifestation] of Providence, having taken on the form for a cherished man (cf. Dan 9:23;1o:11) [On God p. 89]
“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
Christianity was monarchianized by introducing Daniel, general resurrection, and hell, and the "son of man" nonsense was just a way of explaining away Christianity's earlier two god dualism like we find in 2 Cor 4.
How is this 'interesting'? The universal proof text for a heavenly Son of Man in early Christianity is Daniel 7:13. The proof text for a heavenly Father who is distinct from the Son in Judaism is Daniel 7.13. How is this 'post-Christian'? How could the gospel have been written without Daniel 7:13? How did Jesus predict the destruction of Jerusalem without Daniel 9:24 - 27? Again how can these elements - the most Christian of Christian principles - have been added to Christianity after the gospel had already been written? This isn't interesting; it's stupid.
The Pauline gospel came first. Nowhere does Paul say Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. Its obvious also, that Christians never actually believed in the hell taught in the synoptics until after Nicea. Even St. Athanasius, the big mover and shaker for orthodoxy at Nicea, the virtual inventor of the Trinity, in his great work on why "the Word so high and so holy" had to come and die for us, Athanasius' On the Incarnation of the Word of God views what Jesus saves us from as non-existence, that due to losing the likeness to the image of God by eating the fruit, Adam condemned the human race to "turning back to the nothing from which it was created." What the hell happened to hell??? Of course the gospel (the preaching about Jesus) came long before the synoptics (a compromised gospel mixed with Daniel) were written. Orthwise Christian history ceases to make any sense.
But the Marcionites used Daniel and Theodotion the translator of Daniel was a Marcionite. You can't be interested in Daniel and not care about the destruction of the Jewish religion.
“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
Secret Alias wrote:But the Marcionites used Daniel and Theodotion the translator of Daniel was a Marcionite.
Lol. Where did you get that idea?
Secret Alias wrote:You can't be interested in Daniel and not care about the destruction of the Jewish religion.
Per Tertullian, Marcion saw the Jewish religion as still valid not destroyed, and believed the Jewish Messiah was still coming and would be as the Jews expect him to be. That is one of the great differences between Marcionism and Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy must represent the Jewish religion as destroyed, abrogated, invalid; whereas Marcionism can view it as still valid but worshipping a lesser god. The Orthodox polemic is "God abrogated Judaism, so become a Christian or burn in hell." The Marcionite polemic is "Go ahead and keep worshipping that inferior mean deity if you want, he is real, and his promises to your people are not revoked, but we have a better more Benevolent God that recently revealed himself."
“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
The difference between actual scholarship and 'personal opinion' is to what a degree one embraces information that is contradictory to the simple caricature - "Admittedly, when [the Marcionite] Megethius cites Psalm 2 and Daniel 2.34–5 to demonstrate that 'the Christ through the law and prophets has not yet come', these were familiar enough for Adamantius to have a ready answer to hand (Adam. 46.1–50.8)." https://books.google.com/books?id=aAK7B ... gQ6AEIHjAA
“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
Secret Alias wrote:The difference between actual scholarship and 'personal opinion' is to what a degree one embraces information that is contradictory to the simple caricature - "Admittedly, when [the Marcionite] Megethius cites Psalm 2 and Daniel 2.34–5 to demonstrate that 'the Christ through the law and prophets has not yet come', these were familiar enough for Adamantius to have a ready answer to hand (Adam. 46.1–50.8)." https://books.google.com/books?id=aAK7B ... gQ6AEIHjAA
So, that a Marcionite a century or two after Marcion has read the book of Daniel convinces you that Christianity was developed out of the book of Daniel? Lol, that's not scholarship; that's some powerful drugs. As to Megethius' interest in reading Daniel, its obvious it was antiCatholic polemics, for as you mention he is using it to disprove the idea of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah. So this doesn't prove that Marcionism developed out of Daniel, but quite the opposite.
