The Marcionite Gospel Beginning Did Not Mention '15th year'

[Secret Alias]

Now I will say again that there does appear to be a parallel tradition that the gospel began on a specific date - 15 of tybi or the 10th of January - which might contradict my thesis:

https://books.google.com/books?id=mx97I ... 22&f=false

I have to admit I find the question 'when did Jesus descend' improperly answered by ἐπὶ Τιβερίου (Καίσαρος). It seems to me that a date however vague is the proper response i.e. ἐπὶ Τιμάρχου. I wish I could see the original manuscripts of these documents.

[davidbrainerd]

And how do you get around περιέχει in what precedes the citation?

Καθὼς περιέχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὅτι

The words that follow are 'contained' in 'the gospel.' It's very specific. Hard to argue this is a loose reference.

The gospel mentions Tiberius so the words are there, even though he didn't quote verbatim and mention the 15th year.

The truth matters. The fifteenth or not the fifteenth is important. There doesn't have to be an agenda.

Truth doesn't but revisionism does and you aren't interested in truth.

The question could easily be turned around. No other gospel writer identifies a specific year. Josephus contradicts that year as does the Acts of Pilate. Why are you so certain that the fifteenth is a marker not only of Luke's correction of the Marcionite text but of the Marcionite text itself?

Our other sources have the 15th there. One or even two places where a Marcionite is asked when Jesus descended and neglects to mention the 15th doesn't change that. Your evidence is evidence of nothing other than that the time of Tiberius is indeed mentioned. I'm not certain the 15th was in Marcion's gospel; only certain that you cannot prove otherwise or even make a coherent argument in that direction.

Josephus contradicts that year as does the Acts of Pilate. Why are you so certain that the fifteenth is a marker not only of Luke's correction of the Marcionite text but of the Marcionite text itself?

So then that's your agenda--to harmonize Marcion's gospel to Josephus and the Acts of Pilate.

[Secret Alias]

The gospel mentions Tiberius so the words are there, even though he didn't quote verbatim and mention the 15th year.

But the structure of the citation is odd 'because contained in the gospel that: in Tiberius (Caesar) ...' sounds like a direct citation not a reference to what is generally said in the text. That's why Pretty translated it the way he did i.e. as a citation. Your willful ignoring of the Greek text in order to have your conclusions reinforced is ridiculous. Either you acknowledge that the text has the Marcionite cite his gospel or you're just playing games.

[Secret Alias]

Our other sources have the 15th there.

But is Tertullian preserving what the Marcionites believed with respect to the descent of Jesus (i.e. what follows 'proposes') or does Marcion 'propose' the 15th of Tiberius's reign or both? Given the nature of the text and its relationship with De Recta in Deum Fide I think it is only to the latter.

[Secret Alias]

Your evidence is evidence of nothing other than that the time of Tiberius is indeed mentioned. I'm not certain the 15th was in Marcion's gospel; only certain that you cannot prove otherwise or even make a coherent argument in that direction.

Of course, De Recta in Deum Fide is the evidence for that. The possibility that the Marcionite gospel began like the Basilidean gospel on the 15 of Tybi rather than the 15th of Tiberius (or conversely that the 15th of Tiberius is a corruption of a date in the Egyptian calendar has been taken up by many scholars). The point which you don't seem to get is that your certainty is unfounded. That's the point of this exercise. Our only explicit citation of the wording of the Marcionite gospel by a Marcionite contradicts your smug certainty.

[davidbrainerd]

The gospel mentions Tiberius so the words are there, even though he didn't quote verbatim and mention the 15th year.

But the structure of the citation is odd 'because contained in the gospel that: in Tiberius (Caesar) ...' sounds like a direct citation not a reference to what is generally said in the text. That's why Pretty translated it the way he did i.e. as a citation. Your willful ignoring of the Greek text in order to have your conclusions reinforced is ridiculous. Either you acknowledge that the text has the Marcionite cite his gospel or you're just playing games.

Cath1: Is Jesus God?

Cath2: Just as its contained in the gospel of John: Jesus is God.

I.e. saying something is contained in the gospel doesn't indicate direct quotation.

And that thd word epi has you so excited shows how little Greek you know.

[Secret Alias]

So what do make of Clement's citation (which admittedly does make reference to the '15th')? That's also a loose citation?

ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἐγένετο ῥῆμα κυρίου ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱόν. καὶ πάλιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ· ἦν δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἐρχόμενος ἐπὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὡς ἐτῶν λ (Stromata 1.21.145.3)

Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος Ποντίου Πιλάτου* τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος, ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα* καὶ Καϊάφα, ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἠσαΐου* τοῦ προφήτου Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ ... Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα (Luke chapter 3)

[davidbrainerd]

Since you don't really care about citations and whether they are exact or loose, why don't you just go ahead and explain your theory that Josephus and the Acts of Pilate somehow preclude Marcion's gospel from mentioning the 15th.

[Secret Alias]

That isn't at stake here. We also have to account for Irenaeus thinking that Jesus could have been crucified under Claudius or better yet what led Luke to assign the year to the 15th of Tiberius when Josephus was clearly not his source? These are all subordinate questions. The existence of a gospel with either "πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ ἐπὶ Τιβερίου" or "ἐπὶ Τιβερίου" is significant enough for now. This is clearly a citation of an actual gospel text or part of one.

[davidbrainerd]

That isn't at stake here.

But isn't it though?

Remember in the Marcionite gospel there is only a one year or not quite one year ministry, so the year of Jesus' descent is also the year of his crucifixion. You've said that the Acts of Pilate precludes this, but it actually supports this.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html The prologue of the first Greek from:

Prologue.-I Ananias, of the propraetor's body-guard, being learned in the law, knowing our Lord Jesus Christ from the Holy Scriptures, coming to Him by faith, and counted worthy of the holy baptism, searching also the memorials written at that time of what was done in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Jews had laid up in the time of Pontius Pilate, found these memorials written in Hebrew, and by the favour of God have translated them into Greek for the information of all who call upon the name of our Master Jesus Christ, in the seventeenth year of the reign of our Lord Flavius Theodosius, and the sixth of Flavius Valentinianus, in the ninth indiction.

All ye, therefore, who read and transfer into other books, remember me, and pray for me, that God may be merciful to me, and pardon my sins which I have sinned against Him.

Peace be to those who read, and to those who hear and to their households. Amen.

In the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the Romans, and Herod being king of Galilee, in the nineteenth year of his rule, on the eighth day before the Kalends of April, which is the twenty-fifth of March, in the consulship of Rufus and Rubellio, in the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad, Joseph Caiaphas being high priest of the Jews.

The account that Nicodemus wrote in Hebrew, after the cross and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour God, and left to those that came after him, is as follows:-

Per this, Nicodemus is (to be understood as) writing this account just days after Jesus' crucifixion, in the 15th year of Tiberius' reign!

Now the prologue of the second Greek form does say the following nonsense:

A Narrative about the suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ, and His holy resurrection.

Written by a Jew, Aeneas by name, and translated out of the Hebrew tongue into the Romaic language by Nicodemus, a Roman toparch.

After the dissolution of the kingdom of the Hebrews, four hundred years having run their course, and the Hebrews also coming at last under the kingdom of the Romans, and the king of the Romans appointing them a king; when Tiberius Caesar at last swayed the Roman sceptre, in the eighteenth year of his reign, he appointed as king of Judaea, Herod, the son of the Herod who had formerly slaughtered the infants in Bethlehem, and he made Pilate procurator in Jerusalem; when Annas and Caiaphas held the high-priesthood of Jerusalem, Nicodemus, a Roman toparch, having summoned a Jew, Aeneas by name, asked him to write an account of the things done in Jerusalem about Christ in the times of Annas and Caiaphas. The Jew accordingly did this, and delivered it to Nicodemus; and he, again, translated it from the Hebrew writing into the Romaic language. And the account is as follows:-

I know you'll prefer the second form because its more fanciful in every way.