What's Wrong With Mainstream Scholarship

[stephan happy huller]

As much as I might think that Pete and many others at this forum are crazy, I think it takes balls to show up at a forum and have your ideas shredded by harsh criticism. I was watching a Facebook discussion between a few notable scholars about Q and the question of whether or not Luke is anti-Marcionite came up. One of the participants said:

If you want a full monograph study on all the potential 2nd century references to Luke and Acts, check out Andrew Gregory's "The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Ireneaus." I think Pervo has a case worth considering for ca 110 CE, but not persuaded by Tyson's even later dating or anti-Marcionite purpose.

This is why I never bothered to 'go all the way' into the realm of scholarship. It's absolute bullshit. I don't begrudge those who have made the effort or are making the effort to 'go all the way.' But go all the way into what?

I simply don't understand the argument against Marcionite primacy with respect to Luke. The reactionary character of Luke is plainly visible from the very first line of the book. Luke has before him other accounts and has made his version of the story of Jesus. The Marcionite gospel by contrast doesn't demonstrate a relation to anything or anyone. It's just starts telling the story of Jesus. Even Tertullian can't find a fucking reason why Marcion would have singled out a secondary reactionary gospel like Luke but because Irenaeus says it was so - it is so. Marcion forged Luke.

Indeed that is all there is to the Lukan primacy argument. Luke is first mentioned by name as a gospel writer at the end of the second century. Marcion, even by the fables of the Catholic Church comes earlier. The bottom line then is that 'Irenaeus said so and everyone thereafter went along with him' is the entire substance to the Lukan primacy argument and Irenaeus came after Marcion. That's it. Nothing more except perhaps that 'besides Marcion was a bad guy.'

It just seems to obvious that Luke was second and Marcion first. This is to say nothing of the Marcionite gospels' relation to other texts. But just on this single dimension. How can someone doubt Tyson's thesis that Marcion was 1 and Luke was 2. But that's what scholars do. They make idiotic pronouncements like this - 'I don't believe it' or they come up with the 'wearing down the audience' approach, you know those boring page after page of sheer nonsense that only serves to have people who share that idiot's presupposition declare 'well he must have said something - it's proved!'

The purpose of scholarship was never intended to convince other idiots to give up their position. It should be to appeal one's message to the general public - albeit an educated general public, one that doesn't exist today - to call out these idiots for just making up stuff.

I also read this from C Clifton Black's the Disciples according to Mark:

It is a sadly ludicrous truism that doctoral dissertations in the humanities are written for an audience of one (the student’s director), at most three to five (a committee). If the dissertation be approved, never again should an author with scholarly aspirations write for so few. Should Fortune smile and one’s dissertation be accepted for publication, the potential readership is enlarged, though the royalties thereafter are dismal reminders that a closet of regular dimensions would accomodate that audience (pp. 302-3).

That's the problem in a nutshell. While the average person isn't up to speed on all the various arguments for and against a position or a school of thought, the scholar hides behind this veil of boredom to make everything appear 'too complicated' for other people to understand. The reality is that they don't want to or can't simplify the argument to such a degree that our mothers and fathers and friends could actually make out the gist of what they are saying. In short- they act like the modern equivalent of priests waving their hands in the air and saying 'hocus pocus' but there really is very little substance to anything they are saying.

[Peter Kirby]

By the way, something I've noticed lately is that there are one too many Pauline epistles. Ignoring the pastorals, the Marcionite canon has 8 recipients:

Ephesians
Romans
Corinthians
Thessalonians
Philippians
Colossians
Philemon
Galatians

On analogy with the Ignatian corpus, where the epistle to Polycarp counted as one of the 7 epistles, we should expect a Pauline corpus arranged among 6 churches with the personal epistle to Philemon forming the seventh. Why is there an extra church; what occasioned such an alteration to the Apostolikon's perfect number?

Detering mentions this: "Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas..." ("But now, since Marcion discovered the letter of Paul to the Galatians...") from Tertullian, A.M. 4.3

He continues: "Tertullian clearly seems to allude here to the claim by the Marcionites, or Marcion himself, that Marcion had accidentally and fortunately 'discovered' the letter of Paul to the Galatians. As we otherwise know form the history of pseudepigraphy and literary forgery, the publication of such writings, as a rule, tends to be preceded by their 'discovery.'"

As indicated elsewhere, Galatians looks so much like a polemical reply to the challenge against Paul's apostolate launched by the Acts of the Apostles, which itself looks like it comments on the situation with Marcion, not least with the story of Simon Magus and the refused donation.

A naïve reading of this evidence (among other considerations...) would place Acts of the Apostles during (140-144 AD) or just after (145-150 AD) the presence of Marcion at Rome, with the epistle to the Galatians being produced still later than that (145-155 AD).

[dewitness]

It is most amazing to me that scholars would accept claims by Irenaeus and Tertullian about Marcion when the very same scholarship almost universally reject their claims about authors, date of writing, chronology and contents of the Gospels and the Epistles.

Why would Marcion use gLuke when there was NO gospel actually written by anyone called Luke or called according to Luke when it was written?

Luke is an invented author.

1. Virtually everything that Irenaeus claimed about the authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels has been rejected by scholars almost universally. .

2. The claim by Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years of age has been rejected by scholars almost universally..

3. The dating, authorship and chronology of Epistles of the Pauline Corpus by Irenaeus has been rejected by scholars almost universally..

4. The dating, authorship and chronology of Acts of Apostles in writings of Irenaeus has been rejected by scholars almost universally.

It is clear that the writer posing as Irenaeus knew NOTHING at all of the history of the Jesus cult in the 2nd century.

It is clear that the writer posing as Irenaeus is not credible or was not a presbyter of the Jesus cult of Lyons.

Who would reject virtually everything from Irenaeus about the authorship, dating, and chronology of the writings of his Church but accept what he wrote about those he called Heretics??

Irenaeus was virtually 100% wrong about his own Church writings.

Who would accept Ireneaus as a credible source for Marcion??

Either an idiot or a mad man or a combination of both?

[Peter Kirby]

It is most amazing to me that scholars would accept claims by Irenaeus and Tertullian about Marcion when the very same scholarship almost universally reject their claims about authors, date of writing, chronology and contents of the Gospels and the Epistles.

No more strange than that I could accept at face value your claims regarding satisfactory bowel movements but always need to verify your utterances regarding early Christian history. They are two different piles of crap entirely.

[dewitness]

Again we see the problem. This thread is about "What's wrong with mainstream Scholarship" where the thread starter admits that the realm of scholarship is absolute bullshit.

This thread is not about "dewitness"

This is why I never bothered to 'go all the way' into the realm of scholarship. It's absolute bullshit....................."


"The purpose of scholarship was never intended to convince other idiots to give up their position. It should be to appeal one's message to the general public - albeit an educated general public, one that doesn't exist today - to call out these idiots for just making up stuff".

Now, please read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesuss exist?" page 182 ---the author admits that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write the gospels which directly contradicts "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?" page 182

They were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Against Heresies 3.1.1

. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Bart Ehrman REJECTS "Against Heresies". 3.1.1

Irenaeus is virtually 100 % wrong about the authors of the Gospels of his own Church.

How can the same scholars accept Irenaeus claims about Marcion?

Other Christian writers also REJECTED Irenaeus' claims about Marcion and the time of crucifixion of Jesus.

Who would REJECT Irenaeus claims about his own Church writings and Jesus and still accept his writings against so-called Heretics?

Only idiots or madmen or a combination of both????

[Peter Kirby]

Detering mentions this: "Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas..." ("But now, since Marcion discovered the letter of Paul to the Galatians...") from Tertullian, A.M. 4.3

He continues: "Tertullian clearly seems to allude here to the claim by the Marcionites, or Marcion himself, that Marcion had accidentally and fortunately 'discovered' the letter of Paul to the Galatians. As we otherwise know form the history of pseudepigraphy and literary forgery, the publication of such writings, as a rule, tends to be preceded by their 'discovery.'"

Roger Parvus argues against this interpretation here:

http://vridar.org/2013/10/14/a-simonian ... e-letters/

One reason Price takes Marcion as the author of Galatians is

the striking comment of Tertullian in Against Marcion that Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas: “Marcion has discovered Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians” (p. 411).

Latin definition for: nanciscor, nancisci, nactus
to get, obtain, receive, meet with, stumble on, light on, find

But I’m not sure much of a case can be built on this. For “nactus” can just simply mean “having got; having obtained.” Ernest Evans, in his translation of Tertullian’s book, translates the verse as: “Marcion has got hold of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.” And when Tertullian, just two paragraphs later, deals with Marcion’s views of other Scriptures, he does so by referring to Marcion’s laying of hands on them:

In fact it was only when Marcion laid hands [Latin: intulit manus] upon it [the Gospel of Luke], that it became different from the apostolic gospels, and in opposition to them. (Against Marcion 4, 5)

and

So then, since it is evident that these too [the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and John] existed in the churches, how is it that Marcion has not touched [Latin: attigit] them as well, either to correct if falsified, or to acknowledge if correct? (Against Marcion 4, 5)

For Tertullian, heretics have no right to the Church’s sacred writings (see his On the Prescription of Heretics). And when they come into possession of them, they inevitably mishandle them. They corrupt whatever they touch. It was apparently no different with Marcion and Galatians. Notice how the verse in question ends:

For Marcion, nactus Paul’s epistle to the Galatians… strives hard to overthrow the credit of those gospels which are the apostles’ own and are published under their names, or even under the names of apostolic men, with the intention no doubt of conferring on his own gospel the repute which he takes away from those others. (Against Marcion 4, 3)

Two more reasons to question whether Marcion claimed to have discovered Galatians:

Furthermore, to take “nactus” in the sense of “discovered” seems unlikely for another reason. If Marcion had really claimed to be the discoverer of Galatians, I expect Tertullian would have made more than a passing reference to it. In his five-volume work against Marcion, he is eager to contest Marcion’s claims at every step. Surely, writing half a century after Marcion was active, it would have been easy for Tertullian to deny Marcion’s supposed claim unless it was firmly and universally recognized as true. But nowhere else in the extant record is there any whisper about Marcion being the discoverer of Galatians.
One other aspect of this discovery scenario makes me uncomfortable too. If Marcion wrote the core of Galatians but claimed only to have discovered it, would this not—as Price suggests—put him in the same league with Hilkiah who “discovered” Deuteronomy and Joseph Smith who “discovered” the book of Mormon? I am reluctant to put him in that company. To me, he comes across as a refreshingly open and honest character. At a time when so many Christians were engaging in outright forgery, attempting to pass off their writings as belonging to an earlier time, his Antitheses stands out as an honest, straightforward critique put forward in his own name. He did not attempt to pass that work off as a long lost book of Paul. Or even as divinely revealed to him by Jesus or Paul.

[Duvduv]

Ah, the Marcionites......that great group of adversaries of orthodox Christians, for whom NOTHING exists as evidence for their existence in the 2nd century or thereafter, no communities, no leaders, no writings, nothing. But they exist WITHOUT QUESTION in the minds of those engaged in debate. How interesting!!

[stephan happy huller]

What's the difference between the situation related to the Marcionites and that of the Perushim, Tzedukim, Hasidim, Gavlanim, Apikorsim, Issiyi, and Baytosim and other sects mentioned in rabbinic literature? We have Jewish writings with the DSS which is associated with perhaps some of these groups. But so what? What about the debe R. Yannai or the bet R. Yannai? Do I need to continue? Yes some of these sects are bullshit but most of them are garbled misunderstanding of something else. Also the Marcionites did not call themselves 'Marcionites.' Nor is it likely that any of the sects of Christianity so identify themselves by the names given by the Church. The same thing was originally true with the term Perushim. The Catholics were called Palutians. It's hard to follow your thesis especially as it puts the Jewish and Christian sources on two different levels - i.e. Jewish sources about sects totally reliable, Christians sources totally unreliable. The reality is that all our historical sources are partly true, partly full of nonsense.

I picked up a Karaite anthology with Kirkisani in it and he mentions a sect called 'those of the caves' which when you read it has to refer to the discovery of scrolls like those of Qumran in antiquity. This reference probably wouldn't have made sense to previous generations but now with all these jars with scrolls in them in Judean desert, they suddenly make sense

Kirkasani first mentions the Sadducees in his list of sects and then:

About that time there appeared also the teaching of a sect called the Magarians who were so called because their religious books were discovered in a cave (magar). One of them was Alexandrian, whose well known book is the principal religious book of the Magarians. Next to it in rank is a small booklet called the Book of Yaddu'a, also a fine work. Of the remaining books none is significant most of them merely resemble idle tales.

Next there appeared Yeshu'a, who the Rabbanites say was the son of Pandera; he is known as Jesus, the son of Mary. He lived in the days of Joshua, the son of Perachiah, who is said to have been the maternal uncle of Jesus. This took place in the reign of Augustus Caesar Emperor of Rome ...

What's interesting is that a certain Yaddu appears as an important sectarian leader in Samaritan literature too. Not sure if they are the same individual.

[Duvduv]

What you are forgetting is where there are MUTUALLY ANTAGONISTIC sources who refer to the same other sect or their beliefs and writings (some of which are mentioned in talmudic sources), then there is a very high likelihood that that other sect did exist. Thus, if Christians, Jews, Karaites, and Romans mentioned the Saduccees, then their existence is quite likely as compared with Marcionites, about whom nothing is known, not their leaders, not their locations, not texts, nothing at all. All the information about them is totally flimsy, especially the doctrinally vital notion that their founder lived in the 2nd century, which cannot be proven at all, even from Christian sources themselves.

Furthermore, the existence or non-existence of various other Jewish sects have no significance for Judaism at all. None at all, whereas the theories of Marcion and Marcionites have alot of bearing on the emergence of Christianity and its writings and are significant to apologists.

The Magerians may have been nothing more than a small club in some town in Baghdad or Persia. Nothing is known about them, and Kirkisani himself doesn't even think them to be important enough to say anything significant about them. What CAN be suggested from all that is that "Karaism" is an umbrella term referring to assorted sects who rejected the rabbinic path and struck out on their own. Eventually they all morphed together - probably by the 11th century and generically became known as Karaites.

[Peter Kirby]

"doctrinally vital notion that their founder [Marcion] lived"

Doctrinally vital to whom?