To be fair, I don’t think Secret Alias just made it up. A lot of people on the forum seem to be using it.Thomas R wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:12 pmYou just made up a rule that allows you to find "Marcionism" anywhere.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:10 pm Where it is stronger we get to the beginning of Christianity.
The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
Ok. Let me try again. Step 1. Flying Jesus = Marcion. Agree or disagree? https://www.jstor.org/stable/1584033 I don't know your familiarity with Patristic literature and whether I can speak in short hand like this. Have you read Book 4 of Against Marcion? Are you familiar with Marcion's understanding of Jesus passing through the crowd in Luke 4? He literally passes through them.
![Image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NyTS9m.jpg)
![Image](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NyTS9m.jpg)
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
And last I checked "Marcionism" is an English word https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 0Testament
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
To be fair we're mostly amateurs and didn't have the reigning paradigm drilled into our heads to the point it becomes axiomatic.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:15 pmTo be fair, I don’t think Secret Alias just made it up. A lot of people on the forum seem to be using it.Thomas R wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:12 pmYou just made up a rule that allows you to find "Marcionism" anywhere.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:10 pm Where it is stronger we get to the beginning of Christianity.
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
To be fair they have a vested interest in the existing paradigm. It's normal. What are you going to write about, lecture about, argue about if all our inherited texts have been falsified? We don't even have much historical information beyond the Church Fathers. At least in the study of Mormonism you can write about Mormons.
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
perseusmega9,perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:41 amTo be fair we're mostly amateurs and didn't have the reigning paradigm drilled into our heads to the point it becomes axiomatic.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:15 pmTo be fair, I don’t think Secret Alias just made it up. A lot of people on the forum seem to be using it.Thomas R wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:12 pmYou just made up a rule that allows you to find "Marcionism" anywhere.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:10 pm Where it is stronger we get to the beginning of Christianity.
Are you saying that you accept:
(1) Secret Alias' axiom that 'where it [blaming the Jews] is stronger, we get to the beginning of Christianity' and
(2) by implication, Marcion's Gospel is the earliest Gospel, Marcion's Apostolikon is the earliest from of the Pauline letters, and that blame of the Jews originated in Marcion's documents and progressively lessened over time?
How would you demonstrate that? At present I think Matthew used Mark and Luke used Mark and Matthew, but that, at least in places, Matthew increased blame of the Jews over Mark ('his blood be on on us and on our children' in Matt 27.25 and the guards report in 28.11-15), while Luke lessened the blame of the Jews from what it had been in Matthew ("father forgive them, they know not what they are doing', Luke 23.34, if you accept authenticity, which I do, and Acts 3.17, 'I know you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers"). It does not seem to me that things are so simple or uni-directional.
I had a similar issue with Giuseppe on supercessionism. How can you distinguish (and date) the peculiarly Marcionite form of supercessionism as opposed the more general Christian form of supercessionism?
viewtopic.php?p=122277#p122277
It's fine, even laudable, to challenge reigning axioms (I've challenged a couple myself). It's quite another to set up a new one in its place. That requires demonstration.
At present, I'm not convinced that theory of Marcionite priority (to Luke or to all the canonicals, and with Paul) is any better grounded in reason than the paradigm it seeks to replace.
Best,
Ken
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
Historically it would seem that the trend in story telling as well as in Scribal story copying is for the story to become increasingly embellished over time. This would quite logically imply that (on average) the shorter version is to be favored to come earlier, as opposed to later. If there is no other argument that can be applied to the Marcionite letters of Paul, and the Marcionite 'Gospel of the Lord', whereby to establish Marcionite priority, this argument seems to be validly applicable. Albeit that (specifically as to Gospels) brevity favors Mark's Gospel as the earliest.
-
- Posts: 1030
- Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
No.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:44 amperseusmega9,perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 6:41 amTo be fair we're mostly amateurs and didn't have the reigning paradigm drilled into our heads to the point it becomes axiomatic.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 5:15 pmTo be fair, I don’t think Secret Alias just made it up. A lot of people on the forum seem to be using it.Thomas R wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:12 pmYou just made up a rule that allows you to find "Marcionism" anywhere.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 4:10 pm Where it is stronger we get to the beginning of Christianity.
Are you saying that you accept:
(1) Secret Alias' axiom that 'where it [blaming the Jews] is stronger, we get to the beginning of Christianity' and
(2) by implication, Marcion's Gospel is the earliest Gospel, Marcion's Apostolikon is the earliest from of the Pauline letters, and that blame of the Jews originated in Marcion's documents and progressively lessened over time?
I agree completely about simplicity and directionality. I disagree with conventional dating* schemes of the NT Texts, the comfort with certain authentic* books, and the dating of the Apostolic Fathers. We will never find a big bang moment of Christianity, but putting it at 29-33CE (one standard deviation?) and driving forward just reinforces the creedal nature of the religion. I don't think it's that simple.How would you demonstrate that? At present I think Matthew used Mark and Luke used Mark and Matthew, but that, at least in places, Matthew increased blame of the Jews over Mark ('his blood be on on us and on our children' in Matt 27.25 and the guards report in 28.11-15), while Luke lessened the blame of the Jews from what it had been in Matthew ("father forgive them, they know not what they are doing', Luke 23.34, if you accept authenticity, which I do, and Acts 3.17, 'I know you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers"). It does not seem to me that things are so simple or uni-directional.
*we all know what these means with the usual scholarly hem-hawing footnotes
I skim Giuseppe and find the occasional pearl but...I retyped this several times and then remembered my suggestion that he should just have an omnibus thread/island where he could play as much as he wanted and that's where everyone would go to talk to him. To your link, the question and state of the problem are laid out concisely and you ask Giuseppe (or anyone) for a replacement. Fair question. But it's still a question bolstering the paradigm. My question to you as a scholar would be to ask when you think the foundations have been eroded enough to reformulate your inquiry voice and your dissent voice?I had a similar issue with Giuseppe on supercessionism. How can you distinguish (and date) the peculiarly Marcionite form of supercessionism as opposed the more general Christian form of supercessionism?
viewtopic.php?p=122277#p122277
Not much to disagree with here and you do have an idea of what responses are out there when one even mildly challenges the nice comfortable thought world where the scholarly consensus is constructed around the thoughtful interpretation of the (canonically biased) NT history, especially in response to conservative fundamental 'scholarly' treatments of the topic.It's fine, even laudable, to challenge reigning axioms (I've challenged a couple myself). It's quite another to set up a new one in its place. That requires demonstration.
So they're equally grounded, since Markionite priority is not 'better grounded'? This is a great example of what I come across in reading the scholarly literature about this topic in particular (Christian Origins). Everyone is just reading the same texts over and over until a new artifact appears. Then it goes through the churn of assumptions and gets placed into the paradigm that defined it.At present, I'm not convinced that theory of Marcionite priority (to Luke or to all the canonicals, and with Paul) is any better grounded in reason than the paradigm it seeks to replace.
Your field's scholarship is weird, and obviously biased. One of my favorite books on my shelf is Arlo Nau's Peter in Matthew. His last chapter is an essay for the use/implications of his 'radical' thesis and how it can be incorporated into Christian belief or something like that. I don't know. It is superfluous and unnecessary with respect to his historical analysis and thesis, but the fact he felt the need to incorporate it into his book is troubling and shines a spotlight on the problems in the field. I wonder if he held back in his analysis. This is just one example of many I come across, but I think it's illustrative.
Ken, I'm just an amateur, but I know I can read. I apologize for not providing a vibrant and competing hypothesis, but I don't think one is possible with the current entrenchment of the field in its ideas.
Thank you and I do appreciate your contributions.Best,
Ken
-
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
I will begin by being civil. Let's see how long this lasts. There are many examples of this.(1) Secret Alias' axiom that 'where it [blaming the Jews] is stronger, we get to the beginning of Christianity' and
(2) by implication, Marcion's Gospel is the earliest Gospel, Marcion's Apostolikon is the earliest from of the Pauline letters, and that blame of the Jews originated in Marcion's documents and progressively lessened over time?
1. My Samaritan friends live in the modern state of Israel love Jews and Judaism. They are also supported financially by the Israeli government. Josephus mentions the exact opposite sentiment 'in the Beginning.' https://books.google.com/books?id=YAgZU ... ns&f=false
2. The Karaites were bitter enemies of the 'rabbanites' in the beginning. Not so now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism
3. The Sabbateans the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbateans Neo-Sabbateans (Frankists) were leading Zionists but bitter enemies in the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankism
4. Kabbalah was originally deemed to be heretical by many leading Jewish figures (Jacob of Emden). Now Jews celebrate kabbalah almost as orthodoxy especially given the influence of Sephardic Jews. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
5. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have had varying phases in their relationship.
6. Among Samaritans it is well-accepted that at some point around the 10th century the two main branches ('Orthodox' for lack of a better term and 'Dositheanism' merged into one surviving tradition. This is evidenced in many ways but most clearly by the 'ed-Dustan' section of the Samaritan prayerbook. https://books.google.com/books?id=iLg3A ... an&f=false
The list goes on and on. In each case the what is 'heresy' and what is orthodoxy comes to be defined merely by which has the better relationship with the Roman government or which foreign nation is in charge.
I don't deny that many if not most scholars do not think that Marcionism is earlier than orthodoxy. Do you Ken think that 'orthodoxy' with its pseudo-Pauline material (the Pastorals, the gospel of Luke etc) is a more faithful or even earlier Pauline tradition than Marcionism?
I would argue that when watching a sporting event the team that wins always seems to play better, seems more 'inevitable' - in short 'right.' A careful examination of many or most sporting matches reveals that a goal here or there could argue for a similar 'sense' for the losing team. Religious scholars don't like Geworfenheit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
In other words Ken and his ilk think the inherited reality is 'good enough' because of an unconscious acceptance of their thrownness. My previous investigation into the 'thrownness' of other members of this board has gotten my in trouble so I will stop there.The thrower of the project is thrown in his own throw. How can we account for this freedom? We cannot. It is simply a fact, not caused or grounded, but the condition of all causation and grounding.
Re: The Diatessaron Knows the Marcionite Gospel?
It's an odd question. I think you are asking me to judge the canonical Pauline corpus plus Acts as a whole, including both those letters I currently hold to be authentic alongside those I currently hold to be inauthentic and also Acts, which I might describe as Luke's effort to write a story about Paul based on sources whose reliability he could not determine accurately and a large dose of his own speculation about what Paul ought to have been like. I don't know how to assess the Pauline Corpus plus Acts as a whole versus the scholarly reconstructions of Marcion from fragments embedded in the church fathers, and I don't see why that would be useful.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Dec 04, 2021 12:49 pm Do you Ken think that 'orthodoxy' with its pseudo-Pauline material (the Pastorals, the gospel of Luke etc) is a more faithful or even earlier Pauline tradition than Marcionism?
However, if I don't have to judge the canon as a whole (which I don't), I think the extant texts of the seven generally accepted Pauline letters are probably closer to what Paul wrote than the reconstructed text of Marcion is. At least, I have not yet seen good evidence to suggest otherwise.
Best,
Ken
PS - While I think it's useful to study the historical development of the concepts of the canon and orthodoxy, I do not think they are useful analytical categories.