I think you are overthinking this. Neil gave an explanation for the peculiar "Troas" episode. Your peculiar formulation "what Luke called Asia" makes me think that you know that the Troas was part of the Roman province of Asia. There is no "corridor" between Asia and Bithynia. Paul is excluded from "speaking the word" in all of western and northern Asia Minor here.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:30 amIs there any ancient source thatUlan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:32 pmI think we already had a longer thread about this here some time ago. The point that also the province of Asia is mentioned, another known Marcionite stronghold, may indicate an attempt to dissociate the apostle Paul from Marcionites, who seemed to have claimed that apostle for themselves.
- what Luke called Asia was a stronghold of Marcion
- and also Bithynia
- and that there was a small proto-catholic corridor in between (the "eye of the needle"?)
Regarding "Asia", I was thinking of a warning to all Christian visitors to one big city in Asia, which church to go to, as pretty much every second one was Marcionite. I cannot find the reference at the moment though, so sorry for that.
Yes, even the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees that the Marcionite church was basically the first organized Christian church. They were certainly widespread, but from the martyr lists etc. (the church fathers included Marcionite martyrs in their lists), it's clear that it was far more important in the East.
Important for whom? For Luke's Roman readers I guess?
I think you got this backwards. Why doesn't Justin mention his name when he cites "the apostle"? That's Marcionite usage, if we believe later church fathers. Doesn't he "run away" from the "apostle" issue? Tertullian still calls Paul "the apostle of the heretics". You get the general feeling that, for much of the 2nd and early 3rd century, Paul was seen as basically Marcionite apostle. In order to rehabilitate Paul, it was first necessary to dissociate Paul from his followers, showing that Paul, their "apostle" (they had no other), never preached in those regions where they predominantly flourished. Two seemingly throwaway lines is all it takes in this case. The goal is white-washing Paul.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:45 amWhat I do not get is the whole idea of the assumed Marcionite allusion. imho there would be exact the opposite, a strong anti-Marcionite preaching by Paul in Pontus, the exorcising of legions of demons und the healing of hundreds of blinds.
So, what should the message be? That church leaders should run away from heretic provinces? So far I know they did not avoid the confrontation.
This, by the way, is one of the reasons why I don't think Acts is a wholly late text.