Exactly. Isn't it peculiar that Luke plays a pivotal role in all of these examples?neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 11:43 pmAre you assuming that our Luke = Marcion's gospel plus redactions?
But what if our "Luke" was using Marcion's gospel as his primary source instead of our Mark or Matthew? -- would not then the signs of fatigue relate to Marcion's original rather than with the Gospels of Mark or Matthew?
The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
I have no firm opinion on the origin of Gmarcion. I use this reconstruction: http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Gospel1.htmlneilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 11:43 pm Are you assuming that our Luke = Marcion's gospel plus redactions?
I don't think so. Here i don’t use Luke. Just Marcion.But what if our "Luke" was using Marcion's gospel as his primary source instead of our Mark or Matthew? -- would not then the signs of fatigue relate to Marcion's original rather than with the Gospels of Mark or Matthew?
To test Marcion priority, we must put Luke aside, so i compare Marcion with Mark and Mt.
The assumption is that Marcion is the first. So Mark and Mt depends on Marcion.
However, there are signs of later editing in Marcion that are not found in Mark. These signs can only be explained if we consider that Marcion depends on Mark and not the other way around.
The same problem applies to Marcion and Matthew.
Believe me, I would like Marcion to be the first, it would make my research much easier but I don't think it is tenable in view of the problems raised.
Last edited by Sinouhe on Sun May 22, 2022 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
I only took verses from Marcion to test Marcion priority.mlinssen wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 11:47 pmExactly. Isn't it peculiar that Luke plays a pivotal role in all of these examples?neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 11:43 pmAre you assuming that our Luke = Marcion's gospel plus redactions?
But what if our "Luke" was using Marcion's gospel as his primary source instead of our Mark or Matthew? -- would not then the signs of fatigue relate to Marcion's original rather than with the Gospels of Mark or Matthew?
Maybe the reconstruction of Marcion that I use is wrong? But I don't think so since I compared it with others before relying on it.
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
viewtopic.php?p=137953#p137953
To be clearer, before posting my message, i compared Goodacre's examples from Luke with Marcion's text. And so I used only Marcion's gospel to test his priority over Mark and Matthew.
We must set aside Luke and then, assuming that all the examples cited by Goodacre came from Marcion. That’s what i did when i compared Goodacre’s examples with the gospel of Marcion.
The idea is that Marcion was written before Luke and that Luke used Marcion.
So if we compare Goodacre's examples that we find in Marcion's gospel, then there are clear examples of late editions of Mark and Matthew's text by Marcion.
I hope it is clearer for you now
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
A clear example would be this one :
Mark Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, that Luke 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).
The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark.
It can be done with all the examples i provided in my initial message.
Mark Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, that Luke 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).
The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark.
It can be done with all the examples i provided in my initial message.
- Attachments
-
- Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 08.40.08.png (56.56 KiB) Viewed 910 times
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
If I understand you correctly, you currently assert that among others Goodacre demonstrates Luke to be dependent on Matthew, which would somehow rule out Marcionite priority?Sinouhe wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 1:01 am A clear example would be this one :
Mark Goodacre
It might be added, as further evidence from the same pericope, that Luke 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).
The latter phrase has simply come in, by fatigue, from Mark.
It can be done with all the examples i provided in my initial message.
Exactly how? Someone must have redacted Marcion into Luke - what if that were Matthew himself?
Wouldn't that be the most straightforward and sensible solution to all of the Synoptic Problem? It would explain how sometimes Luke depends on Matthew, and sometimes vice versa
- neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
I'm with you now, thanks. Yes, this fatigue business is a minefield for the theory I have been backing. I need to complete more reading and a key book I need is on loan till August so that's a pain. (I have no intention of paying several hundred dollars for a copy.) I want to reassess it all in the light of Tyson's thesis. Luke is not simply Luke, of course, if it is an anti-Marcionite redaction of a redacted copy of Marcion.
We have two types of data to work with: the "internal" data comparing the texts; the "external" data of the independent witnesses to not only texts but to awareness of narratives, theologies, etc. Finding a grand unifying theory for them both is the challenge.
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
I don't know about you, but apparently Neil thinks that Marcion is the first gospel.mlinssen wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 1:26 am
If I understand you correctly, you currently assert that among others Goodacre demonstrates Luke to be dependent on Matthew, which would somehow rule out Marcionite priority?
Exactly how? Someone must have redacted Marcion into Luke - what if that were Matthew himself?
Wouldn't that be the most straightforward and sensible solution to all of the Synoptic Problem? It would explain how sometimes Luke depends on Matthew, and sometimes vice versa
Prior to Mark, Mt and Lk.
If we take a reconstruction of Marcion, then we find signs of editions of Marcion coming from the text of Mark.
And signs of editions of Marcion coming from the text of Matthew.
Not the other way around.
How then can we explain that Marcion was written before Mark and Mt if his text shows signs of dependence on Matthew and Mark?
Re: The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch
Yea we could explain these dependencies of Marcion on Mark and Mt. by the fact that GMarcion we have is a version corrupted by Luke, by a confusion of the church fathers between the 2 texts by example.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon May 23, 2022 1:30 amI'm with you now, thanks. Yes, this fatigue business is a minefield for the theory I have been backing. I need to complete more reading and a key book I need is on loan till August so that's a pain. (I have no intention of paying several hundred dollars for a copy.) I want to reassess it all in the light of Tyson's thesis. Luke is not simply Luke, of course, if it is an anti-Marcionite redaction of a redacted copy of Marcion.
We have two types of data to work with: the "internal" data comparing the texts; the "external" data of the independent witnesses to not only texts but to awareness of narratives, theologies, etc. Finding a grand unifying theory for them both is the challenge.
But this complicates the case.