In Mcn, the unclean spirits don't have a bad end. "Jesus gave them permission". Period.
He is so good that he forgives even the demons!
No, it does. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke prove that the birth stories have the function of connecting Jesus even more strongly with the OT scriptures than never imagined by a mere birth story. Sometimes, with a curious paradox as corollary: how when the genealogies arrive until to Joseph, the mere putative father of Jesus, hence annulling, de facto, the presumed prophetical value of a such genealogy.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 8:01 am That Marcoin's gospel has no birth narrative does not make a gospel with a birth narrative anti-Marcoin.
I referred to Bezae for 2), yet to "tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara" for 1)...Sinouhe wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 7:49 amPersonally, I prefer to rely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codex which are older than the Bezae.mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 6:18 am 2) As you can see in viewtopic.php?p=137976#p137976 Bezae has (κράβαττον) in Luke...
Klinghardt formed the working assumption at some point that was NA in fact has done at points is to establish the earliest gospel - which is *Ev in his very well reasoned opinion
1) Likewise for Luke 4:16, look at the tons of MSS that have something else but Nazara:
3) only Epiphanius attests to this in Marcion, none of the others do (Klinghardt page 1154-5)
Bezae has been created / produced in relatively splendid isolation. As the dating of these 3 MSS is purely palaeographical, it is wise to look at the content itself:But of course, if we look, thanks to the harmonization of the scribes that has been done on certain gospels, we will find manuscripts that will agree with the other gospels. I don't think that our purpose and our interest should be to look in manuscripts if we find harmonizations of certain terms that are lacking in the older manuscripts.
No, what you find there is a tiny phrase mentioning feeding of crowds, followed by a complete absence of any description of any of itWhat do you mean by that ? I find the feeding of the thousand in Marcion here : http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Tert5.html#AM2134) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested. Yet there no comment at all about the plural crowds. 9:12 in NA is divided into plural and singular, and again Bezae is among those who have singular crowds
5) the whole feeding of the 5 thousand is hardly attested.
Roth:It could be. Why not. But it still don't explain this :First one then: it is clear that Mark sees the missing word in Marcion and goes through a lot of cringing trouble to insert the house:
Matthew reads Marcion, the mess that Mark made, and decides to get rid of it all just as he cuts short the blame game of the resurrection story. Naturally he finishes Luke who says nothing but the people carrying the paralytic upon a house across the tiles
Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png
Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, thatLuke MARCION has the scribes and the Pharisees debating not, as in Mark, 'in their hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV autwn, Mark 2.6) but, apparently, aloud (dialogizesqai . . . legonteV, Luke MARCION 5.21). This is in spite of the fact that Jesus goes on to question them, in both Luke MARCION and Mark, why they have been debating 'in' their 'hearts' (en taiV kardiaiV umwn, Mark 2.8 // Luke MARCION 5.22). (19) The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark. (20)
and other examples provided by Goodacre, which I think he got from Goulder and another one I have forgotten.
Sinouhe, can you please stop making wild and crazy assumptions like these?
One Jesus is given a Jewish birth narrative. Another Jesus came down from heaven. Two Jesus stories. Two very different contexts. Choosing between them is as illogical as choosing between our human nature...... body and spirit are two very different aspects of our human nature - and function accordingly. Relationship, interaction but never assimilation.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 9:47 amNo, it does. The genealogies in Matthew and Luke prove that the birth stories have the function of connecting Jesus even more strongly with the OT scriptures than never imagined by a mere birth story. Sometimes, with a curious paradox as corollary: how when the genealogies arrive until to Joseph, the mere putative father of Jesus, hence annulling, de facto, the presumed prophetical value of a such genealogy.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 8:01 am That Marcoin's gospel has no birth narrative does not make a gospel with a birth narrative anti-Marcoin.
Even the Ascension of Isaiah as reconstructed by Norelli, i.e. with a birth for Jesus, even if a docetic birth, well, even that is partially anti-marcionite, according to prof Vinzent.
if the first Jesus is a reaction to the second Jesus, then the former is even more mythological than the latter.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:11 am
One Jesus is given a Jewish birth narrative. Another Jesus came down from heaven. Two Jesus stories.
Both Jesus figures are literary creations....... our job is to attempt to understand what their creators designed them for..... what message, what story, what philosophy, what ideas do they reflect. Political allegory, philosophical allegories..... Indicate sophisticated minds, schools of scholars..... we fail them if all we do is throw stones at Marcion's ideas.Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:16 amif the first Jesus is a reaction to the second Jesus, then the former is even more mythological than the latter.maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:11 am
One Jesus is given a Jewish birth narrative. Another Jesus came down from heaven. Two Jesus stories.
My bad, it’s just that i follow this reconstruction : http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel5.htmlmlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 10:02 amSinouhe, can you please stop making wild and crazy assumptions like these?
No one attests to the ten minas in Marcion - or rather, they attest to its very absence
It is very dumb to assume that Luke equates to Marcion: of that were the case, every single letter by Tertullian, Epiphanius and the rest would be completely untrue as there would be not a single difference between the two