Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:38 pm
I wonder if the arrowheads should be at the other end of the 'arrows' to better reflect the chronology (& convention) ... I presume the chronology is top-to-bottom
I'm a software developer, so I think of this in the way we diagram inheritance.: ) The arrows are showing the sources used by the entity from which the arrow originates. It would make more sense if the diagram was rotated 90 degrees clockwise, with the proto-canonical collection on the left, going back in time to the prior material. Bascially, the offspring at at the bottom with the ancestors at the top i.e. Paul' is the ancestor of Mark+Paul2,etc., etc.
I have worked in application and system integration for over 25 years, and I once had a chat with the Chief Security Architect of Capgemini France, HQ.
We're talking 1996 here, so all that was pretty new and fresh

He proudly showed me around Capgemini Universite (I spent the first 14 years of my working life with Capgemini) but also the door security system all over the campus, in the hotel rooms, etc: all lights were always green. When you flashed your badge, the light would turn red and the door could be opened.
He explained, smugly arrogant and self-assured as only a haughty French prick can be, how that was completely logical (I guess he hadn't managed to ignore all criticism, apparently) because green lights showed that security was online and intact: red would show that it was down and could be breached

I looked at him, remembered that it was my very first week working for Capgemini, and nodded - with something of a weak smile on my face.
I got certified as an Architect 9 years later, unsure whether there was a positive or negative relation between the events
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:33 pm @mlinssen I'm not sure why you think multiple revisions of the Pauline letters is somehow improbable. Indeed many scholars conclude that the Pauline letters appear to have multiple layers of revisions.

Revision 1: Assuming there were indeed individual Pauline letters, simply creating a collection is revision 1. This involves editing separate letters together, like we find in Corinthians, removing extraneous material, creating headings, etc. at the very least.

Revision 2: If indeed the writer of Mark wrote his narrative as an introduction to this Pauline letter collection, thereby creating a collection with Mark as the Foreword to the letter collection, then that itself is a revision. But further, I porose that the writer of Mark also edited the letters, at the very least also modifying the introduction of Galatians to tie the ending of Mark to the beginning of Galatians.

Revision 3: Using Mark as a guide, we conclude that the letter collection used by Mark lacked Colossians, Laodiceans, the Pastorals, and possibly Philemon. This collection was received, likely in Laodicea, where the letters of Colossians and Laodiceans (and possible Philemon) were added. That at least is revision 3 to the collection. This revision coincided with the modification of the Marcan Gospel to create "proto-Luke". This community added new Pauline letters and revised the introductory narrative to go along with their modifications to the collection. They also, of course, had opportunity here to make other modifications to the Pauline letters.

*Marcion: Marcion's collection appear to be derived from Revision 3 and likely gives us a more accurate view of what the Pauline letter collection looked like at this time than the current canonical set. Marcion's Pauline letters are very likely a snapshot of Revision 3 since comparisons to the orthodox collection yield almost entirely additions.

Revision 4: This is the creation of the orthodox collection. The creator of Canonical Luke likely derived their collection from the collection consisting of "proto-Luke" and the R3 of Pauline letters. They created a major revision, adding in the Pastorals, rearranging the letters, and heavily modifying the content of the existing letters, including things like modifying the introduction of Romans, etc. This writer also produced Acts and added non-Pauline letters to the collection.

Revision 5: The creator of the proto-orthodox collection, used by Irenaeus, used the output of Revision 4 and added to that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, the Revelation of John, wrote 2 Peter, John 21, created the titles we know today and edited the Gospel of Mark, along with the Pauline and non-Pauline letters.

Now, I'm not sure what about this you are calling implausible. And there are many points of evidence to support each of these propositions. Identifying exactly which layers in the Pauline letters correspond to each of these revisions may never be possible, but we can identify at least some elements of at least Revision 1, Revision 2, and Revision 4 with ease. Identifying Revision 3, beyond the addition of Colossians and Laodiceans may be challenging, but I suspect its not impossible. Revision 5 may not be distinguishable from Revision 4 and thus may not be counted as a separate revision.
It's all fine and dandy Geoff but with 5 Paul's you forfeit the opportunity to say anything about any of them without explicitly referring to a version.
And if you don't, then by default you mean the only extent version that we have, which is what you'd call Paul5 in this very post

Meaning that Paul succeeds the gospels, that Luke preceded those, and that Marcion preceded that - because that is the order of texts that you stipulate here. Solely considering extant texts, that is the precise and exact order that apparently sits behind your impossible drawing that seemingly allows for any order of anything a few times over

Having said that, it would be most interesting to have you present the versions of the gospels that could have been prior. A fine initial exercise would be to determine which versions contained either of the following:

1. Baptism of Jesus
2. Resurrection
3. Birth narrative
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:27 pm
Your theory is as disastrously unscientific as that of Pete: it can't be debunked precisely because it cannot be proven. The first criterion for a viable theory is that it must be falsifiable, it must be able to be proven wrong

Toss it, and come up with something sensible. Or grow old and ignored like Pete who isn't even aware himself that he never provides any answers to anything but only asks questions to everyone, the vast majority of which he not only could but also should have answered himself
Martijn your ad hominem and straw-manning continues to sound more and more like Carrier and O'Neill on their worst days. Censoring and ridiculing your critics might make you feel better but it is neither scientific nor conducive to constructive discussion. And how is the Thomas priority hypothesis falsifiable?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:01 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:27 pm
Your theory is as disastrously unscientific as that of Pete: it can't be debunked precisely because it cannot be proven. The first criterion for a viable theory is that it must be falsifiable, it must be able to be proven wrong

Toss it, and come up with something sensible. Or grow old and ignored like Pete who isn't even aware himself that he never provides any answers to anything but only asks questions to everyone, the vast majority of which he not only could but also should have answered himself
Martijn your ad hominem and straw-manning continues to sound more and more like Carrier and O'Neill on their worst days. Censoring and ridiculing your critics might make you feel better but it is neither scientific nor conducive to constructive discussion. And how is the Thomas priority hypothesis falsifiable?
Pete, just make yourself scarce please, what you are doing here is nothing short of toxic.
I am doing none of what you accuse me of, and very neatly and in a civil manner set out precisely why Geoff's theory is unscientific - and yours also is, of course, and I do notice that you don't disagree with that nor provide counter arguments to it

Thomasine priority is solely based on redaction criticism, and carefully and elaborately laid out in thousands of pages, and a few posts here as well. You are free to actually engage with any of it Pete, but you don't and won't because it would demonstrate that your "NTA" precedes your "NTC".
An easy one to start with would be viewtopic.php?p=146546#p146546

Consider this a serious and final warning Pete: I will under no circumstances have anyone put words in my mouth
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:40 pm You are free to actually engage with any of it Pete, but you don't and won't because ...
Because I appear to be blocked [Error: 404] from your academia publications.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sat Mar 04, 2023 2:13 am
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 11:40 pm You are free to actually engage with any of it Pete, but you don't and won't because ...
Because I appear to be blocked [Error: 404] from your academia publications.
You were indeed! Don't recall when that desire came onto me, but you're no longer blocked now.
Unfortunately it's the only way to keep people from joining a Discussion

Meanwhile, the question of whether Thomas 96 says leaven or colostrum could have been answered with the link I provided to this site right here
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:18 pm
Excerpts from Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament Canon: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, 2013, pp.18-23, in part:


Marcion’s Religious Environment

From the same period, the Letter to Diognetus [chapters 1-10]56 goes even further in criticizing the Jewish tradition in a manner unqualified by any claim that Christianity is a truer Judaism, repeatedly emphasizing the newness of Christianity, instead of the more typical claim that it was something ordained from of old. According to the author, no one had any knowledge of God before the coming of Christ, and God held back his “own wise counsel as a well-guarded mystery.” The author concedes that the one God is the creator, and that the Jews worship this God, but they misunderstand his character. So, while the author has not taken the step—which Marcion did—of distinguishing between the creator god of the Jews and the higher god of the Christians, the Jewish depiction of God comes in for sharp criticism as unworthy of Christ’s Father.

Moreover, the author says, nature in no way serves to direct attention to its ultimate creator; God conceals all until revealing it exclusively to his Son. All other faiths, both Greek and Jewish, are human doctrines and earthly inventions. God revealed his true character, his inherent goodness and power to save, only at the end of time.62 His followers are aliens in this world. This text, then, offers an ideology closely akin to Marcion’s, and suggests the existence of a wider environment from which Marcion drew inspiration.
  • 56 ... Nielsen, “The Epistle to Diognetus,” contends that the additional material [usually chapters 11-2] represents an adaptation of the original to suit the catholic position after the appearance of Marcion. The “Law and Prophets” suddenly appear as scripture in this last section, along with repeated references to “the apostles” and one to “the gospels” in the plural (11.6) which, if dated as early as the rest of the treatise, would make it the earliest known such reference. This should be contrasted to the extensive arguments against the Jews in chap. 1–10, all made without a single quotation of the OT, that is, without any effort to make the usual appropriation of Jewish scriptures against their former possessors. See also Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, 124. But since the manuscript is late and still distinguishes the first ten chapters from the later, the combination is perhaps to be attributed to a scribe copying what he saw as related material from different sources, and not as a formal re-edition of the original work.

    62 Diogn 9.1–2. This dramatic act of salvation evokes from the author of the letter the exclamation, “O unfathomable work of God! O blessings beyond all expectation!” which Nielsen notes is startlingly close to the opening lines of Marcion’s Antitheses (“The Epistle to Diognetus,” 87).
In the world Marcion knew, therefore, some strands of Christianity displayed an effort to maintain close ties to...Jewish...symbolism and practice; others appropriated the Jewish religious tradition with increasing hostility to its contemporary Jewish practitioners; still others showed themselves to be on the verge of severing all connections with the Jewish origins of Christianity [Nielsen, “The Epistle to Diognetus,” 90–91] ...
.

The Epistle to Diogentus, aka The Epistle of Mathetes to Diogentus, Πρὸς Διόγνητον Ἐπιστολή (with Mathetes meaning student or perhaps disciple), is an apology for Christians which doesn't mention 'Jesus' or 'Christ' (or nomina sacra for them, afaik): it refers to the Logos/Word
  • 'mathetes' appears only once in the text, when the author calls himself a "student of the Apostles" : ἀποστόλων γενομένος μαθητής
The epistle survived only in one manuscript. It was initially discovered in a 13th-century codex that included writings ascribed to Justin Martyr (It was destroyed in a fire during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, but numerous transcriptions survive).

There is no evidence that any Apostolic or other Church Father knew of its existence.

https://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/diognetus.htm = a Greek version

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/diognetus.html https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0101.htm
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The newness of it all: καινός

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:54 pm
MrMacSon wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:50 pm
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:14 pm The funny thing is, Luke talks about a new covenant where Mark and Matthew do not - and no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there
Interesting
When you say "no FF makes any comment about what *Ev has there", do you mean/think that's because *Ev doesn't talks about a new covenant or because they avoid or don't know aobut *Ev ?
Of the FF who discuss Marcion (the usual suspects Tertullian, Epiphanius, Adamantius, etc) none has any comment about it.
If Mark and Matthew just have plain covenant, why does Luke have a new one?

The thing is, ALL MSS have 'new', just not all of the big five - yet Alexandrinus has it on each occasion.
Matthew: P37, P45, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus don't have 'new', yet Alexandrinus, Ephrem and Bezae do. And of the remaining 130 MSS, 5 don't have it.
Mark: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephrem and Bezae don't have 'new', yet Alexandrinus does. And of the remaining 158 MSS, 7 don't have it.
All of Luke (only a dozen transcripts available alas) has 'new'

So what gives, really?
mlinssen wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 2:14 pm
Klinghardt does not restore Luke 22:20, BeDuhn does yet without the 'new' - and that is impossible, of course, because the FF would have (had to have) been all over that

The Evangelion apparently read simply “contract” rather than “new contract,” a reading found also in one manuscript of the Peshitta Syriac; the same textual alternatives are found in the witnesses to the parallel passage in Mark 14.24 and Matt 26.28, where the reading without “new” is generally considered more original (see Williams, “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel,” 482–83); for “new contract,” cf. 1 Cor 11.25.

Is the text in that box from Klinghardts' The Oldest Gospel, 2020/21 ?
No I'm as lazy as I can be, this is BeDuhn. I haven't been able to tempt myself into OCR-ing Klinghardt yet LOL

Like I said, Klinghardt doesn't restore any of the verse. Yet when the FF discuss the parable of the wine and the patch, of which the canonicals have reversed the order, none of them attests to kainos in combination with the wine - only once do they attest to rudis, the Latin, in combination with the patch - whereas the canonicals use it throughout: Matthew 9:17 for the wineskins, Mark 2:21 for the patch and 2:22 for the wineskins (though Sinaiticus and some others exclude it), Luke 5:36 for the patch (thrice) and 5:38 for the wineskins.
So we have 3 gospel writers with kainos wineskins and 2 with a kainos patch - and none of those get mentioned on 7 ocassions save for the patch, once

And they are allegedly discussing "Marcion", of course: so Marcion must have had kainos here - and because the order got reversed, the word trickled down to the wineskins as well, yet only in the canonicals: Thomas and (likely) *Ev only have this word occur once here.
It's past 1 AM Mac, I'm calling it quits. Yes, taking serious / seriously was a sign of fatigue already
καινὴ διαθήκη

καινὴ is attested for the patch by all three Synoptics - as it is for the wineskins.
The Coptic is extremely consistent, the Greek not so.
But that the FF almost swear that Marcion didn't have "be covenant" is evidently a lie - well they do swear of course, but Marcion most certainly had it, it is the centre piece of his entire gospel.
Interesting quote from Vinzent:

In both places, therefore, in Adversus haereses where ‘New Testament’ denotes a collection of Christian writings, it is used in reference to and rejection of Marcion and his followers. In the first instance, he mentions the gospel, as well as Paul’s letters, presents the structure of Marcion’s ‘New Testament’126 and argues against him. In the second case, the term ‘New Testament’ appears in Irenaeus’ long quote of a report by an anonymous anti-Marcionite Presbyter,127 which he explicitly declares to be an examination of ‘the doctrine of Marcion’.128 This overview shows that Irenaeus uses the word ‘Testament’ to denote a ‘certificate of inheritance/transfer’, that is, the idea of a ‘will’ or a ‘covenant’. With the exception of referring to Marcion’s collection and in imitation and rejection of him, nowhere else in his works does he ever use the term ‘New Testament’ to mean a collection of Christian writings or refer to his own collection of writings by that title.129

Wait w00t, no Paul? No 1 Corinthians 11:25?
Of course not - that didn't exist at that time

While Tertullian uses ‘New Testament’ in the technical sense in his anti-Marcionite writings, Irenaeus remains even critical or rejects Marcion’s terminology because it divides God’s will in two and leads to two testaments – an ‘old’ one and a ‘new’ one

User avatar
Jonas_Koenig
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun May 08, 2022 12:43 am

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by Jonas_Koenig »

Hey mlinssen, where and how did you generate that string of all the manuscript variants for the verse? I have never seen that. The box starting with docID="10062" gaNum="P62">|και τ̣ο φορτιον μου ελα̣[φ][ρο]ν εστιν .
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Use of Jewish Scriptures or Not, and Paul vs No Paul, in the time of Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Jonas_Koenig wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 8:56 pm Hey mlinssen, where and how did you generate that string of all the manuscript variants for the verse? I have never seen that. The box starting with docID="10062" gaNum="P62">|και τ̣ο φορτιον μου ελα̣[φ][ρο]ν εστιν .
Hi Jonas, I advise to "tag" someone like I'm doing now, in that way it will show up for them as a notification - this of yours I just happen to see ;)

What you are looking at comes from the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF)

Please check viewtopic.php?p=151542#p151542 where I describe the where and how - but this is an invaluable resource for sure, and you and I can just scan the transcription of hundreds of NT manuscripts in the blink of an eye.
Do also note very well that this is real stuff, and not of the falsifying kind that writes out nomina sacra in full in order to keep up the myth: this is the naked truth, and it is revealing EVERYTHING

Now I only wish that there were something like this for the LXX...
Post Reply