neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 6:26 pm
rgprice wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 4:33 am
So, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to a lost narrative that was referenced by the writer or writers of the earliest familiar Gospel(s), but is this enough? If such a narrative existed, then wouldn't there be more solid evidence for it? Why does no one mention such a narrative directly? Why has such a narrative not been found?
Hi RG -- Have you read Markus Vinzent's
Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity? I have belatedly just completed it now and am feeling somewhat overwhelmed by the experience -- his argument has made it hard for me to doubt that Marcion was the author of the first gospel. Maybe you have read it -- I know I am often late with these sorts of things.
Perhaps Marcion was the author of the first gospel i.e. at the fountainhead of early christian theology/philosophy.
However, one point to keep in mind for those wanting to move Paul away from the first century (Acts etc.) is that one is placing him within a Marcion timeframe. Questions arise - is Paul another name for Marcion - or - are both these figures ahistorical figures. Names given to a collection of teachings/writings. Viewed that way - viewed from that perspective, Marcion did not mutilate gLuke but the Lukan writer developed the Marcion writings. i.e. all gospel writings demonstrate storyline developments. If the Lukan writer developed Marcion's gospel - then Marcion's gospel was pre Antiquities i.e. first century. The Lukan writer needed a late date for Pilate (and Josephus in Antiquities obliged). That the NT writers chose to place the later teaching/writings of 'Paul' in the first century rather than the teaching/writing known as 'Marcion' simply indicates that the ideas of the second century were placed within the timeframe of the NT origin story. Ideas develop over time - 'Marcion' not the heretic of early church fathers - but an early set of writings that perhaps the church fathers failed to comprehend. And - since gLuke was not the first gospel - that suggests that gMark and/or gMatthew were first century gospels.
Just throwing some ideas out there.....
=========================
For those familiar with Greek. This from: The Text of Marcion's Gospel by Dieter T. Roth (Author)
3:1 [5.1; 6.4.1; 7.4.1; 8.2]—ἐν τῷ {ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ} τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου
Καίσαρος ἐπι τῶν χρόνων Ποντίου Πιλάτου . .
4 Unattested elements within a verse include those elements that may be unattested due to
simple omission by a source. Even though there may therefore be grounds for positing that
some of those elements were present in Marcion’s text, doing so would involve a, in my estimation,
precarious “drawing conclusions from silence”; nevertheless, citation habits and the
manuscript evidence may occasionally allow a bracketed comment drawing attention to
the likely presence or absence of an unattested element.
ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ (the bracketed words) translate as year fifteen and under; years five and under; year fifteen and below.
So - big question - did the church fathers insert Pilate into the 15th year of Tiberius in the gospel of Marcion - an addition only possible after Antiquities in 93/94 c.e. After gLuke - Pilate is associated with the 15th year of Tiberius (re Josephus). Thus, viewing that Marcion mutilated gLuke = that he used gLuke - church fathers could have viewed Marcion as keeping the chronology of Luke's gospel. However, since gMark, gMatthew and gJohn are able to run a gospel without dating Pilate to the 15th year of Tiberius - there really is no reason, apart from church fathers viewing Marcion as a mutilator of gLuke - for the gospel of Marcion to date Pilate to the 15th year of Tiberius. Thus - the gospel of Marcion could well be a pre 93/94 c.. writing.
Maybe -
in the time of Tiberius and Pontius Pilate, Jesus came down from heaven...... a pre gLuke Marcion gospel.....the gLuke 15th year of Tiberius update specifying a new gospel timeframe.
Anyway - maybe something to think about...