Minimal Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Minimal Marcion

Post by Charles Wilson »

lsayre wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 6:34 amOuch! $285 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Oldest-Gospel-Fo ... 9042943092
Let's see and compare: A scholarly book on an esoteric subject or...I don't know...a FOOTBALL BOOK?

https://www.amazon.com/Coaching-Footbal ... 1890450081

DOUBLE OUCH!!!

I got this at about $15= when it first came out.
Sometimes when certain books hit a demand period on Amazon the price RILLY spikes.
That said, I'm still waiting for Leibner's book on Settlements... to come down just a bit.
That said, it ain't gonna.

Remember the Golden Rule: Who has the gold makes the Rules.

CW
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8789
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Klinghardt's complete Marcion in English - let the (end)games truly begin

Post by MrMacSon »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:57 am
This just in
It's a masterpiece, and the Reconstruction is loaded with all the Greek and Latin, and variants. I've quickly scanned it, it will be a lot of work to process it but it is absolutely more than worth it.
I bet it's good. I thought there was an ebook version, yet, while there's reference to one on the publisher's website, I can't find it (there's not a kindle version at Amazon)

mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:57 am And somewhere in between I'll have to work my way through these 1,500 pages and parallel this magnificent reconstruction with Thomas so that it becomes apparent that Coptic Thomas (sic, yes, indeed) is the very first "gospel" (albeit never intended as one at all whatsoever)[/b] which Marcion took into a narrative, after which Mark quickly released a proto-copy of thata - and the rest is history (and a much longer story LOL)
  • Interesting!

    a I presume you mean 'Mark' released a version that became G.Mark?
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Minimal Marcion

Post by perseusomega9 »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:22 am And if anyone else but Goodacre had published it, it would have been binned on the spot and perhaps no one would have even deemed it worthy of a review
Oh I don't know about that, many want/need for Thomas to be dependent on the Holy Four 4. They would eat it up anyway because it tells them what they want to hear.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13658
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Klinghardt's complete Marcion in English - let the (end)games truly begin

Post by Giuseppe »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:57 am And somewhere in between I'll have to work my way through these 1,500 pages and parallel this magnificent reconstruction with Thomas so that it becomes apparent that Coptic Thomas (sic, yes, indeed) is the very first "gospel" (albeit never intended as one at all whatsoever) which Marcion took into a narrative, after which Mark quickly released a proto-copy of that - and the rest is history (and a much longer story LOL)
I am very curious about this new reconstruction of the Origins. Thank you very much for your efforts.

Already some past mythicists (for example, Fau) had noted that Marcion had used previous logia to build his first narrative.

I wonder why, given the premises of your theory, you don't accept to see anti-demiurgism in Thomas. Note how much 'Father' occurs (at least 26 times, in a modern translation) against 3 occurrences of 'God' and only 1 of 'Lord'. The 'Father' was the unknown Father adored by Marcion.
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Minimal Marcion

Post by lsayre »

Perhaps orally transmitted logia mentioning "the Father" came along first, and later someone (Marcion?, or the author(s) of a precursor to The Gospel of Thomas?) realized that where there is a Father there is likely to be a Son.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt's complete Marcion in English - let the (end)games truly begin

Post by mlinssen »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:13 am
mlinssen wrote: Thu Oct 07, 2021 5:57 am And somewhere in between I'll have to work my way through these 1,500 pages and parallel this magnificent reconstruction with Thomas so that it becomes apparent that Coptic Thomas (sic, yes, indeed) is the very first "gospel" (albeit never intended as one at all whatsoever) which Marcion took into a narrative, after which Mark quickly released a proto-copy of that - and the rest is history (and a much longer story LOL)
I am very curious about this new reconstruction of the Origins. Thank you very much for your efforts.

Already some past mythicists (for example, Fau) had noted that Marcion had used previous logia to build his first narrative.

I wonder why, given the premises of your theory, you don't accept to see anti-demiurgism in Thomas. Note how much 'Father' occurs (at least 26 times, in a modern translation) against 3 occurrences of 'God' and only 1 of 'Lord'. The 'Father' was the unknown Father adored by Marcion.
You're welcome, Giuseppe.
1.
You ask a very odd question, although not an unusual one - but it is entirely in the light of your own context, and not mine. So you really shouldn't ask me the question

Thomas is the source to all of Christianity; I posited that in my Absolute Thomasine Priority which you found on academia.edu and quoted here, which brought me here - and I wrote that almost two years ago.
Why did I call it Absolute Thomasine priority - the Synoptic Problem solved in the most unsatisfactory manner?
That is a very important question of course, because it is an awkward title, don't you think so?

Perhaps you can try to answer that, and you'll find the answer to your question right above.

2.
I am baffled by your assumptions about words that do or do not occur in Thomas. You can simply check the concordance in my Translation, it is the first ever complete one, an it is in reverse too, for those who like to see Coptic-English

From the Index, here are the counts:

father (father) ⲉⲓⲱⲧ Noun masculine 28
god god ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ Noun masculine 4
slave (servant, slave) ϩⲙϩⲁⲗ Noun masculine 8
slaveowner (lord, master, owner) ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Noun masculine 14

In parentheses the possible translations, and they're preceded by the word of my choice.
You can throw away all Thomas translations ever, there is only 1 accurate one, and that is mine. It is not a very legible one, but it is 100% accurate and precise, and as you can see there is no social word for Lord in Thomas, that is merely interpretation - not translation.
The really interesting information comes when you check the concordance: "god" occurs 4 times, yes - but that's only twice in two logia

father ⲉⲓⲱⲧ Noun masculine 3, 15, 16, 27, 40, 44, 50, 53, 55, 57, 61, 64, 69, 72, 76, 79, 83, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 105, 113
god ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ Noun masculine 30, 100
slave ϩⲙϩⲁⲗ Noun masculine 47, 64, 65
slaveowner ϫⲟⲉⲓⲥ Noun masculine 21, 47, 64, 65, 73, 74

As you can see, slave and slaveowner meet in 3 logia, and those are the only logia where the slave appears. Interestingly, the slaveowner appears in only 6 logia - 14 times

The father?
The 'Father' was the unknown Father adored by Marcion.
That's easy for you to say, but a lot harder to prove. Yet it is irrelevant to my theory, as I state above that Marcion took Thomas into a narrative.
What the father really stands for in Thomas is also irrelevant, as he was completely misunderstood by Marcion (and ff), which surely did not stop him from becoming a success, however

But if you really want to know, you can read Part I of my Commentary, and wait a few months for Part II.
Or I could tell you right away that the father ... is really You. Or rather, the real You
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Minimal Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

lsayre wrote: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:08 pm Perhaps orally transmitted logia mentioning "the Father" came along first, and later someone (Marcion?, or the author(s) of a precursor to The Gospel of Thomas?) realized that where there is a Father there is likely to be a Son.
While we're at the topic then, logion 16 starts explaining it: you are the father as well as the son, and the house is your "head", the collection of mental models that you have of yourself

You are the child (a masculine noun that means either child or son, there isn't a separate word for that in Coptic), and Two.
And you'll have to get back to the father-state, who is inside you, deeply tucked away.
Who are the Two? The Ego and Self, created by you in the first 2 years of your life, just about - after you I-dentified yourself (logion 11)

I am sure this all sounds very alien, perhaps delusional, but this is what Thomas is about; I am currently at logion 33 in my Commentary (280 pages and counting) and every single logion is perfectly coherent, sequential and logical to all of this - Thomas explained and evangelised radical non duality, yet did so 2,000 years ago.
That didn't stop Marcion from taking the content and turning it into a narrative, while giving his own meaning to it.
And that - in turn - didn't stop Mark from copying a proto-Marcion, or perhaps merely very reluctantly copying a full Marcion

But the NT never explained who father and child are, and highly likely Marcion did neither. Your best chances lie with John, because he was in the know, and if you read him with what I just said here in mind, John makes perfect sense: IS is a mere helping hand, a concept, helping you on your way to self realisation, liberation

Look up Iusaas, then read the parable of the sower. Yes, Atum. Read my Commentary Part I, some tentative words are in there already.
Create, masturbate, ejaculate! Spread your ideas, your semen. Sow, work the earth where it grows - and rinse and repeat

And that's why Thomas says in logion 55: hold your Satyros in my way. For those of you who have done some research around the Copts, countless statues of "Pan" and "Min" have been found...
Thomas was understood, by many. For centuries

Can you believe it all? That's not the question. The real question is: if the absolute rubbish in the NT has been believed by so many for so long - what will happen when those find out that they have been duped?
Highly likely, nothing at all
lsayre
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Klinghardt's complete Marcion in English - let the (end)games truly begin

Post by lsayre »

mlinssen wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:33 pm But if you really want to know, you can read Part I of my Commentary, and wait a few months for Part II.
Or I could tell you right away that the father ... is really You. Or rather, the real You
Is this intended to imply that the school which has left us with 'The Gospel Of Thomas' was fundamentally Buddhist?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Klinghardt's complete Marcion in English - let the (end)games truly begin

Post by mlinssen »

lsayre wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:11 pm
mlinssen wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:33 pm But if you really want to know, you can read Part I of my Commentary, and wait a few months for Part II.
Or I could tell you right away that the father ... is really You. Or rather, the real You
Is this intended to imply that the school which has left us with 'The Gospel Of Thomas' was fundamentally Buddhist?
In general, the question to your answer will be a YES, lsayre

Putting labels on boxes is always tricky, as there are very few labels that cover the entire box - and the meaning and definition and scope of labels themselves change over time as well

But let me try it the other way around:

1. Thomas is vehemently anti-religious, and has a go at it in every other logion
2. Thomas is fiercely anti Judaic, that is well known, I suppose
3. Thomas is fiercely anti Pharisee, that is well known, I suppose - yet I think this is more of an emotional or political issue than that it is a religious concern
4. Thomas is fiercely against following "leaders" and "icons"
5. Thomas continuously, permanently, relentlessly points inside for the solution, salvation, and all that jazz. INSIDE is the pre-eminent word. 14 times does the adjective occur, and 13 times it functions as an adverb to the verb "go, enter".
Thomas is entirely and only about "going inside", and to emphasise that, perhaps: outside occurs 34 times as an adverb and 7 times as an adjective. NOTE: Translation 1.8.1 and below lacks harmonisation there, and I am currently changing "inward" to "inside" in order to better reflect its opposition to "outside". Needless to say, "outward" is included in that make over

Logion 8 is pivotal, it is the core message from Thomas: there is no Great Good Fish - all teachings are only distractions, and Buddhist folly to reject all material wealth would be one of those "fishes".
Yet he sketches the goal as well: ⲭⲱⲣⲓⲥ ϩⲓⲥⲉ, exempt-from toil - that is how he "chooses the fish". It has many double meanings, and one of those is "free-from suffering" - just click the words, it only takes a minute

So in essence, it is close to but even beyond Buddhism, and I see great similarities with the Tao from a semantic point of view as well. It is a touch of everything, Thomas is one of those broadly oriented people who has seen most of religion and spirituality, and thereby spots the pitfalls, loopholes, and treadmills

The answer lies inside you, and you alone. The only way is inside, and it is your way, and it can't be described - and that is not what he says, exactly because it is so. Sounds familiar?
Thomas surely was Egyptian though, and had a Judaic background. And knew his Greek awfully well, as well as the Tanakh, Plato, perhaps Philo and others.
The best kitchen is fusion; the best wisdoms are too
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Minimal Marcion - (Roth and Harnack and) Klinghardt

Post by mlinssen »

I'm at page 150, and this book is fantastic.
Harnack is slowly dissecting and invalidating himself simply by Klinghardt enumerating his inconsistencies and omissions

One of the finest is the fact that Tertullian doesn't mention anything about the following scene:

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.
17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.
21 And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, "Is not this Joseph's son?"

The tremendous audacity of Jesus' words here and the humongous claim that he makes doesn't need to be pointed out, I hope. Any of this, in any place and time, in any religion, is grounds for outrage, excitement and extasy all at the same time. This is pretty much identical to wheeling a burning cross or two inside a church in broad daylight, during mass.
Roth comments on these as follows (page 412):

4:17–22—Unattested [and possibly not present]

And Klinghardt makes the deadly point that this is one of the crucial moments where "Marcion meets Judaism", in my words. Had this been present in Marcion, Tertullian would have been all over it. Had this been obviously removed by Marcion, the same outcome would apply - but it must be either of these two binary situations, there can be nothing in between. So what is happening here?

The fact that none of them spend even a single word on it can only point to the fact that they KNOW that this is Lukan redaction, and that implies that they know that all of the rest is too.
The fact that they don't question any of it, implies their dishonesty and insincerity - which is to be expected, given their role as evangelist, propaganda maker, religio-politician

Yet Harnack and Roth? It completely disqualifies them as objective academics in search for the truth. As usual, I leave the choice between incompetence or (mal)intent

For your enjoyment, the relevant passage from Roth, page 186

5.2 Luke 4:16, 23, 27, 29–30

4.8.2—Et tamen apud Nazareth quoque nihil novi notatur praedicasse, dum alio, merito unius proverbii,1 eiectus refertur. . . . manus ei iniectas . . . detentus et captus et ad praecipitium usque protractus . . . | 4.8.3—. . . per medios evasit . . . | 4.35.6—Nunc etsi praefatus est multos tunc fuisse leprosos apud Israhelem in diebus Helisaei prophetae et neminem eorum purgatum nisi Neman Syrum, . . .
Elements of this pericope are also attested by Epiphanius, Ephrem, and Jerome. According to the order in which Tertullian comments on Marcion’s Gospel, a shortened form of Luke 4:16–30 followed Luke 4:31–35.2 In addition, though Luke 4:27 is discussed here, both Epiphanius and Tertullian attest its presence in Marcion’s Gospel in the pericope of the cleansing of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11–19). For Luke 4:27 Tertullian, in 4.35.6, attests πολ λ οὶ λεπροὶ ἦσαν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ ἐν [ταῖς?] ἡμέραις Ἐλισαίου τοῦ προφήτου, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἐκαθαρίσθη εἰ μὴ Νεμὰν ὁ Σύρος. The allusion to the entire pericope in 4.8.2–3, as recog-nized by Harnack, references only a few elements of the passage: Ναζαρέθ (v. 16, Harnack reproduced most of the reading in D in parentheses);3 unus proverbium (most probably the ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν in v. 23);4 ἐξέβαλον αὐτόν and ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἕως ὀφρύος τοῦ ὄρους (v. 29); and διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν ἐπορεύετο (v. 30).5 Though the other verses in the pericope are technically unattested, Harnack may be correct in his view, “M. [hat] den Inhalt der Predigt nicht angegeben, sondern seinerseite aus dem üblen Erfolg geschlossen, daß sie sich gegen den Judengott gerichtet haben müsse.”6

That's it, hardly a word on any of it. In essence, nothing.
It would be hilarious if it weren't this shamefully shameless. Roth should have criticised Harnack for his feeble and blatantly biased cowardly comment that Marcion didn't include the speech yet "assumed that it must have been directed against the Judaic god". Say what?!

Technically unattested... Roth disqualifies himself, his research, his academic standing and reputation, yes his entire thesis, theory and book here. This is mere rhetoric, well befitting a Church father - and it puts Roth straight in the apologetic corner
Post Reply