The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

lsayre wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 9:07 am The ESV translation of Mark 5:39 states that a valid alternative reading has the Centurion stating "Truly this man was a son of God" (as opposed to "the Son of God")
Thank you lsayre, but I've moved far beyond that point.
I read the original manuscripts and their variants, in Greek. Not to brag about it but because it's the only way to make sense of it all

Berean Interlinear will help anyone to read the Greek:

https://interlinearbible.com/bib.pdf

Luke, for instance, no variants known:

47 Ἰδὼν (Having seen) δὲ (now) ὁ (the) ἑκατοντάρχης (centurion) τὸ (that) γενόμενον (having taken place), ἐδόξαζεν (he began glorifying) τὸν (-) Θεὸν (God), λέγων (saying), “Ὄντως (Certainly) ὁ (the) ἄνθρωπος (man) οὗτος (this) δίκαιος (righteous) ἦν (was).”

Here are all variants for Mark by the way, and they're similar to Matthew's:

son of-god was
son was of-god
of-god son was
son of-god is
Mark15-39_NA28.jpg
Mark15-39_NA28.jpg (595.5 KiB) Viewed 975 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Stuart wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:32 am This is wrong.

Tertullian writes about the scene at the tomb. The only suspect thing is bit about eating fish and the risen Jesus saying a spirit has not bone as I have, which looks like a deliberate anti-docetic element the Marcionites never would have added, nor would have kept in their copy. The rest of the attested resurrection story fits Marcionite narrative of Christ crucified and risen after three days. It was a core part of their theology, and well attested.

The passages are noted in Ben's outlined which you link to for your base point. Granted Ben does not do a qualitative analysis of each attestation to determine if it's actually the Marcionite text referred to here or a subtle shift to quoting the main recension (Catholic) text as counter point or if it is uncertain which is referred to at this point.

But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark, with some tale of a post death scene. In Marcionite lore, which we learn in Dialogue Adamantius, Paul wrote the portions of the gospel after Jesus' death. This is not dissimilar from traditional Jewish lore that held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, except that Joshua wrote the ending bit about his death. Obviously neither is true, but such was the way people looked at things, blending good logic with ridiculous lore to speak "truth."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9335

I don't want to withhold that gem from you Stuart.
No reason to read any of it if you like to think that Marcion came after Luke though
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:51 am
Stuart wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:32 am This is wrong.

Tertullian writes about the scene at the tomb. The only suspect thing is bit about eating fish and the risen Jesus saying a spirit has not bone as I have, which looks like a deliberate anti-docetic element the Marcionites never would have added, nor would have kept in their copy. The rest of the attested resurrection story fits Marcionite narrative of Christ crucified and risen after three days. It was a core part of their theology, and well attested.

The passages are noted in Ben's outlined which you link to for your base point. Granted Ben does not do a qualitative analysis of each attestation to determine if it's actually the Marcionite text referred to here or a subtle shift to quoting the main recension (Catholic) text as counter point or if it is uncertain which is referred to at this point.

But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark, with some tale of a post death scene. In Marcionite lore, which we learn in Dialogue Adamantius, Paul wrote the portions of the gospel after Jesus' death. This is not dissimilar from traditional Jewish lore that held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, except that Joshua wrote the ending bit about his death. Obviously neither is true, but such was the way people looked at things, blending good logic with ridiculous lore to speak "truth."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9335

I don't want to withhold that gem from you Stuart.
No reason to read any of it if you like to think that Marcion came after Luke though
Can one exclude the proposition that both the texts have been systematically compromised by a later source?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:52 pm
mlinssen wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 6:51 am
Stuart wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:32 am This is wrong.

Tertullian writes about the scene at the tomb. The only suspect thing is bit about eating fish and the risen Jesus saying a spirit has not bone as I have, which looks like a deliberate anti-docetic element the Marcionites never would have added, nor would have kept in their copy. The rest of the attested resurrection story fits Marcionite narrative of Christ crucified and risen after three days. It was a core part of their theology, and well attested.

The passages are noted in Ben's outlined which you link to for your base point. Granted Ben does not do a qualitative analysis of each attestation to determine if it's actually the Marcionite text referred to here or a subtle shift to quoting the main recension (Catholic) text as counter point or if it is uncertain which is referred to at this point.

But there is no reason not to think that the Marcionite author would not have extended the base text, perhaps more closely adhered to in Mark, with some tale of a post death scene. In Marcionite lore, which we learn in Dialogue Adamantius, Paul wrote the portions of the gospel after Jesus' death. This is not dissimilar from traditional Jewish lore that held that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, except that Joshua wrote the ending bit about his death. Obviously neither is true, but such was the way people looked at things, blending good logic with ridiculous lore to speak "truth."
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9335

I don't want to withhold that gem from you Stuart.
No reason to read any of it if you like to think that Marcion came after Luke though
Can one exclude the proposition that both the texts have been systematically compromised by a later source?
I really think you should stop molding every single text around your theory, and take the opposite approach where you can make evidence based claims - that would be so much less unconvincing

Mark invented the resurrection, but the Falsifying Fathers had no choice but to go along with it.
It's pretty much like the average mother claiming in public "my kid would never do that", they simply have no other choice nor are they inclined to think differently

A text - any text - is a given at some point. We can easily witness the protesting by Luke and Matthew regarding who to blame, but the resurrection not only couldn't be undone yet even had become pivotal to redefining Chrestianity.
Look at Jesus' baptism, Judas' kiss: splendid examples of fierce protesting against a forced inheritance

Stuart is right of course, the resurrection is attested - but everyone knows that the Falsifying Fathers were no Saints, and most certainly no saints
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by Leucius Charinus »

mlinssen wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:06 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:52 pmCan one exclude the proposition that both the texts have been systematically compromised by a later source?
I really think you should stop molding every single text around your theory, and take the opposite approach where you can make evidence based claims - that would be so much less unconvincing

Mark invented the resurrection, but the Falsifying Fathers had no choice but to go along with it. ////

Falsifying Fathers were no Saints, and most certainly no saints
A Tale of Two Time Capsules

I am not arguing any theory here. I am arguing for the application of classical source criticism rather than biblical source criticism. Specifically highlighting the physical remains. In a nut shell most people would agree with the proposition that the Nag Hammadi Library is a time capsule with a terminus ad quem in the mid 4th century since that it when it was physically manufactured and buried for over 16 centuries.

The 10 volume set of the Ante Nicene Fathers (ANF) however cannot be considered to be a time capsule from the Ante Nicene epoch since the mass of physical literary manuscript material in many cases has been manufactured (within the church industry) in the later middle ages. This being the earliest extant manuscript for each of the Ante Nicene sources. We do not know how many adds. deletes and modifications may have been introduced by the church industry "preservers" since Eusebius first gathered together the ANF sources. Not a trivial matter.

Similarly many (not all) Biblical Historians treat the New Testament canonical literature (The IS Story) as a (3rd) time capsule - this time from the 1st and/or 2nd century. Most (if not all) Biblical Historians treat the ANF as a "window into the history" of the Ante Nicene epoch. What could possibly go wrong using this methodology?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The various stages of Jesus' death and resurrection, absent in Marcion

Post by mlinssen »

It's evident that the ANF is late and curated by Christians, just like Josephus - yet classical source criticism shows that there are races of Chrestianity in it, which one would expect to be "fixed", I think.
Even if it had been written in 2nd or 1st CE we shouldn't trust anything in them, so I don't know what the point is that you seem to be making
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

The LXX got composed after the NT got composed

Post by mlinssen »

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
Post Reply