Evolution and the Gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by perseusomega9 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 4:38 am

Irish1975 wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 2:56 pm
Irish1975 wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:52 pm
Furthermore, the idea of an original college of apostles, not including Paul, is established both within the Gospel narratives and through the Gospel titles.
Went to check my copy of Marcion and--contrary to what I expected--he does appear to have Luke's notion of "the 12 apostles." The other 3 evangelists refrain from calling The Twelve "apostles."
Image

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:40 am

It gets so frustrating. I saw a professor of this nonsense on Facebook have a cartoon put up on Facebook today basically ridiculing the 'confidence' of non-professionals versus the 'expertise' of a trained professional. Fine. The academics are indeed superior to most everyone. No doubt about it. But let's be honest. Their 'expertise' is really - texts and traditions of the late second century to Nicene orthodoxy. That's all it is. Beyond the texts and traditions that Irenaeus altered and authenticated they are not experts. So Mark is the earliest of these gospels. Fine. But let's look at what we can figure out about the opening of the Marcionite gospel from our three principal sources:

1. Irenaeus Marcion entry AH 1.27.1
2. Tertullian Against Marcion Book 4
3. Syrian fragment mentioning the opening of the Marcionite gospel

Jesus comes down from heaven to Jerusalem or Judea - not Galilee as the gospel of Luke. Why does Book Four mention a coming down to Capernaum? Because of the methodology of the author. He says, since Marcion stole Luke and falsified it I am going to disprove Marcion's antitheses by examining the parts of Luke we hold in common. Now that's a loaded, subjective methodology if we've ever heard one!

You look at the section of Against Marcion 4 that deals with the opening of the Marcionite gospel - chapters 7 and 8. He says that Jesus came down to Capernaum because he is dealing with his own text of Luke. That's plain. Irenaeus and the Syrian fragment say it was Jerusalem or Judea. How do we know there is a disconnect? Because it is apparent that even though he trying to force the discussion to be limited to his Luke the opening of the Marcionite gospel doesn't quite match Luke. He comes down to Capernaum. Fine. But in Luke the Nazareth synagogue precedes Capernaum. All the material where Jesus heals the demoniac and then is pressed by a precipice follows Nazareth in Luke but in the author's attempt to disprove Marcion he makes it follow Capernaum. So something isn't quite right. Something is off. He cites Matthew through out. He first cites the exclamation of the demoniac at first without Nazarene - What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God - and then in the section that follows with Nazarene or he takes the presence of Nazarene in the Marcionite text (not his text which didn't have it).

The point is that the methodology that the author chooses to follow doesn't allow us to get a direct picture of the Marcionite narrative. The city is changed (from Jerusalem to Capernaum). The exact wording is obscured. He never makes clear what Ephrem (who identifies incidentally the city as 'Bethsaida') and other sources tell us - namely that Jesus flies or passes through the crowd. The whole thing is a scholarly sham. To treat these Church Fathers as honest brokers is like deferring to Trump's integrity at the impeachment trial. The only people who do this are supporters of a chronic liar or chronic liars. That doesn't mean that all the scholars who have 'expertise' in this material are conscious 'collaborators.' But there is an unconscious conspiracy. There is a status quo being maintained all in the name of security, authority - when in fact what we know is a lie.
“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

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Irish1975 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:20 am

Okay, Okay, I walked into that one. Nice job, guys.

But my "copy of Marcion" is Jason BeDuhn's reconstruction. I also have an English translation of Matthias Klinghardt's text. And there is Ben's Greek/English rendering of Dieter Roth's edition. Granted that Marcion scholarship is something of a minefield, it's not as if they're just making it up. They have multiple independent sources that knew Marcion's texts: not just Irenaueus and Tertullian, but Epiphanius, the Dialogues of Adamantius, etc. David Trobisch says that these reconstructions agree maybe only 90%, but that's still something. So I don't see a basis for Secret Alias' wild claim that "we don't know much about Maricon," which at any rate doesn't sit comfortably with the belief (which I share) that Luke plagiarized Marcion.

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Irish1975 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:49 am

The text "whom he also designated apostles" (Luke 6:13, cf. Mt 10:2) seems critical in a discussion of Marcion.

One of the few things that is (so we are told) known about Marcion is that he knew and affirmed only one true apostle: Paul. So why would he publish a gospel that made the bumbling twelve out to be "the 12 apostles"? And then there is the question of apostolic succession invoked by Irenaeus and his predecessors (Polycarp?), which provides the standard for revelatory authority laid down in 1 Clement 42:1-2:

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

The author of 1 Clement knows only 2 apostles: Peter and Paul. This is a Roman tradition, as far removed from the Synoptic accounts of the Twelve as it is from Marcion's Apostolikon.

It seems to me that later fabricators of the orthodox faith (Polycarp, Irenaeus) built on the Roman conception a college of 12 apostles, some of whom authored the 4 orthodox gospels directly or indirectly through their disciples. Marcion would not have embraced this model, which served to (1) rebuke the authority of his own scriptures as a direct revelation, and (2) vindicate the rule of successively appointed monarchical bishops. The latter seems to be different from the sort of clerical authority invoked by Marcionite churches, but I would be interested if anyone knows more about this.

All to say, I am inclined to agree with Secret Alias that Marcion didn't have a notion of "the 12 apostles." But it's only a probabilistic argument. The scholarship on the text "whom he also designated apostles" appears to be uncertain, in that only Tertullian attests to the presence of this text in Marcion's gospel.
Last edited by Irish1975 on Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:21 am

But your not getting it. The Marcionites had only one apostle. No 'apostle Peter,' no 'apostle anyone else.' The guy we call Paul was the only apostle. The model is clearly Moses https://books.google.com/books?id=F5Y3A ... od&f=false who was the apostle of God according to the Samaritans because of the frequent reference to God 'sending [him] forth' (see also "And not like Moses [who] put on a veil over his face" - a clear comparison between one apostle and the other). The canon was called 'the apostolic' because it belonged to THE apostle. For the orthodox 'apostolic' is a class of people - i.e. Luke and Mark - those (pl) who were 'of the APOSTLES' - https://books.google.com/books?id=9-PYA ... on&f=false. Do you start to see it? One came first - either an individual madman who started a religion that Jesus - a god - came to establish an (sg) apostle who in turn established a new religion (like Moses). The second possibility is that there was a group of 'apostles' (pl) who were established by the god Jesus as a kind of holy family (like the sons of Israel). The fact that Luke introduces the 70 MIGHT have something to do with this. The 70 are the elders. They are not divine people like the sons of Israel. But the point is that IF there was a college of apostles established by Jesus c. 20 - 30 CE then theoretically there at least 12 witnesses to a historical Jesus (with 12 witnesses how could there not be a historical Jesus). But if the Marcionites were right there was only one apostle (again just like Moses). The Clementines already hint that this witness - the witness of Paul - was purely done in a visionary state. Can you see the difference?

The point is that we can't just bring over our shitty tradition and foist it on top of the Marcionite one. It's like if I wanted to divorce my gay partner and want to become heterosexual, I can't just suppose that dating a woman is exactly the same as dating a man or vice versa. We have to pay attention to the possibility that different cultures had different understandings.
“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

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Irish1975 » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:36 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:21 am
But your not getting it. The Marcionites had only one apostle. No 'apostle Peter,' no 'apostle anyone else.'
Did you even read what I wrote? I said exactly that.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:46 am

But I strongly suspect the Marcionite tradition WAS the original Roman tradition.
“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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12046
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:34 pm

And also remember defining the Marcionite text as 'X' - in this case proto-Luke, a version of Luke, whatever - based on the testimony of pathological liars helps scholars BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LIMIT DISCUSSION down to knowable commodities. In other words, too bad so sad that Irenaeus said the gospel of Marcion is a version of Luke, but that means we can put it in a box, claim we know it and move on and proceed exclusively with knowable commodities - i.e. Mark, Matthew, Luke etc. I found the same thing with Secret Mark. It really wasn't that there was any actual proof Morton Smith forged this or that. But the effect of Secret Mark was to open the door to other possibilities or at least - it rendered the traditional understanding EXACTLY AS IT WAS, a shitty, limited possibility.
“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

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Joseph D. L. » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:27 am

Irish1975 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:20 am
But my "copy of Marcion" is Jason BeDuhn's reconstruction.
Which is fine as a point of reference, but it is a stretch to call this Marcion's Gospel.

The problem is that what we know about Marcion's Gospel is very late in comparison (Marcion was an early second century figure; all information about him and his text is late second, early third century). These accounts differ, extremely, with Tertullian and claiming that Marcion's text had information that was only ever in Matthew, and even adds that some verses of John was in it as well. Epiphanius is no better and his motifs, along with Tertullian's, in proving that Marcion was a truncated Luke is itself suspicious as Justin never makes such a claim, and in fact never mentions or directly quotes from a Gospel called "Luke". Yet that is the prism that Tertullian and Epiphanius are examining Marcion. And it is very likely that Neither knew of Marcion's text because they contradict each other several times. So either the text they are reading had evolved, or they are going off of local variants, and thus not the actual text itself.

But there is a theological reason why this cannot be Marcion's text.

Paul is central for Marcion's religion to work. Isu Chrestus and the Father may be in the wings, but Paul is the headliner. It's his name on the Marquise. And when you compare what we have about the Evangelion and the Apostilicon, onething becomes clear... they do not go together. Paul ignores an earthly career for Chrestus; and Chrestus appoints followers whom Paul will later rebuke, yet doesn't appoint Paul until after he has ascended to Heaven. Motivations are hard to determine because we cannot get inside the person's brain, but this doesn't sound like something Marcion would allow if Ireaneus, Tertullian and Epiphinaius are right and he was scissor-happy. This would be something Marcion would exercise out of his own text.

But then again, so are a lot of things in the Apostilicon. If Marcion was staunchly anti-Jew and anti-Torah, why follow a text that has positive references to Jewish patriarchs and theology? Or is this a case where "the contradictions prove it's authentic"?
Last edited by Joseph D. L. on Tue Jan 28, 2020 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1801
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:05 am

Irish1975 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:49 am
The text "whom he also designated apostles" (Luke 6:13, cf. Mt 10:2) seems critical in a discussion of Marcion.

One of the few things that is (so we are told) known about Marcion is that he knew and affirmed only one true apostle: Paul. So why would he publish a gospel that made the bumbling twelve out to be "the 12 apostles"? And then there is the question of apostolic succession invoked by Irenaeus and his predecessors (Polycarp?), which provides the standard for revelatory authority laid down in 1 Clement 42:1-2:

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus
Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.
So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order.

The author of 1 Clement knows only 2 apostles: Peter and Paul. This is a Roman tradition, as far removed from the Synoptic accounts of the Twelve as it is from Marcion's Apostolikon.

It seems to me that later fabricators of the orthodox faith (Polycarp, Irenaeus) built on the Roman conception a college of 12 apostles, some of whom authored the 4 orthodox gospels directly or indirectly through their disciples. Marcion would not have embraced this model, which served to (1) rebuke the authority of his own scriptures as a direct revelation, and (2) vindicate the rule of successively appointed monarchical bishops. The latter seems to be different from the sort of clerical authority invoked by Marcionite churches, but I would be interested if anyone knows more about this.

All to say, I am inclined to agree with Secret Alias that Marcion didn't have a notion of "the 12 apostles." But it's only a probabilistic argument. The scholarship on the text "whom he also designated apostles" appears to be uncertain, in that only Tertullian attests to the presence of this text in Marcion's gospel.
As evidence for Marcion's Gospel having the phrase twelve apostles we also have Epiphanius Panarion
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765&start=20#p39330
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6: <ξβ>. «Καὶ ἀνέπεσε, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν· ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν». <ξγ>. Παρέκοψε τό «λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἀπάρτι, ἕως ἂν πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ». / 62. 'And he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him, and he said, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.' 63. He falsified, 'I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.'
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.17: <Σχόλιον> <ξβ>. «Καὶ ἀνέπεσε καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἶπεν· ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν». <Ἔλεγχος> <ξβ>. Ἀνέπεσεν ὁ σωτήρ, ὦ Μαρκίων, καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι μετ' αὐτοῦ. εἰ ἀνέπεσε καὶ συνανέπεσον, οὐ δύναται μία λέξις τὴν σημασίαν ἔχειν ἑτέραν καὶ ἑτέραν, κἄν τε τῇ ἀξίᾳ καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ ἔχοι τὴν διαφοράν. ἢ γὰρ δώσεις καὶ τοὺς δώδεκα δοκήσει ἀναπεπτωκέναι ἢ καὶ αὐτὸν ἀληθείᾳ σάρκα ἔχοντα ἀληθινῶς ἀναπεπτωκέναι. καί «ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα τοῦτο τὸ Πάσχα φαγεῖν μεθ' ὑμῶν πρὸ τοῦ με παθεῖν», ἵνα δείξῃ Πάσχα πρὸ τοῦ πάθους αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ προτυπούμενον καὶ γινόμενον τὸ βέβαιον αὐτοῦ τοῦ πάθους καὶ ἐντελέστερον προσκαλούμενον· καὶ ὑποδεικνύων, ὡς καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ἀπόστολός φησι <ὅτι> «παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῖν γέγονεν ὁ νόμος εἰς Χριστόν». εἰ δὲ παιδαγωγὸς ὁ νόμος εἰς Χριστόν, οὐκ ἀλλότριος Χριστοῦ ὁ νόμος. <Σχόλιον> <ξγ>. Παρέκοψε τό «λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἀπάρτι, ἕως ἂν πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ». <Ἔλεγχος> <ξγ>. Τοῦτο περιεῖλεν καὶ ἐρρᾳδιούργησεν, ἵνα δῆθεν μὴ ποιήσῃ ἐν βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ βρωτὰ ἢ ποτά· οὐκ εἰδὼς ὁ κτηνώδης ὅτι ἀντιμίμημα τῶν ἐπιγείων δύναται εἶναι πνευματικὰ καὶ ἐπουράνια, μεταλαμβανόμενα ὡς ἡμεῖς οὐκ οἴδαμεν· μαρτυρεῖ γὰρ πάλιν ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ λέγει ὅτι «καθήσεσθε ἐπὶ τῆς τραπέζης μου, ἐσθίοντες καὶ πίνοντες ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν». ἢ παρέκοψε πάλιν ταῦτα, ἵνα δῆθεν ποιήσῃ τὰ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ μὴ ἔχοντα τόπον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. πόθεν οὖν Ἠλίας καὶ Μωυσῆς ὤφθησαν μετ' αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἐν δόξῃ; ἀλλ' οὐδὲν δυνήσεταί τις πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. / Scholion 62. 'And he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him, and he said, With desire I have desired to eat the Passover with you before I suffer.' (a) Elenchus 62. The Saviour sat down, Marcion, and the twelve apostles sat down with him. If he 'sat down' and they 'sat down' with him, one expression cannot have two different meanings, even if it can be differentiated in its dignity and manner. For you must either admit that the twelve apostles have also sat down in appearance, or that he has really sat down because he really has flesh. (b) And (he said), 'With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer,' to show that a Passover is already portrayed in the Law before his passion, both becoming the guarantee of his passion and calling forth something more perfect—showing too that, as the holy apostle also said, 'The Law was our guardian until Christ.' But if the Law is a guardian until Christ, the Law is not unrelated to Christ. Scholion 63. He falsified, 'I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.' (a) Elenchus 63. Marcion took this out and tampered with it, to avoid putting food or drink in the Kingdom of God, if you please. He was unaware, oaf that he is, that spiritual, heavenly things can correspond with the earthly, partaken of in ways that we do not know. (b) For the Saviour testifies in turn, 'Ye shall sit at my table, eating and drinking in the kingdom of heaven.' (c) Or again, he falsified these things to show, if you please, that the legislation in the Law has no place in the kingdom of heaven. Then why did Elijah and Moses appear with him on the mount in glory? But no one can accomplish anything against the truth.
The problem here is that twelve apostles in Luke 22:14 is probably not the original reading which was probably just apostles. Epiphanius' text of Marcion may have been assimilated to canonical Luke.

I also have doubts whether Marcion's version of the calling of the twelve included the phrase whom he also named apostles in Luke 6:13. (Tertullian's version of Marcion's account of the calling of the twelve is too allusive to know whether Marcion's text included the word apostles.)

However Marcion's version of Luke 6 probably included Jesus appointing twelve special followers and Marcion's version of Luke 22 probably used the word apostles to refer to Jesus' special followers.

Andrew Criddle

Post Reply