Jason BeDuhn's reconstruction/translation of Marcion...

[toejam]

Just finished BeDuhn's book. Fascinating. I was unaware just how similar Marcion's NT text was to the versions we're familiar with today. I was expecting a lot more differences and obvious tampering. Seems a lot of the differences are of little more value than other textual variants and the odd missing/added verse in the manuscript evidence. That said, it is tantalizing to speculate what else might have been included or excluded from these texts that we'll never know (unless new manuscripts are found). BeDuhn makes a strong case that we cannot and should not prematurely write off Marcion's canon as simply a theologically motivated edit, and that it may well preserve some of the oldest gospel and epistle traditions we know of. That said, he is also cautious about making a strong argument one way or the other. I like his openness to the multiple possibilities.

[Stephan Huller]

The Marcionite gospel must have been different enough from the canonical gospels for Diatessaronic-using writers like Ephrem and possibly Eznik to think that the Marcionite gospel resembled a Diatessaron.

[Ulan]

The Marcionite gospel must have been different enough from the canonical gospels for Diatessaronic-using writers like Ephrem and possibly Eznik to think that the Marcionite gospel resembled a Diatessaron.

Wasn't even Tertullian quoting stuff that looked like Matthew when he allegedly quoted Luke? Who knows how the texts looked at that time.

I love this Indian tale. They should print it in the preface of each Bible. Preferably the Jain version.

[Blood]

BeDuhn rips New Testament scholars a new one regarding their idiotic credulity in accepting everything Tertullian and the Catholic Hit Squad say about Marcion's Euangelion and Apostolikon. His main point is that the importance of these polemics is their witness to what gLuke and the Epistles actually read like in the first half of the second century, a crucial point virtually all supposed "scholars" of the New Testament have failed to understand.

"Tertullian further charged that Marcion 'mutilated' those texts ... someone with Tertullian and Epiphanius' presuppositions about the accuracy of their versions of the texts, and about Marcion's motives as a 'heretic,' would necessarily draw such an inference from the simple fact that Marcion's texts were shorter than the versions of the works in question known to them...

"The way this issue has been handled by modern biblical researchers is instructive ... most have simply accepted the polemical claim that Marcion edited out portions of the texts he received ... the common supposition has been that the polemical testimony to Marcion's editorial activity is basically reliable ... few researchers seem to have considered the fact that writers such as Tertullian were in no position to know the state of texts in or before the time of Marcion, nor did they have any independent information that would have told them whether Marcion's or their versions of these writings were the earlier one. For these reasons, the testimony of these opponents is utterly without merit ... even Tertullian himself ... acknowledged that he could not actually prove the priority of his community's versions of the texts over Marcion's. Modern commentators rarely have been as careful to qualify their assertions.

"In short, the acceptance by modern researchers of the claims made about Marcion's handling of the texts included in his NT is an example of uncritical adoption of polemic as history." (pp. 30-31)

[Ulan]

His main point is that the importance of these polemics is their witness to what gLuke and the Epistles actually read like in the first half of the second century, a crucial point virtually all supposed "scholars" of the New Testament have failed to understand.

I think this point is worth repeating. I don't hear much talk about those observations many of the so-called radical critics make that are actually relevant to the NT discussion. It's all focused on the question whether Jesus was an actual person or not, which is moderately interesting, but not really that important. What I see missing is a more public discussion of other points.

For example, I found it very interesting when Carrier gave the example of dating Matthew who is supposedly quoted in Clement (he wanted to establish the terminus post quem there). He says that the "Matthew" you find in Clement is just some "sort of" Matthew, with a Christmas story that has Jesus himself as the Christmas star. I never heard anyone mention that, but I probably missed this.

Or what about Markus Vinzent, who says that what in the literature is called Justin Martyr quoting from the gospels and is usually characterized as being between Matthew and Luke would actually be an exact match of what is later quoted as being from Marcion. Are there any noteworthy articles dealing with cases like this, or is this just summarily rejected?

[Blood]

The "uncritical adoption of polemic as history" sums up the entire field of New Testament studies actually.

[maryhelena]

New book out next year on Marcion......

Marcion and the Making of a Heretic
God and Scripture in the Second Century

AUTHOR: Judith M. Lieu
PUBLICATION PLANNED FOR: March 2015

The first comprehensive monograph on the 'heretic' Marcion in nearly a century, this volume offers insight into second-century Christian intellectual debate and traces heresiological development. Judith M. Lieu analyses accounts of Marcion by the major early Christian polemicists who shaped the idea of heresy, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius of Salamis, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Ephraem Syrus. She examines Marcion's Gospel, Apostolikon, and Antitheses in detail and compares his principles to those of contemporary Christian and non-Christian thinkers, covering a wide range of controversial issues: the nature of God, the relation of the divine to creation, the person of Jesus, the interpretation of Scripture, the nature of salvation, and the appropriate lifestyle of adherents. In this innovative study, Marcion emerges as a distinctive, creative figure who addressed widespread concerns within second-century Christian diversity.

Is the first major study of Marcion in English based on all the primary sources in Greek, Latin, and Syriac
Combines rigorous historical analysis with sensitivity to rhetoric and the challenges of constructing the past
Offers a lens for the study of heresy and of controversial issues in second-century Christianity

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/su ... nd-century

About the Author
Judith M. Lieu is Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. She has written numerous books, including I, II, and III John: A Commentary (2008), Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004), and Neither Jew nor Greek: Constructing Early Christianity (2002).

[Stephan Huller]

Lieu is cool because she addresses the Syriac sources. The rest of the dumbos completely ignore the material. I will tell you what's worse. All these people love to write, write, write about Marcion. But if they really wanted to do a service for mankind (and womankind too) they would arrange for someone to analyze portions of Ephrem's Against Marcion which Mitchell's primitive methods couldn't uncover. We have the technology now, just not the will (or the altruistic spirit) it would seem.