MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:36 pm
Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 21, 2018 10:45 am
...that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication, whereas Marcion's is to most people not even known, and by those to whom it is known is also by the same reason condemned...
Since its earliest publication... So much is contained in that one phrase.
Nice analysis, per usual, MrMacSon. I hope I can get through most of this tonight. If not, maybe later.
1. This entire first sentence appears rock solid until you look at the Intentionality and meaning. Then, it doesn't look so solid. Let's see why:
Marcion is to be discredited while the Goo-Goos are "Jes' reporting the Facts, Ma'am."
Note: The ground upon which I make my assertions is the ground I have always stood on here, that the NT is built on a Story of the Mishmarot Priesthood. The Romans dismembered this Story and rewrote it into a story that follows a savior/god sympathetic to the Romans. Continuing...
Unless you are a True Believer here, it should be OK to see that both sides of Marcion vs The Church are in the bidness of manufacturing truth, although the Marcionites are curiously not fighting very hard. Does Tertullian et al truly believe that "their" writings go back to the Disciples and then to Jesus? He says so. What then, are we to make of:
that gospel of Luke which we at this moment retain has stood firm since its earliest publication
Assuming that "stood firm" means that Luke hasn't been
changed since their side published it, was Luke
changed before it was published? Beyond that, what does it mean to "get published?" Similar to the very first completed Book of Mark, the Break at 16: 8 could only have happened to the very first-and-only Book of Mark - The Scribes would copy what they were given and it makes no sense to have the Straw Boss holler at the Scribes to ALL tear their copies at the same place.
2. What of Luke? It is presented as "Published" and it was the same in the later copies as the first copies. But...so what? It is the word "Published" that makes the exercise meaningful. Luke could have been composed mere days earlier in a Stream of Consciousness Haze and rewritten under orders from the Chief of the Court Copyists to be published after the Dreaded Redactors got hold of it. Worked with John...
Tertullian is giving away is Cosmopolitan POV. Where HE comes from (The Big City), HIS works are *published*. The hicks in Corn-Mash Still Country must not even have a Copier, much less a Copyist. Are those who know AND condemn Marcion's texts perhaps Romans?
"Of course these people would condemn Marcion, they're my
bosses!"
Tertullian is too smug by half. This gives the impression that the War against Marcion was an attempt to re-direct a movement to Roman Control.
3.
MrMacSon wrote:Shelley Matthews has proposed that there was a pre-Marcion 'çore Luke'; that canonical Luke is a second century redaction of it characterised by additions primarily at the beginning and end of 'core Luke'; and that Marcionite circles are likely to have used 'core Luke' and expanded it according to their teaching
This view is correct. However, as I have stated before, "From the fact the "Jesus" Stories" were written from Source Stories, it does not follow that the Source Stories were about "Jesus"".
Thnx, MrMac.
More later,
CW