Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 6:52 am
The fact that the maximum exponent of the Farrer Theory, Goodacre, is reluctant to even change slightly his own theory so to allow that *Ev precedes Luke and Matthew (but always under the Markan priority), is a strong indirect evidence of a resistance a priori to accept Marcion in the synoptic question, which is simply: intellectually dishonest.
No, it's not intellectually dishonest and he oversaw Ian Mills' dissertation on second century gospels, which discusses Marcion a good bit. Ian is currently revising it for publication.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:14 amand he oversaw Ian Mills' dissertation on second century gospels
I read:
The external evidence, moreover, indicates that Luke existed in its non-Marcionite form before Marcion and Marcion was himself responsible for re-writing Luke to create a new work.
(source)
...so where is the novelty? Goodacre is approving the thesis of one who believes that Marcion falsified Luke. Which alone proves my point on the not-scientific reluctance to place *Ev before Matthew and Luke, a reluctance that, in long terms, can only throw a bad light on the same Markan priority (if it was not for genial people as Bruno Bauer...).
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:14 amand he oversaw Ian Mills' dissertation on second century gospels
I read:
The external evidence, moreover, indicates that Luke existed in its non-Marcionite form before Marcion and Marcion was himself responsible for re-writing Luke to create a new work.
(source)
...so where is the novelty? Goodacre is approving the thesis of one who believes that Marcion falsified Luke. Which alone proves my point on the not-scientific reluctance to place *Ev before Matthew and Luke, a reluctance that, in long terms, can only throw a bad light on the same Markan priority (if it was not for genial people as Bruno Bauer...).
Giuseppe,
You have not proved that thinking Luke preceded Marcion's Evangelion is unscientific.
You might consider responding to Mills' argument based on the external evidence before making such a claim.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 7:51 am
You have not proved that thinking Luke preceded Marcion's Evangelion is unscientific.
my point is that the suspicion is strongly legitimate, that after Klinghardt and Vinzent it should be natural to change at least slightly the own paradigm, even only 'for sake of discussion'. Afterall, I am not asking for the giving up of Markan priority.
But I see that Mark Goodacre slams the doors on Marcion even more blatantly than Dennis MacDonald has done.
You have not proved that thinking Luke preceded Marcion's Evangelion is unscientific.
I have put in clear my cards. Call it, if you will, the aesthetical argument:
none could invent a so childish story as the birth story (and the infancy stories), unless he was obliged to do so under the threat of someone who denied the "birth by woman".
Luke invented the childish birth story
therefore Luke reacted against Marcion.
The argument is aesthetical because, objectively, the birth story is a offense to the intelligence of the evangelist.
You have not proved that thinking Luke preceded Marcion's Evangelion is unscientific.
I have put in clear my cards. Call it, if you will, the aesthetical argument:
none could invent a so childish story as the birth story (and the infancy stories), unless he was obliged to do so under the threat of someone who denied the "birth by woman".
Luke invented the childish birth story
therefore Luke reacted against Marcion.
The argument is aesthetical because, objectively, the birth story is a offense to the intelligence of the evangelist.
(1) No, the birth story may have been added to material taken from Mark in order to show that Jesus did not become the Son of God at his baptism (cf. Mark 1.11), but rather he was conceived and born the Son of God.
(2) If the birth and infancy story is as much of an offense as you say, would that not be a good reason for a later writer to omit it?
(2) If the birth and infancy story is as much of an offense as you say, would that not be a good reason for a later writer to omit it?
you are making the my case. The embarrassment for having a such stupid and childish story has been easily overcome by a higher embarrassment: what Marcion was preaching there out. And judging from the persistance of Marcionism until to medieval Cathars, I don't see the moment of giving up to a such childish story.
(2) If the birth and infancy story is as much of an offense as you say, would that not be a good reason for a later writer to omit it?
you are making the my case. The embarrassment for having a such stupid and childish story has been easily overcome by a higher embarrassment: what Marcion was preaching there out. And judging from the persistance of Marcionism until to medieval Cathars, I don't see the moment of giving up to a such childish story.
First, you did not answer my question.
Second, i'm having difficulty seeing how there is any need for a 'higher embarrassment'? Are you saying that the theory that the later evangelists might have added the birth narratives to show that Jesus was the Son of God by birth and not just by reception of the Holy Spirit at baptism is insufficient? That's not a good enough reason?
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:46 am
Second, i'm having difficulty seeing how there is any need for a 'higher embarrassment'? Are you saying that the theory that the later evangelists might have added the birth narratives to show that Jesus was the Son of God by birth and not just by reception of the Holy Spirit at baptism is insufficient? That's not a good enough reason?
the theory of the birth story as reaction to separationism/adoptionism is more weak than the theory of the birth story as reaction to Marcionite docetism/"descensionism", for two reasons:
1) the infancy stories (and not only the birth story) make it clear that the threat comes from circles that denied also the judaism of Jesus, whereas the adoptionism/separationism insisted that Jesus was a pious Jew (cfr Cerinthus, of which the only 'sin' was the adoptionist belief, despite of the his being a faithful observant of the Torah).
2) it is implicit in the adoptionism the idea that the earthly creature is worthy to be saved (at least for the his utility as recipient of the spiritual Christ), whereas the Marcionite docetism was a threat against the same goodness of the world, and by logical extension, of the creator god.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2024 8:46 am
Second, i'm having difficulty seeing how there is any need for a 'higher embarrassment'? Are you saying that the theory that the later evangelists might have added the birth narratives to show that Jesus was the Son of God by birth and not just by reception of the Holy Spirit at baptism is insufficient? That's not a good enough reason?
the theory of the birth story as reaction to separationism/adoptionism is more weak than the theory of the birth story as reaction to Marcionite docetism/"descensionism", for two reasons:
1) the infancy stories (and not only the birth story) make it clear that the threat comes from circles that denied also the judaism of Jesus, whereas the adoptionism/separationism insisted that Jesus was a pious Jew (cfr Cerinthus, of which the only 'sin' was the adoptionist belief, despite of the his being a faithful observant of the Torah).
2) it is implicit in the adoptionism the idea that the earthly creature is worthy to be saved (at least for the his utility as recipient of the spiritual Christ), whereas the Marcionite docetism was a threat against the same goodness of the world, and by logical extension, of the creator god.
I do not think you have established either of the premises in (1) or (2)
On the theory of Markan priority, Jesus already has a mother mentioned by Mark (3.31, 6.3). So he was presumably born of a woman. Whether he was the Son of God by birth or adoption is a question left open by Mark.
