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: 2000
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 308 times
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
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: 1456
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: 2000
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: 1456
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: 2000
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
Post Reply