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

[Secret Alias]

delete

[davidbrainerd]

When Origen has his character ask the Marcionite

Why are you so certain that Origen = Adamantius?

"Origen" is a placeholder for whoever wrote the text. The author doesn't so much matter as the style and presentation, which show this is not an accurate transcript of a real debate. If the debate was real, the Catholic has shortened the Marcionite's answers and falsified the reactions of the arbiter. So if its not pure fiction, its fictionalized.

[Secret Alias]

And it is strange that for a 'loose citation' it is repeated elsewhere:

Καθὼς περιέχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὅτι ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων Πιλάτου

Clement Stromata 1:26 ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος

[Secret Alias]

Mead has argued based on Clement's formula that ἐπὶ Τιβ = in the month of tybi but I haven't been able to see what is written in the original MS.

[Secret Alias]

"Origen" is a placeholder for whoever wrote the text.

So you have absolute 'certainty' that the testimony of an unknown author is worthless ... based on what if he is unknown? How do we know his testimony is unreliable if we don't know anything about him? Gee could it have something to do with our desperate need for 'certainty' (i.e. that where Tertullian + Epiphanius agree we 'know' Marcion) that we have 'certainty' that we can ignore evidence to the contrary (i.e. De Recta in Deum Fide etc)? Be careful of assuming certainties in the humanities. They are inevitably self-serving certainties.

[davidbrainerd]

And it is strange that for a 'loose citation' it is repeated elsewhere:

Καθὼς περιέχει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὅτι ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων Πιλάτου

Clement Stromata 1:26 ἐπὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος

Its not a loose citation because its not a citation. And of course Origen repeats it because its his formula for showing they put the descent under the wrong emperor.

Just get to the point already: what's the crazy theory that you cooked up on the basis of this? To me, 15th year or not, who cares, its still under Tiberius, makes no difference to me. So why do you find it so important to get rid of the 15th year that you jump through all these hoops and become a contortionist?

[Secret Alias]

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

[Secret Alias]

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?

[Secret Alias]

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.

[Secret Alias]

A parallel use of περιέχει in Origen:

And if we must make a statement regarding Judas which may overwhelm our opponents with shame, we would say that, in the book of Psalms, the whole of the 108th contains a prophecy about Judas (φήσομεν ὅτι ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῶν ψαλμῶν ὅλος ὁ ἑκατοστὸς ὄγδοος ψαλμὸς τὴν περὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα περιέχει προφητείαν), the beginning of which is this: "O God, hold not Thy peace before my praise; for the mouth of the sinner, and the mouth of the crafty man, are opened against me."