Evolution and the Gospels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11481
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jan 25, 2020 10:20 am

Epiphanius' text of Marcion may have been assimilated to canonical Luke.
I really don't get the phrase 'Epiphanius's copy of the gospel.' That's like saying 'the time Jesus flew in Tatian's gospel' as if it were an assured fact. Epiphanius did not have a copy of Marcion's gospel. If you'd like to hear an argument for that I can develop it here. But it should be enough to say that Epiphanius is a liar, Epiphanius lied about possessing the Gospel of Eve, Epiphanius lied about so many things.

But if you want me to hint at the argument here goes. Have you noticed the ordering of material from Marcion's Apostolikon when cited in Epiphanius's appended 'work' contradicts the order that Epiphanius gives from Marcion's Apostolikon? How is that explained? Epiphanius basically confirms (in essence) Tertullian's Galatians-first ordering for the canon and yet the ordering of citations from the Apostolikon actually run Romans-first. How is that explained? Why would Epiphanius have said 'Marcion's apostolic runs Galatians, Corinthians, Romans ...' and then present the citations from the the Apostolikon 'Romans first'?

My explanation for this is simple. Epiphanius dictated the contents of chapter 42 first. He did not have 'work' which had the citations directly from Marcion's alleged canon at that time. It was being sent to him from an informant - likely Basil as I outline. The citation of exactly 118 entry because of numerology is also uncharacteristic of Epiphanius (I attribute the gematria owing to Gregory - Basil's intimate - who typically misidentifies Marcion for Marcus). I suspect Basil had access to some source on Marcion. He sent it before he died and then Epiphanius once he heard of Basil's passing claimed he say the canon which opened him up to Rufinus's charge of plagiarizing from Origenists.

In any event, Basil didn't see the Marcionite gospel either. He felt obliged to be Epiphanius's informant as he was for the section on the Zoroastrian sect and likely elsewhere in the Panarion to demonstrate his orthodoxy and maintain goodwill with Epiphanius who was growing in authority and danger. The source material was still secondhand and unreliable.
However Marcion's version of Luke 6
I respect you greatly Andrew. But you like most who have considered these matters assumes that the Church Fathers were good people. I don't. I think that in coming generations who have the proper distance from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Eusebius and Epiphanius will realize what a bunch of liars these people were. The fact that Irenaeus invented a lie about the relationship of the Marcionite gospel to Luke which was subsequently towed by ALMOST everyone in Christian antiquity (not the Philosophumena of course and not Ephrem) is inconsequential. Even an objective witness of Tertullian's Against Marcion 4.7, 8 shows that the methodology (4.1 - 6) of using Irenaeus/Tertullian's copy of Luke to determine 'common points' of reference ("sections of Luke 'retained' allegedly by Marcion to use Irenaeus and Tertullian's language) is ridiculous and implausible. The opening scene of that gospel is not preserved verbatim in Luke.

1. Jesus flies down from heaven to Judea (see below)
2. according to the Syriac fragment he likely encounters Adam on the road (Good Samaritan reference) heavy symbolism again. Likely tied into the restoration of Adam theme of Christology
3. he comes to a Jewish house of worship ('Capernaum' in Luke, but clearly a place in Judea according to two other sources)
4. Luke has a Nazareth synagogue and then the Capernaum synagogue but the Marcionite gospel inverts the ordering of material
5. Tertullian's gospel did not have 'Nazarene' and he responds to the presence of the term in the Marcionite gospel in 4.8
6. the Marcionite gospel clearly resembled Tatian's Diatessaron in that Jesus flies or passes through the crowd, but Against Marcion doesn't mention that again because he is using Luke not the Marcionite gospel

The list goes on and on but the opening scene has been deliberate obscured by the idiotic methodology of Against Marcion. To claim that Tertullian or Irenaeus before him is trying to 'honestly present to us' the contents of the Marcionite gospel which were like Luke is dishonest. Akin to saying that the Republicans in the Senate are 'trying to get at the truth' of Trump's actions in the Ukraine. He is using Luke to shield us from the Marcionite gospel because the Marcionite gospel was not like Luke. Stop pretending that these horrible people are honest witnesses.

If we are going to ever make any dent into Marcionism we are going to have to admit that the Church Fathers are DELIBERATELY dishonest about Marcion and when they say that Marcion's 'Apostolic' gospel was derived from an 'apostolic' named Luke, the story certainly was not true and absolutely certainly was devised to discredit the Marcionite gospel.
“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: 11481
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:39 pm

Epiphanius says he will cite a work on Marcion while dictating the main body of the Panarion to his secretary Anatolius c. 474 - 477. He doesn't have the work yet because he says - like Against Marcion - the order of Marcion's apostolic was Galatians first. He builds up the contents of the pragmateia without having them. I argue because its on the way. The text he eventually received from Basil began (even though it appeared at the end of the section:
This is my < treatise >, prefaced in the foregoing selections from the scripture which is still preserved in Marcion’s own canon. Anyone who
examines its collection (of texts) must be struck with awe at the dispensations of < the > bountiful God. (2) If every matter is attested and established by three witnesses, how has God granted me, by a dispensation, to put together here, as I said, a sheer total of 78 testimonies from the Gospel, and 40 from the Apostle? (3) And these are preserved in Marcion to this day and < not > disputed, so that there are 118 altogether, and all contradicting Marcion’s own opinion—as though in the person of the Lord’s name through eighteen, and in the name of the blessing on its right through the hundred.221 (4) And in addition to these < he is refuted > in another, further testimony, < the one > outside of the Gospel and The Apostle.
And then:
1. “Go shew thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded—that this may be a testimony unto you,”34 instead
of the Savior’s “for a testimony unto them.”
2. “But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power to forgive
sins upon earth.”35
3. “The Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath.”36
4. “Judas Iscariot, which was a betrayer.” Instead of, “He came down
with them,” he has, “He came down among them.”37
5. “And the whole multitude sought to touch him. And he lifted up
his eyes,”38 and so forth.
6. “In the like manner did your fathers unto the prophets.”39
7. “I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel.”40
8. “Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,”41 is altered. For
he had it as though it refers to John.
9. “He it is of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before
thy face.”42
10. “And entering into the Pharisee’s house he reclined at table. And
the woman which was a sinner, standing at his feet behind him, washed
his feet with her tears, and wiped and kissed them.”43
11. And again, “She hath washed my feet with her tears, and wiped
and kissed them.”44
12. He did not have, “His mother and his brethren,” but only, “Thy
mother and thy brethren.”45
13. “As they sailed he fell asleep. Then he arose and rebuked the wind
and the sea.”46
14. “And it came to pass as they went the people thronged him, and
a woman touched him, and was healed of her blood. And the Lord said,
Who touched me?” And again, “Someone hath touched me; for I perceive
that virtue hath gone out of me.”47
15. “Looking up to heaven he pronounced a blessing upon them.”48
16. “Saying, The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be slain,
and be raised after three days.”49
17. “And, behold, there were talking with him two men, Elijah and
Moses in glory.”50
18. “Out of the cloud, a voice, This is my beloved Son.”51
19. “I besought thy disciples.” But in addition to, “And they could not
cast it out,” he had, “And he said to them, O faithless generation, how
long shall I suffer you?”52
20. “For the Son of Man shall be delivered into the hands of
men.”53
21. “Have ye not read so much as this, what David did: he went into
the house of God.”54
22. “I thank thee, Lord of heaven.”55 But he did not have, “and earth,”
nor did he have, “Father.” He is shown up, however; for further down he
had, “Even so, Father.”
23. He said to the lawyer, “What is written in the Law?” And after
the lawyer’s answer he replied, “Thou hast answered right; this do, and
thou shalt live.”56
24. And he said, “Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go unto
him at midnight, asking three loaves?” And then, “Ask, and it shall be
given. If a son shall ask a fi sh any of you that is a father, will he for a fi sh
give him a serpent, or a scorpion for an egg? If, then, ye evil men know of
good gifts, how much more the Father?”57
25. The saying about Jonah the prophet has been gutted; Marcion
had, “This generation, no sign shall be given it.” But he did not have anything
about Nineveh, the queen of the south, and Solomon.58
26. Instead of, “Ye pass over the judgment of God,”59 he had, “Ye pass
over the calling of God.”
27. “Woe unto you, for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and
your fathers killed them.”60
28. He did not have, “Therefore said the wisdom of God, I send unto
them prophets,” and the statement that the blood of Zacharias, Abel and
the prophets will be required of this generation.61
29. “I say unto my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body.
Fear him which, after he hath killed, hath authority to cast into hell.” But
he did not have, “Are not fi ve sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one
of them is forgotten before God?”
30. Instead of, “He shall confess before the angels of God,”62 Marcion
says, “before God.”
31. He does not have, “God doth clothe the grass.”63
32. “And your Father knoweth ye have need of these things,”64 physical
things, of course.
33. “But seek ye the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be
added unto you.”65
34. Instead of, “Your Father,” Marcion had, “Father.”66
35. Instead of, “In the second or third watch,” he had, “in the evening
watch.”67
36. “The Lord of that servant will come and will cut him in sunder,
and will appoint his portion with the unbelievers.”68
37. “Lest he hale thee to the judge and the judge deliver thee to the
offi cer.”69
38. There is a falsifi cation from “There came some that told him of the
Galilaeans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifi ces” down to
the place where he speaks of the eighteen who died in the tower at Siloam;
and of “Except ye repent’’ < and the rest > until the parable of the fi g tree
of which the cultivator said, “I am digging about it and dunging it, and if
it bear no fruit, cut it down.”70
39. “This daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound.”71
40. Again, he falsifi ed, “Then ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God.” In place of this he
put, “When ye see all the righteous in the kingdom of God and yourselves
thrust”—but he put, “kept”—“out.” “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”72
41. Again, he falsifi ed, “They shall come from the east and from the
west, and shall sit down in the kingdom,” “The last shall be fi rst,” and “The
Pharisees came saying, Get thee out and depart, for Herod will kill thee”;
also, “He said, Go ye, and tell that fox,” until the words, “It cannot be
that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem,” and, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which
killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent, Often would I have
gathered, as a hen, thy children,” “Your house is left unto you desolate,”
and, “Ye shall not see me until ye shall say, Blessed.”73
42. Again, he falsifi ed the entire parable of the two sons, the one who
took his share of the property and spent it in dissipation, and the other.74
43. “The Law and the prophets were until John, and every man presseth into it.”75
44. The story of the rich man, and that Lazarus the beggar was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.76
45. “But now he is comforted,”77 again meaning this same Lazarus.
46. Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
them, since neither will they hear him that is risen from the dead.”78
47. He falsifi ed, “Say, We are unprofi table servants: we have done that
which was our duty to do.”79
48. When the ten lepers met him. Marcion excised a great deal and
wrote, “He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves unto the priests”; and
he substituted different words for others and said, “Many lepers were in
the day of Elisha the prophet, and none was cleansed, saving Naaman
the Syrian.”80
49. “The days will come when ye shall desire to see one of the days
of the Son of Man.”81
50. “One said unto him, Good master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He replied, Call not thou me good. One is good, God.” Marcion
added, “the Father,” and instead of, “Thou knowest the commandments,”
says, “I know the commandments.”82
51. “And it came to pass that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a
blind man cried, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And when
he was healed, he said, Thy faith hath saved thee.”83
52. Marcion falsifi ed, “He took unto him the twelve, and said, Behold,
we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered
and killed, and the third day he shall rise again”84 He falsifi ed the whole
of this.
53. He falsifi ed the passage about the ass and Bethphage, and the one
about the city and the temple, because of the scripture, “My house shall
be called an house of prayer, but ye make it a den of thieves.”85
54. “And they sought to lay hands on him and they were afraid.”86
55. Again, he excised the material about the vineyard which was let
out to husbandmen, and the verse, “What is this, then, The stone which
the builders rejected?”87
56. He excised, “Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at
the bush, in calling the Lord the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob.
But he is a God of the living, not of the dead.”88
57. He did not have the following: “Now that the dead are raised, even
Moses showed, saying that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob is God of the living.”89
58. Again he falsifi ed, “There shall not an hair of your head perish.”90
59. Again, he falsifi ed the following: “Then let them which are in Judaea
fl ee to the mountains,” and so on, because of the words subjoined in the
text, “until all things that are written be fulfi lled.”91
60. “He communed with the captains how he might deliver him unto
them.”92
61. “And he said unto Peter and the rest, Go and prepare that we may
eat the passover.”93
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.”94
63. He falsifi ed, “I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfi lled in
the kingdom of God.”95
64. He falsifi ed “When I sent you, lacked ye anything,” and so on,
because of the words, “This also that is written must be accomplished,
And he was numbered among the transgressors.”96
65. “He was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled
down, and prayed.”97
66. “And Judas drew near to kiss him, and said . . .”98
67. He falsifi ed what Peter did when he struck the servant of the high
priest and cut off his ear.99
68. “They that held him mocked him, smiting and striking him and
saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?”100
69. After, “We found this fellow perverting the nation,” Marcion added,
“and destroying the Law and the prophets.”101
70. The addition after “forbidding to give tribute” is “and turning away
the wives and children.”102
71. “And when they were come unto a place called Place of a Skull they
crucifi ed him and parted his garments, and the sun was darkened.”1
72. Marcion falsifi ed the words, “Today thou shalt be with me in
paradise.”104
73. “And when he had cried with a loud voice he gave up the
ghost.”105
74. “And, lo, a man named Joseph took the body down, wrapped it in
linen and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn out of the rock.”106
75. “And the women returned and rested the sabbath day according
to the Law.”107
76. “The men in shining garments said, Why seek ye the living among
the dead? He is risen; remember all that he spake when he was yet with
you, that the Son of Man must suffer and be delivered.”108
77. He falsifi ed what Christ said to Cleopas and the other when he
met them, “O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not he to have suffered these things?” And instead of, “what the
prophets have spoken,” he put, “what I said unto you.” But he is shown
up since, “When he broke the bread their eyes were opened and they knew
him.”109
78. “Why are ye troubled? Behold my hands and my feet, for a spirit
hath not bones, as ye see me have.”110
Epiphanius adds in his own voice:
And in further opposition to this heresiarch I also attach, to this arrangement (of texts) which has been laboriously accumulated against him by myself, such other texts as I find in his works, as in an arbitrary version of the apostle Paul’s epistles; not all of them but some of them—(I have listed their names in the order of his Apostolic at the end of the complete work)—and these mutilated as usual by his rascality. < (They are) remains of the truth which he preserves > as, to be honest, < there are > remains of the true Gospel in his Gospel in name which I have given above. All the same, he has adulterated everything with fearful ingenuity.
Back to the list which Epiphanius received (Epiphanius adds the order of Marcion's gospel according to Against Marcion for comparison):
From the Epistle to the Romans, number four in Marcion’s canon but
number one in the Apostolic Canon.
1(28). “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
law, and as many as have sinned in the Law shall be judged by the Law.
For not the hearers of the Law are just before God, but the doers of the
Law shall be justifi ed.”111
2(29). “Circumcision verily profi teth if thou keep the Law; but if thou
be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.”112
3(30). “Which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the
Law.”113
4(31). “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died
for the ungodly.”114
5(32). “Wherefore the Law is holy, and the commandment holy and
just and good.”115
6(33). “That the requirement of the Law might be fulfi lled in us.”116
7(34). “For Christ is the fulfi llment of the Law for righteousness to
everyone that believeth.”117
8(35). “He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfi lled the Law.”118
The First Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number fi ve in Marcion’s
canon >, but number eight in ours.
The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, < number six in Marcion’s
canon >, but number nine in ours.
From the Epistle to Ephesians, number seven < in Marcion’s canon >,
but number fi ve in ours.
1(36) “Remember that ye, being in time past gentiles, who are called
uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the fl esh made
by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus
ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by his blood. For he is our
peace, who hath made both one,”119 and so on.
2(37). “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from
the dead, < and > Christ shall give thee light.”12
3(38). “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, < and >
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one fl esh,”121 minus the
phrase, “unto his wife.”
< From the Epistle > to the Colossians, number eight < in Marcion’s
canon >, but number seven in ours.
1(39). “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of an holyday, or of the new moon and sabbath days, which are a
shadow of things to come.”122
The Epistle to Philemon, number nine < in Marcion’s canon >, but
number thirteen, or even fourteen, in ours.
The Epistle to the Philippians, number ten < in Marcion’s canon >, but
number six in ours.
< From the Epistle > to the Laodiceans, number eleven < in Marcion’s
canon >.
1(< 40 >). “(There is) one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all.”123
From the Epistle to the Galatians, number one < in Marcion’s canon >,
but number four in ours.
1. “Learn that the just shall live by faith. For as many as are under the
Law are under a curse; but, The man that doeth them shall live by them.”124
2. “Cursed is everyone that hangeth upon a tree; but he that is of
promise is by the freewoman.”125
3. “I testify again that a man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the
whole Law.”126
< 4. > In place of, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” he put,
“corrupteth the whole lump.”127
< 5. > “For all the Law is fulfi lled by you; thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself.”128
6. “Now the works of the fl esh are manifest which are these: Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft,hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, factions, envyings, drunkenness, revellings—of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past,
that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”129
7. “They that are Christ’s have crucifi ed the fl esh with the affections
and lusts.”130
8. “For neither do they themselves who are circumcised (now) keep
the Law.”131
< From the > First < Epistle > to the Corinthians, number two in Marcion’s own canon and in ours.
1(9). “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to naught the understanding of the prudent.”132
2(10). “That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
in the Lord.”133
3(11). “Of the fi rst beings of this world that come to naught.”134
4(12). “For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.’’ And
again, “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain.”135
5(13). “For even Christ our passover is sacrifi ced.”136
6(14). “Know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body?
For two, saith he, shall be one fl esh.”137
7(15). Given in an altered form. In place of, “in the Law,” he says “in
the Law of Moses.” But before this he says, “Or saith not the Law the
same also?”138
8(16). “Doth God take care for oxen?”139
9(17). “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant
how that our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and that
rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased. Now
these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil
things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters as were some of them;
as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
Neither let us tempt Christ,” until the words, “These things happened unto
them for examples, and they were written for us,”140 and so on.
10(18). “What say I then? That sacrifi cial meat is anything, or that that
which is offered in sacrifi ce to idols is anything? But the things which they
sacrifi ce, they sacrifi ce to devils and not to God.”141 But Marcion added,
“Sacrifi cial meat.”
11(19). “A man ought not to have long hair, forasmuch as he is the
image and glory of God.”142
12(20). “But God hath composed the body.”143
13(21). Marcion has erroneously added the words, “on the Law’s
account,” < after >, “Yet in the church I had rather speak fi ve words with
my understanding.”144
14(22). “In the Law it is written, With men of other tongues and other
lips will I speak unto this people.”145
15(23). “Let your women keep silence in the church; For it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience,
as also saith the Law.”146
16(24). On resurrection of the dead: “Brethren, I make known unto
you the gospel which I preached unto you.”147 Also, “If Christ be not
raised, it is in vain,”148 and so on. “So we preach, and so ye believed . . .149
that Christ died, and was buried, and rose again the third day . . . When
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.”150
From the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, number three in Marcion’s
canon and ours
1(25). “For all the promises of God have their Yea in him; therefore
through him we utter Amen to God.”151
2(26). “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and
ourselves your servants through Jesus. For God who commanded the light
to shine out of darkness . . .”15
3(27). “We having the same Spirit of faith also believe and therefore
speak.” But he excised, “according as it is written.”1
Epiphanius goes on to say in his own voice:
11,9 This is Marcion’s corrupt compilation, containing a version and
form of the Gospel according to Luke, and an incomplete one of the
apostle Paul—not of all his epistles (10) but simply of Romans, Ephesians,
Colossians, Laodiceans, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, First and
Second Thessalonians, Philemon and Philippians. (11) (There is no version) of First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews < in his scripture
at all, and > even the epistles that are there < have been mutilated >, since
they are not all there but are counterfeits. (12) And < I found > that this
compilation had been tampered with throughout, and had supplemental
material added in certain passages—not for any use, but for inferior, harmful
strange sayings against the sound faith, < fi ctitious > creatures of Marcion’s
cracked brain.
11,13 I have made this laborious, searching compilation from the scripture he has chosen, Paul and the Gospel according to Luke, < so that >
all who are attempting to contradict his imposture may understand that
the altered sayings have been fraudulently inserted, (14) and that any not
in their proper places have been stolen from them by his audacity. For the
oaf thought that only these run counter to his false notion.
11,15 But there is a third < work > of my scholarship: the compilation
of whatever material he and we have in common, and whose meaning is
the Savior’s incarnation and his testimony to the agreement of the New
Testament with the Old—and the acknowledgment in the Gospel, by the
Son of God, that God is the maker of heaven and earth and the same God
who spoke in the Law and the prophets, and that this God is his own Father.
(16) And here is the brief arrangement of that work of mine, transcribed
word for word by myself from copies of Marcion in the form of scholia
with exegetical comments, to serve as an outline. (17) But so that the diffi cult things in it will not be obscure to some and fail to be understood, I
shall in turn explain of the several entries in order—I mean the fi rst entry,
the second, the third (and so on)—the reason why each saying was selected
and transferred here.154 I begin as follows.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:32 am, edited 4 times in total.
“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

Ulan
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Ulan » Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:02 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
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.
A rather astute observation. It's a trap we all regularly fall into. It's hard to leave the comfort zone.

Regarding versions of Marcion's gospel, I think we have at least one that shows further evolution into definite gnostic territory.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:37 am

Ulan wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:02 pm
Secret Alias wrote:
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.
A rather astute observation. It's a trap we all regularly fall into. It's hard to leave the comfort zone.

Regarding versions of Marcion's gospel, I think we have at least one that shows further evolution into definite gnostic territory.
Imho, quite the opposite is the case.

At least for more than 200 years, from the beginning of the historical-critical method, scholars have felt free to „change“ the text of the Gospels in their interpretation with guesswork about an aramaic or hebrew “Vorlage”, hallucinated Proto-texts with the claim of “reconstruction”, supposed interpolations and errors of scribes or even of the evangelists and with the circumstances of historical reality.

The end was always that they wishfully “reconstructed” their personal Jesus and their personal Gospel. This “unclean spirit” is far from being driven out.

I don't want to advocate an attitude that never goes beyond the reliable text. But I've never seen one that imho doesn't fall into the trap of wishful thinking.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11481
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:56 am

Of course I shouldn't have enjoyed praise at this forum for very long. But here is what I would say to that. Scholars pretend that the CONVENIENT grouping of four texts for us by Irenaeus is - to borrow from the OP - and example of 'natural variation.' That Mark, Matthew and Luke at least are representations of three species of birds that might be found at Galapacos Island. I don't. Irenaeus knew there was variation. What was "natural" being the variation between Marcion and Tatians text for example. Celsus mentions it. Irenaeus sought instead to artificially create a "harmony text" from four as if God himself created four separate "proto-gospels" that were somehow one. "Abracadabra! Poof. Let there be four!" That's not speculation. That's what Irenaeus himself says when he or Ammonius built the fucking thing. You guys on the other hand lie, misrepresent, "speculate" represent something else when you posit the Matthew, Mark and Luke represent "caught and stuffed" birds from Galapacos Island. Let's get our roles clear. You guys are making shit up and misrepresenting what is.

I am saying, Irenaeus was channeling Ezra when he "brought back to life" an arrangement made by God in the beginning. You guys imagine he was walking about Galapacos Island with a bird net, an ancient precursor of Darwin! At best he was Darwin artificially creating Plato's "ideal" species lasting together birds that never existed with glue, feathers and string. You mistake Irenaeus for Darwin at your peril.
“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

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:38 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 3:56 am
Scholars pretend that the CONVENIENT grouping of four texts for us by Irenaeus is - to borrow from the OP - and example of 'natural variation.' That Mark, Matthew and Luke at least are representations of three species of birds that might be found at Galapacos Island.
Again, imho quite the opposite.

Scholarly mainstream still thinks in terms of oral traditions, circulation of memory, textualization of single stories, redaction of sources, compositions of longer units. They pretend that the left wing comes from Galapagos Island and the right wing from Ecuador.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11481
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:31 am

So do we or you imagine the four had a life before Irenaeus individually or collectively? INDIVIDUALLY? COLLECTIVELY? For instance, Irenaeus uses Papias to introduce Matthew to his audience but Papias's Matthew isn't Irenaeus's Matthew. Secret Mark isn't canonical Mark. Marcion is said to be Luke but that's plainly a lie by Adv Marc 4.7,8. John was spurious according to Gaius. But of course you believe this shit is real because likely you want to work with something, you'd rather a sure nothing than nothing for sure.
“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
MrMacSon
Posts: 6081
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by MrMacSon » Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:46 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:38 am
Scholarly mainstream still thinks in terms of oral traditions, circulation of memory, textualization of single stories, redaction of sources, compositions of longer units. They pretend that the left wing comes from Galapagos Island and the right wing from Ecuador.
The notions of significant oral traditions [and] circulation of memory are dubious. They're used to try to bridge significant gaps and to prop up dubious explanations. Thomas L Brodie and Tom Dykstra, in Chapter Six of The Birthing of the New Testament and Mark, Canonizer of Paul, respectively, skewered oral traditions as a viable explanation.

Likewise, the 'circulation of memory' thing is clutching at straws.

Ulan
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Ulan » Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:13 pm

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 2:37 am
Ulan wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 8:02 pm
Secret Alias wrote:
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.
A rather astute observation. It's a trap we all regularly fall into. It's hard to leave the comfort zone.

Regarding versions of Marcion's gospel, I think we have at least one that shows further evolution into definite gnostic territory.
Imho, quite the opposite is the case.

At least for more than 200 years, from the beginning of the historical-critical method, scholars have felt free to „change“ the text of the Gospels in their interpretation with guesswork about an aramaic or hebrew “Vorlage”, hallucinated Proto-texts with the claim of “reconstruction”, supposed interpolations and errors of scribes or even of the evangelists and with the circumstances of historical reality.

The end was always that they wishfully “reconstructed” their personal Jesus and their personal Gospel. This “unclean spirit” is far from being driven out.

I don't want to advocate an attitude that never goes beyond the reliable text. But I've never seen one that imho doesn't fall into the trap of wishful thinking.
While I can understand your lack of trust in reconstructions - they are necessarily always guesswork of some kind - I think you are wrong to assume any "reliable text". The synoptic gospels alone are proof for constant meddling with the text, including redactional changes to make them fit the view of the author(s) and editor(s). Furthermore, I think the texts of the early church fathers give us enough material to come to the conclusion that our "reliable texts" looked different at their times. Yes, we can work with those texts we have. However, this is a snapshot from a relatively late time in Christian history, when we come close to building a canon. Or, in other words, the late second century as earliest point.

You can hold the opinion that getting closer to the roots of Christianity than the late 2nd century is a futile endeavor, as long as we don't have any solid textual sources from earlier times, but that doesn't wipe out the evidence that there at least was something else. Will we get any solid conclusions? If no new sources show up, the answer is "No". Nevertheless, it's fun to weigh the available evidence, anyway.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Evolution and the Gospels

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:59 am

Ulan wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:13 pm
The synoptic gospels alone are proof for constant meddling with the text, including redactional changes to make them fit the view of the author(s) and editor(s).
I agree, but this „meddling“ happened in different texts (Stephan’s three birds) and not in different editions of one text.
Ulan wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:13 pm
Furthermore, I think the texts of the early church fathers give us enough material to come to the conclusion that our "reliable texts" looked different at their times.
I did not follow closely the considerations of our members in this direction, but I remember that there were two kinds of arguments. Please correct me if I miss something.

First, that in the church fathers are quotations of an explicite mentioned or apparently canonical gospel that can’t be find in this exact form in a canonical gospel. But imho such an argument did not consider that interpretively modified quotations are in all relevant texts (starting with the Hebrew Bible itself, interpretative translations in the LXX, interpretively modified quotations by the Qumranies, the Rabbis, Paul, Mark and so on).

Second, that in the church fathers are other texts mentioned, for example „the logia of the apostle Matthew, written in the Hebrew language“. But imho such an argument did not consider that this could be a simple trick to justify the primacy of the more orthodox and more pleasing Matthew over Mark when the whole world knows that GMark was first.

Post Reply