The book will arrive next saturday, probably.
In whiletime, before my view of things can be modified radically after
the reading of the book, I want to put well in evidence what I disagree strongly with, i.e. this Roth's claims:
Dieter Roth, The Text of Marcion’s Gospel, page 81: 81 It is crucial to recognize that in this approach to reconstructing Marcion’s Gospel text, Marcion’s theological tendencies will not be invoked in the evaluation of a source’s testimony. Thus, I am consciously embracing and agreeing with Schmid’s perspective when he wrote, “I would prefer to see appeals to Marcionite tendency banned from any serious reconstruction of the Marcionite text. We need to first of all screen our sources for the Marcionite text against themselves in order to better understand their theological agendas and rhetorical strategies.”
This quote is a mix of hypocrisy, false moralism and ignorance, in my view.
Even a blind realizes that the Parable of Wineskins or the Parable of the Lamp is pure marcionism
, one of the reasons to accuse Luke as a blatant corruption of Mcn
(since both have these two parables).
Hence I am absolutely titled to put Mark against Mcn
against Mark, since also
Mark has the Parable of Wineskins and the Parable of Lamp.