SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story

[Giuseppe]

I agree that the possible Thomas priority is irrelevant, but Mark is a real enigma if considered as the first gospel. Any allegorical reading of Mark increases the confusion and the enigmatic nature of this book. I think that a bit of plausible clarity may be thrown on Mark if read as a gospel written in reaction to Marcion, just as Matthew and as Luke.

In particular, when Jesus rejects his mother and brothers, he seems to be amoral. Is this amorality of Jesus the price the proponents of Mark's priority have to pay ? I think that the answer is yes. You don't invent a god who rejects his mother and his family.

"You don't invent a god who rejects his mother and his family."

Thomas irrelevant hey?

55. say(s) IS : he-who hate his father not with his(F) mother he will be-able make-be disciple not to I and not he hate his(PL) brother with his(PL) sister not he carry of his cross within my(F) manner he will come-to-be not he make-be worthy-one to I

99. say(s) the(PL) disciple to he : your(.PL) brother with your(F) mother they stand-on-foot they on the part of the-outside say(s) he behold : they-who of these place who/which make-be of the desire of my father these are my(PL) brother with my(F) mother themselves is(M) who/which will go inward to the(F) reign-of(F) king of my father

Marcion can say you:
I have invented the episode assuming that Jesus was TEMPTED - when they (or "a disciple") said to him that his relatives were outside to wait him - to discover if he had really a human mother and brothers. Jesus rejects the temptation, denying that he could be attracted by human loves and/or interests. He is really an ALIEN.

Mark can't say so because he starts with the assumption that Jesus had REALLY a human mother and brothers.

[mlinssen]

Wait. First you assume that Jesus really existed, and then you assume that he was alien?

Really LOL. What are the odds? Of course, if he were alien, he surely was for real...

[mlinssen]

In not unrelated news, I would like to add to my defence that it was very little effort to create Luke from Marcion. Shameless, yes, effort, no.

It would put Luke / Matthew around 150, Paul earlier, and Mark likely before that, around 100 or so?
Marcion being fond of Paul likely prevented Luke / Matthew from mentioning him, and John must have hated his guts anyway

All that in a nutshell, I'm reading up on Marcion just today, yeah sometimes I'm a bit impulsive, but it's a SACT so anything goes really

[Ben C. Smith]

All that in a nutshell, I'm reading up on Marcion just today, yeah sometimes I'm a bit impulsive, but it's a SACT so anything goes really

I have a treatment of the Marcionite gospel on the forum: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765.

I also have a treatment of the Marcionite epistles: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1837.

Each thread gives the relevant text(s), whether of Luke or of Paul, both in English and in Greek, and then highlights it those words or phrases attested to be in the Marcionite version either by Roth and BeDuhn (for the gospel) or by BeDuhn (for the epistles). More importantly, each thread also gives most of the ancient sources for the Marcionite texts (mainly Tertullian and Epiphanius) in full, so that you can see what Roth and BeDuhn are basing their conclusions on, for better or worse. That web page you linked to in this thread is selective and, by now, outdated. Reconstructing Marcion is one of the most intricate operations one can set out to do in early Christian studies. The threads are tools; they are not conclusions.

[mlinssen]

There is one major but, of course: how the hell could the Church have accepted "Luke" when they rejected Marcion? And gotten away with that?

Granted, all they needed to do was just lie that Marcion copied Luke, but Marcion seemed to have been quite a movement, and there is brazenness and then there is brazenness...

Although, Marcion seems to have been excommunicated in 144, after which he returned to Asia Minor (Turkey). I would have dared to release a proper copy of his stuff in ... nowhere really, LOL.
Then again all of his stuff got trashed, so it seems that Someone was behind that?

[mlinssen]

All that in a nutshell, I'm reading up on Marcion just today, yeah sometimes I'm a bit impulsive, but it's a SACT so anything goes really

I have a treatment of the Marcionite gospel on the forum: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765.

I also have a treatment of the Marcionite epistles: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1837.

Each thread gives the relevant text(s), whether of Luke or of Paul, both in English and in Greek, and then highlights it those words or phrases attested to be in the Marcionite version either by Roth and BeDuhn (for the gospel) or by BeDuhn (for the epistles). More importantly, each thread also gives most of the ancient sources for the Marcionite texts (mainly Tertullian and Epiphanius) in full, so that you can see what Roth and BeDuhn are basing their conclusions on, for better or worse. That web page you linked to in this thread is selective and, by now, outdated. Reconstructing Marcion is one of the most intricate operations one can set out to do in early Christian studies. The threads are tools; they are not conclusions.

You're a charm Ben! I tried to find such out here, but quickly gave up.
I'll follow up tomorrow, bed time here

[mlinssen]

There is one major but, of course: how the hell could the Church have accepted "Luke" when they rejected Marcion? And gotten away with that?

Granted, all they needed to do was just lie that Marcion copied Luke, but Marcion seemed to have been quite a movement, and there is brazenness and then there is brazenness...

Although, Marcion seems to have been excommunicated in 144, after which he returned to Asia Minor (Turkey). I would have dared to release a proper copy of his stuff in ... nowhere really, LOL.
Then again all of his stuff got trashed, so it seems that Someone was behind that?

Well, it's a Ben, again. This is grand Ben! Fantastic (as usual, I must admit).
Luke also has the leaven, like Marcion. Very interesting, as Thomas has colostrum, not leaven. Easily mistaken: https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C3685

I use that as an easy litmus, there are quite a few others. Ἀνθρώπου τινὸς πλουσίου εὐφόρησεν ἡ χώρα. 17 καὶ διελογίζετο ἐν ἑαυτῷ λέγων Τί ποιήσω, ὅτι οὐκ ἔχω ποῦ συνάξω τοὺς καρπούς μου - plousious, karpous: same as in Thomas.
ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς - psyche translated as "life", really?

Anyway, this is my next proejct ben. Comparing the Coptic Thomas to the Greek Marcion and Luke. Gawds

[Ben C. Smith]

ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς - psyche translated as "life", really?

Primary definition listed in the LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dyuxh%2F. BDAG has a long discussion of its translation in a biblical context, and it, too, lists "life" before "soul" or the like.

[mlinssen]

ψυχὴ πλεῖόν ἐστιν τῆς τροφῆς - psyche translated as "life", really?

Primary definition listed in the LSJ: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dyuxh%2F. BDAG has a long discussion of its translation in a biblical context, and it, too, lists "life" before "soul" or the like.

That's a travesty really, it means nothing as banal as "life".
It's really funny how my classical education gets redefined by some biblical dictionaries and texts.
Yes when you die, your psyche gets lost, etc

And you're right on LSJ, I wouldn't have expected that from an Oxford product

"Soul" it is, and soul it always has been. With the exact literary and figurative use as in English

Philosophical question though: how would you classify the Gospel of Thomas, if you had to pick between biblical and non biblical? First reaction please, just on impulse

[Bernard Muller]

Two arguments in favor of proving Marcion's Pauline epistles were written after the "canonical" ones: http://historical-jesus.info/73.html

Arguments in favor of proving Marcion's gospel (of the Lord) was written after Luke's gospel: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Back to "SACT: Matthew wrote Luke to support his own story". If it was the case "Matthew" did a very bad job by not including the Bethsaida mini-gospel into gLuke, when that section is in his own gospel and gMark.

Cordially, Bernard