The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

[Stuart]

Hakeem,

You still have a comprehension problem. What I say, and in fact all scholars who accept the Marcionite gospel is embedded in Luke say, is that Luke was written on top of the Marcionite gospel.

I am of the opinion that it is you who have problems with comprehension.

My position is that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed at least after c 178 CE or after Celsus' "True Discourse".

Tertullian's Against Marcion is complete propaganda about Marcion and unknown by Christian writers up to at least the 5th century

In effect, Marcion had no Gospel or Epistle that was used by NT authors.


You have no texts or manuscripts from Marcion so it is virtually impossible for you to argue about what Macion wrote.

How do you account for the vocabulary differences between the attested text of the Marcionite versions by Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius and that of the Catholic text, especially the so-called Lukan special words, which are missing in those attested texts?

Is it just an amazing coincidence?

[hakeem]

How do you account for the vocabulary differences between the attested text of the Marcionite versions by Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius and that of the Catholic text, especially the so-called Lukan special words, which are missing in those attested texts?

Is it just an amazing coincidence?

Please, again, I do not consider the supposed Tertullian's Against Marcion" to be credible. The writing itself claims there are multiple versions in circulation and some full of mistakes. Which version is circulation??

Now, look at Tertullian's Against Marcion book 4.

Tertullian's "Against Marcion"4.2

Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body.

And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.

But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.

Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master — at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others..

Tertullian claimed a writing should not be recognised if it has no author ascribed but immediately invents or presents bogus information of a character called Luke as an author of a Gospel.

Since the claims about the authorship of NT books and date of authorship in Tertullian's "Against Marcion" are bogus I cannot accept the present Tertullian's "Against Marcion" as a credible representaion of Marcion's teaching.

In addition, even Christian writers supposedly living after Tertullian appear to have no knowledge at all of his 5 books " Against Marcion" even though they seem to be aware of other writings.

Based on my research, the main purpose of Tertullian's "Against Marcion" was to put out the propaganda that gLuke and the so-called Pauline Epistles were already composed and known by Marcion when in fact they were not.

Origen's "Against Celsus" confirms that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles were not yet written up to the time of Celsus' "True Discourse".

[Stuart]

How do you account for the vocabulary differences between the attested text of the Marcionite versions by Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius and that of the Catholic text, especially the so-called Lukan special words, which are missing in those attested texts?

Is it just an amazing coincidence?

Please, again, I do not consider the supposed Tertullian's Against Marcion" to be credible. The writing itself claims there are multiple versions in circulation and some full of mistakes. Which version is circulation??

...

So you do not consider the evidence of Knox, deBuhn, and others about the vocabulary issue. You simply "define" the issue out of existence.

OK, I wont ask again. You are fundamentally not ready to engage the subject, not able to consider the micro level of evidence. You simply dismiss it. Fine, don't bother me again then, and I wont bother you.

[hakeem]

How do you account for the vocabulary differences between the attested text of the Marcionite versions by Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius and that of the Catholic text, especially the so-called Lukan special words, which are missing in those attested texts?

Is it just an amazing coincidence?

Please, again, I do not consider the supposed Tertullian's Against Marcion" to be credible. The writing itself claims there are multiple versions in circulation and some full of mistakes. Which version is circulation??

...

So you do not consider the evidence of Knox, deBuhn, and others about the vocabulary issue. You simply "define" the issue out of existence.

OK, I wont ask again. You are fundamentally not ready to engage the subject, not able to consider the micro level of evidence. You simply dismiss it. Fine, don't bother me again then, and I wont bother you.

Please, I don't appeal to authority--you confuse opinion and evidence. I deal with writings of antiquity.

The writings of Justin, a contemporary of Marcion, contradicts Tertullian's "Against Marcion" and not only Justin but Hippolytus and Ephraem the Syrian.

The teachings of Marcion were derived from Empedocles-- not gLuke or the so-called Pauline Epistles.

[Stuart]

Please, I don't appeal to authority--you confuse opinion and evidence. I deal with writings of antiquity.

The writings of Justin, a contemporary of Marcion, contradicts Tertullian's "Against Marcion" and not only Justin but Hippolytus and Ephraem the Syrian.

The teachings of Marcion were derived from Empedocles-- not gLuke or the so-called Pauline Epistles.

Dude, you basically are answering a completely different question than the composition of the texts, and giving only opinion at that.

The question is about the text, the relationship. You declared that gLuke is independent of the Marcionite Gospel. I presented evidence that the gLuke is built upon the Marcionite gospel, and that Marcionite readings and even tendencies have left their mark in element of the Gospel.

You then argued about things that have nothing to do with the text. It is completely irrelevant whether Marcionite theology is prior to the gospel or not (probably is, but not material here), what matters is the literary dependency of Luke on the Marcionite gospel. I never once argued for Marcion having authored the gospel. It is my view it is very posterior to whomever founded the sect -- or rather the patron saint whose name the sect took (long dead legendary Mark). So that doesn't even enter the scope of the issue. (Why I said you have a comprehension problem, you answered a different question without addressing the ones I posed.)

You attempted to make a declaration about the literature without literary or critical text analysis. So it is completely irrelevant. I gave the authorities who did vocabulary studies which are published, and there are others. I have done my own and brought up in other threads specific words which lack any theological overtones (such as forms of "and" or "both" and "immediately") which are present in Paul, Luke and Acts but not in Marcionite gospel nor the attested phrases in the Marcionite Pauline epistles. The list of words runs into the hundreds.

This is why I said you do not engage the issue which is literary dependency, instead making an argument about Marcion's origins being prior, something which has no impact on the question. I don't care if you are offended for being told your argument is irrelevant.

[MrMacSon]

The writings of Justin, a contemporary of Marcion, contradicts Tertullian's "Against Marcion" and not only Justin but Hippolytus and Ephraem the Syrian

That's hard to follow. Are you saying Hippolytus and Ephraem the Syrian also contradict Tertullian? On what basis do you say that?

Stuart referring to 'the evidence of Knox, deBuhn, and others about the vocabulary issue' is not an appeal to authority.