mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 9:26 pm
viewtopic.php?p=39331#p39331
Ben's report of Roth's reconstruction will suffice
What is striking in these last chapters is that none of the Falsifying Fathers accuses Marcion of any falsification except for Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.6 - who is either lying or, as Roth states, reading a variant reading
Here's what I think to be more likely though, and this is - for a change - just a broad outline:
Marcion ends at Mark 15:39, the centurion proclaiming Jesus to be the son of God.
Mark has to mitigate the "fact" that Romans killed Jesus at the instigation of Judaics but can't undo it, so he adds up till 16:8 in order to suggest that Jesus lived; the women are put on the scene immediately in 15:40 with the sole goal of their sole role: to take the brunt for no one knowing that "in fact" Jesus did arise from the grave. A pathetically feeble story but at least he tries to make it plausible by conjuring an impartial aid to the scene: Joseph "the disciplest", an allegedly trustworthy source who isn't one of the Twelve nor one of the Judaics.
Then naturally the story develops that the disciples faked his resurrection by hiding his body: Matthew 28:11-15, and by incorporating it into his own gospel Matthew successfully p0wns that.
Matthew then adds an incredibly lengthy narrative to his *Ev copy, Luke, but can't resist letting Peter take credit for being the first to discover the risen Christ by letting him find the bindings - while the women were still unbelieving, Peter isn't! Matthew sticks to the Markan story in his own gospel though, he often uses Luke to go an extra mile while keeping his own narrative pristine
The Falsifying Fathers do comment on Jesus challenging the disciples to check his wounds and such, but they hardly could have let that occasion pass.
Yet the true and ferocious force of *Ev is that it is the Romans and Judaics who kill the god or at least hero of Chrestianity - it would be a silly story with the resurrection without bragging about it.
"Those damn Judaics thought they could kill me huh?!" is an opportunity that really, truly, honestly can't be resisted - and I really fail to see the point in coming up with a first story that narrates about a killed and resurrected protagonist; that just really, really wild
Chrestianity was a source of civil unrest across the Roman Empire but largely went unnoticed because it only targeted Judaics - who received the brunt and got expelled left and right in order to take away the fuel to the fire.
We have fine sources to all of that:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish% ... Roman_wars
The Judaics found themselves caught between a hammer and an anvil: the Chrestians persecuted them and the Romans did nothing to prevent it. After almost a century of war, which was preceded by the first bans of Judaics in Rome around 50 CE, Romans began to rewrite the Chrestian history and Justin is the first attempt there, and so is Paul - but nothing is put into gospel and letter writings until 175-ish CE
Why do we find a Tertullian still writing about Marcion around 210? Because it was a burning, contemporary problem
I want to continue this thread with another disagreement by Philip, namely the resurrection.
I have asserted that Mark invented it which necessitated the Patristics to come up with a dignified death, for which they invented the cross - and this also demonstrates that the LXX got composed
AFTER the NT got composed, with the goal to support not only the NT, but Churchian dogma at large.
Because IS got impaled, and the only occurrence of any word that refers to 'nail' in the entire NT is in Thomas inquiring after the 'typos' of the nails, to which the response is:
John 20:27 Then He says to Thomas, “Bring your finger here, and see My hands; and bring your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.”
https://www.academia.edu/45655884/The_G ... _the_cross - my detailed research on the Stauros, stake, and the 3-6 hour timeframe in which IS dies, who is completely lucid until the very last moment. No death from blood loss or fatigue while slowly sinking into a state of unconsciousness, but a sudden death instead
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_i ... ristianity - page 19ff that argue, in detail, that the sole goal of Mark 15:49-16:8 is to persuade the audience that IS lived, and the reason for nobody knowing that is the 3 Thomasine / Marcionite women, 2 of whom make a cameo appearance only for these scenes, " never told no one"
Philip logion 22 (Paterson Brown)
22. Those who say that the Lord first died and then arose are confused. For first he arose and (then) he died. If someone first acquires the resurrection, he will not die; (as) God lives, that one was [not] going to [die]
https://metalogos.org/files/ph_interlin/ph022.html
Philip appears to be aware of the resurrection story, but clearly refutes it. Undoubtedly he views the ⲁⲛⲁⲥⲧⲁⲥⲓⲥ as a spiritual experience and not a physical one.
A caveat is in place: this likely says "If someone *doesn't* first acquires the resurrection, he will not die" which surely is puzzling - but what matters most is the first sentence, and I would like to primarily focus on that
Philip disagrees with the NT narrative again, and refutes the resurrection
What do we observe in the Patristics? Another LXX mistranslation, the alleged fulfilment of another alleged prophecy:
Dogs surround me; a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like lions [they maul] my hands and feet.
https://www.sefaria.org/Psalms.22.17?lang=bi
What does the LXX turn this into?
For dogs surround me; a band of evil men encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet.
LLX Psalms 22:16 -
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/aposto ... lms/22.htm
There is no piercing of anything in the entire NT, there are no nails, there is no talk of any cross: IS gets σταυρὸς-ised, and that is all there is to it.
And with Philip disagreeing with the resurrection and the LXX arguing for something that isn't in the NT, we again have yet another case for demonstrating that the LXX got composed after that the NT got composed
And this Rosetta Stone of Philip (all credits due to N.B. Miller) may turn out to be quite the game changer