The Celestial Messiah in the parables of Enoch

[Sinouhe]

Ok im doing it again with your link : viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1765

Once you make the effort to understand its layout, it is excellent because there is also Greek. I will compare all my examples and come back later

[mlinssen]

The link you gave me earlier is not practical, I don't know what is marcion, luke, hypothesis, etc. I would like the most reliable reconstruction possible but I can't find anything on google except a book by Roth which is not very practical either. But if I have to, then I'll go with that one.

Roth is biased, only slightly better than Harnack.
Klinghardt is best yet 200+ euros (all extremely well worth it, by the way), yet Ben has yet again delivered a perfect set:

Evangelion

Information

Sources: Patristic quotations.
The Marcionite gospel is lost and must be reconstructed on the basis of patristic quotations against Marcion. This thread, then, is a reconstruction of sorts, based primarily on the work of Dieter T. Roth and secondarily on the work of Jason BeDuhn; it is also a companion piece to the reconstruction of the Marcionite epistles. The entire text of Luke, both in Greek and in English, is presented and both font and color coded according to what is (possibly, probably, or certainly) attested as present, what is (possibly, probably, or certainly) attested as absent, and what is not attested at all for the Marcionite text. Note that this is not a critical text (which would include a fully versified apparatus with readings from the various witnesses to the Marcionite text); it is, rather, a necessary step toward creating a critical text (not that I am volunteering): the bringing together of text and witness. To that end, accompanying each section of text is a list of witnesses to that part of the gospel; the primary witnesses are Tertullian and Epiphanius. A secondary witness is the Adamantius Dialogue. Tertiary witnesses, so to speak, include Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Philastrius, Jerome, Ephrem, and Eznik of Kolb. The raw texts and translations from which I extracted the relevant material for most of these witnesses is to be found in my collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts; extracts from the Adamantius Dialogue and from Ephrem, however, I have taken directly from Roth, who gives both the original Greek and the Latin translation by Rufinus of the former, but translations from the original Syriac into any one of three modern languages (English, German, French) of the latter. I have not bothered to translate either the Greek or the Latin of the Adamantius Dialogue; also, I have not found English translations for those portions of Ephrem's Syriac which Roth gives only in German or French, if English translations even exist. To all the other texts, by far most of the total, I have attached an English translation.
Index to other gospel texts.

Text and Translation

The Greek text I am using is Nestle 1904 (with the exception of chapter 5, for which I used NA26), which is in the public domain; the English translation I am using is the World English Bible (WEB), which deliberately eschews its copyright. All references to page numbers in Dieter T. Roth are to his 2015 book, The Text of Marcion's Gospel. I use the pericope titles from my own listed inventory of Luke; I frequently combine pericopae as convenient, however.

The color coding represents the close verbal reconstruction by Dieter T. Roth on pages 412-436 of The Text of Marcion’s Gospel (that is, it does not represent my own research), and runs as follows:

• Words or phrases specifically attested to some degree as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in blue boldface. Roth specifies several degrees of probability for such verbatim attestation, but I do not replicate those degrees here, since to do so feels to me like a possible breach of intellectual property; instead, I offer the source texts, mainly from Tertullian and Epiphanius, below each section. Roth also specially marks words or phrases whose exact word order in the Marcionite text cannot be reconstructed, but I have ignored the matter of word order completely in this endeavor. Please note that the degrees of probability range from what Roth calls secure readings all the way down to merely possible readings; one may not, therefore, simply assume that boldfaced blue words and phrases are automatically present in the Marcionite text; they are merely the words and phrases for which Roth apparently feels there is enough evidence to at least debate.
• Words or phrases generically attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to Roth, but with no way of determining exact wording, are in blue italics.
• Words or phrases attested as present in Marcion but either absent from or rendered differently in canonical Luke, according to Roth, are underlined in blue boldface (being, virtually by definition, specifically attested as present in the Marcionite text). If the underlined words are replacing Lucan material (that is, if the underlined words are differently rendered in Luke and not merely absent), that replaced (or differently rendered) Lucan material is given first in blue italics, as described above, and then the Marcionite material is given in brackets immediately thereafter.
• Words or phrases which are not attested either as absent or as present, according to Roth, are in plain black.
• Words or phrases attested as absent from the Marcionite text, according to Roth, are in red.
• Words or phrases attested as absent from one part of the catholic Lucan text but present at another location in the Marcionite version, according to Roth, are in purple (= red + blue).
• Roth sometimes includes words or phrases in his reconstruction, but, instead of coding them in his usual manner, opts to remark that they "may not have been present". He seems to reserve these remarks for those occasions on which one finds evidence for the verse lacking the word or phrase in question, but no actual or direct attestation to that effect. Such words or phrases I have boldfaced in blue, since Roth does include them in his reconstruction, but I have also enclosed them in ~two tildes~ in order to mark them out as special. There are only about a dozen or so instances throughout the gospel.

Futhermore, I have included font coding based on pages 99-127 of The First New Testament, Jason DeBuhn, who offers a reconstruction of the text in English only. Overall, DeBuhn is far less concerned (in most cases) with exact verbal reconstruction than with getting the gist of the passage. Because his reconstruction is general and in translation, I have coded only the English translation for BeDuhn, and only those words or phrases which Roth has not already included in his own reconstruction. Therefore, while this present effort will mark those words and phrases which BeDuhn includes but Roth does not, it will not in any way mark those which BeDuhn excludes as compared with Roth. This seems to me to be appropriate, since Roth both argues the exact wording more closely than does BeDuhn and is more conservative about what gets marked. The coding is as follows:

• Words or phrases attested as present in the Marcionite text, according to BeDuhn, are italicized (but not colored). I feel the italics are fitting, compared to how I have used them for Roth, since BeDuhn is typically after the general, rather than the specific, sense of any given passage, and is thus more willing than Roth to hypothesize the presence of certain features of the text.
• Words or phrases which I have had to add or change in order to adequately reflect BeDuhn's reconstruction are both italicized and underlined. Again, the underlining means essentially the same thing for BeDuhn as for Roth. I use brackets when adding to or changing the text in this way would garble the grammar (the bracketed material, therefore, is meant to replace part of the text).

The following chapter index may help navigate the gospel:

• Luke 1.1-80.
• Luke 2.1-52.
• Luke 3.1-38.
• Luke 4.1-44.
• Luke 5.1-39.
• Luke 6.1-26; 6.27-49.
• Luke 7.1-50.
• Luke 8.1-56.
• Luke 9.1-27; 9.28-62.
• Luke 10.1-42.
• Luke 11.1-28; 11.29-54.
• Luke 12.1-21; 12.22-59.
• Luke 13.1-35.
• Luke 14.1-35.
• Luke 15.1-32.
• Luke 16.1-31.
• Luke 17.1-37.
• Luke 18.1-43.
• Luke 19.1-48.
• Luke 20.1-47.
• Luke 21.1-38.
• Luke 22.1-71.
• Luke 23.1-56.
• Luke 24.1-53.

I hope this reconstruction proves useful; if nothing else, I myself feel far more comfortable with the Marcionite gospel for having completed this exercise than I ever did before.

Notes and Quotes

Works Consulted

Dieter T. Roth, The Text of Marcion's Gospel.
Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament.
Biblical Criticism & History Forum: Other Gospel Texts.

This is an astonishing amount of work. Klinghardt has written 1,400 pages on it - don't expect that reconstructing Marcion equates to reading e.g. Mark

I've checked that gnosis.org rubbish. No intro, no author, no date, no nothing. A quick Google teaches that it is from

http://www.mithraism.uk/libs/old-sufi/e ... ospel.html

Or vice versa. And of course we have

https://www.angelfire.com/az2/arizonadr ... rcion.html

And then we have Peter Thompson who publishes anything he can find, copyright or not, in academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/60755360/The_G ... ope_AD_130

And so on. All identical, untraceable copies of the same thing without any attribution whatsoever. Yet whoever wrote this falsified all of it, it is utter rubbish

[Sinouhe]

Ok so indeed if we take a serious reconstruction of Gmarcion, we get a very fragmentary text.
Nothing like the reconstruction I used this morning and that misled me.
Almost all the examples I used earlier, cannot be used with Ben C. Smith's reconstruction since sometimes it is impossible to know if certain phrases or words are present in Marcion. That's a shame.

There are still 4 examples that I managed to keep and that can still give some clues.
But this is obviously too little to draw any conclusions.

1/ Who is he that smote thee?

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 22.01.54.png (48.65 KiB) Viewed 1485 times

As I said earlier, if we want to support the Marcion priority here, then we must imagine that Mark has corrected Marcion's text (or Mt or Lk) and erased the phrase: "who is he that smote thee?"
Why? The question arises.
Matthew and Luke would have used Marcion as a source here and not Mark. Is this possible in the case of Marcion priority?


2/ The Lawyer

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 22.07.46.png (44.55 KiB) Viewed 1485 times

2 words are absent in Mark : Lawyer (νομικός) and test him (ἐκπειράζων). Luke use these 2 words, like Marcion. In some manuscripts Matthew uses the term Lawyer and in others not. But the expression "test him" is well attested in the best manuscripts of Matthew.

Either Mark corrected Marcion's text but Matthew and Luke rely on Marcion, not Mark.
Or Mark is a latecomer and uses one of the three sources.
Or Mark is the first and the others correct him.

Mark's previous text seemed older than the others. But with this one, it's hard to imagine which one is older.


3/ The winds ? The Wind ?

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 22.18.16.png (104.6 KiB) Viewed 1485 times

In this example, we have Mark using the word "wind" always in the singular. Matthew always uses the word "wind" in the plural. Marcion mixes the two. He starts with the singular form like Mark but concludes like Matthew with the plural. We might have here a case where Marcion would use the 2 sources (Mk + Mt) which would explain that he presents the verb sometimes in the singular and sometimes in the plural.
Or Mark corrects Marcion and uses the singular all the time. Luke follows Marcion. And Matthew corrects Mark and Marcion and makes everything plural. It is hard to say and to conclude anything.

[Sinouhe]

4/ Nazareth

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 23.10.19.png (171.79 KiB) Viewed 1485 times

In this example, there is no quotation from Marcion. But Tertullian tells us what he reads. One element is interesting: Tertullian indicates that Jesus goes to Nazareth. A detail that is absent in Mark.

- In Mark, Jesus passes through Galilee and goes to Capernaum.
- In Mt, he goes ton Nazareth but he says nothing more. Then he left directly for Capernaum.
- In Luke and Mt. he passes through Galilee, goes to Nazareth, teaches in his synagogue and is almost thrown off the cliff by the crowd.
He flees and goes to Capernaum.
- In Marcion, he goes to Nazareth, he teaches in his synagogue and is almost thrown off the cliff. He flees and goes to Capernaum.
Exactly like the story in Lk.

The complete story is removed by Mark. Mt keep only a staying in Nazareth. Why Mk and Mt removed this story ?
This story of the crowd seizing Jesus seems to me an addition to Mark and Matthew, rather than an omission.
If Mark knew about it, I don't know why he would have taken it away when it fits well with his desire to present Jesus as the suffering servant who is rejected by everyone, even his village and his family. Just like the psalms of lament to which he refers several times in his gospel.

This is perhaps the best example to support a Markan priority over Matthew and then Marcion & Luke.

Conclusion
This is all I can get at the moment from a text as fragmentary as Marcion. In view of its condition, I cannot say whether if it is older than Mark or not, even if some clues lead me to believe that Mark is still the first.
I would like to look into the subject and read a book, if possible a recent one, which presents it as older than Mark. If you have an idea for a book, don't hesitate

[mlinssen]

4/ Nazareth

Capture d’écran 2022-05-23 à 23.10.19.png

In this example, there is no quotation from Marcion. But Tertullian tells us what he reads. One element is interesting: Tertullian indicates that Jesus goes to Nazareth. A detail that is absent in Mark.

You read what you desire to read. Does Tertullian tell you explicitly where he reads that?
The FF are very well known for only loosely quoting what they read, where they read it, and Tertullian frequently cites from Matthew instedd of Luke (or Marcion?)

You have already made a giant step by going from Luke to Ben's - yet you are now adding to what you read because you need it to be there in order for your theory to keep working.
Don't forget that the goal of the FF was not to truthfully and accurately relate what was in Marcion: 2/3rds of the time they don't agree with each other.
And how much weight do you put on Epiphanius attesting to something, who allegedly wrote in the 2nd half of the 4th CE? Don't you think it is most remarkable tht he is the only one to attests to "Who is he that smote thee?" - VERBATIM?!
How critical are you really? How critical do you want to be?

If you really want to go down this rabbit hole all the way, then spend the 200 euros and buy Klinghardt. But you can start looking with a critical eye at Ben's, and check what is attested by whom before you throw it in here as guaranteed to be in Marcion.
Mind you, you're free to do anything you want - but we already have one Geoff Price on the forum and I'm not in need of another one, so don't expect any feedback from me in that case

[Giuseppe]

Mind you, you're free to do anything you want - but we already have one Geoff Price on the forum and I'm not in need of another one, so don't expect any feedback from me in that case

right or wrong, the Markan prioritist RG Price would agree with me that Mcn precedes Matthew.

[Sinouhe]

You read what you desire to read. Does Tertullian tell you explicitly where he reads that?

This is how it is classified by the book of Roth:

Luke 4:16 = Tertullian IV.8.2

CB34C666-7D1C-42A0-B62B-A26CA9F20558.jpeg (49.81 KiB) Viewed 1419 times

You have already made a giant step by going from Luke to Ben's - yet you are now adding to what you read because you need it to be there in order for your theory to keep working.

Hum…no. No I don't have any agenda here. I explained clearly how I proceeded yesterday and what site I used. I think, however, from your reactions, that you are the one with an agenda and who wants Marcion to be the first gospel at all costs. Good for you, but don't accuse others of being dishonest in return.

Don't you think it is most remarkable tht he is the only one to attests to "Who is he that smote thee?" - VERBATIM?!
How critical are you really? How critical do you want to be?

So now I would have to reject this passage because it is the only one that quotes it? yet it is well attested by Ben Smith whom you yourself advised me to use

150B7249-F627-4192-ABBF-5589B8A9F8F3.jpeg (337.26 KiB) Viewed 1419 times

If you really want to go down this rabbit hole all the way, then spend the 200 euros and buy Klinghardt. But you can start looking with a critical eye at Ben's, and check what is attested by whom before you throw it in here as guaranteed to be in Marcion.

It's a good thing because I'm not counting on you to advise me. I highly doubt that you are the best person to advise someone who would like to learn more on this subject without any particular agenda. And given your reactions, I also doubt that you are the most sympathetic on this forum to interact.

Mind you, you're free to do anything you want - but we already have one Geoff Price on the forum and I'm not in need of another one, so don't expect any feedback from me in that case

Then ignore my messages

[mlinssen]

You read what you desire to read. Does Tertullian tell you explicitly where he reads that?

This is how it is classified by the book of Roth:

Luke 4:16 = Tertullian IV.8.2

CB34C666-7D1C-42A0-B62B-A26CA9F20558.jpeg

You have already made a giant step by going from Luke to Ben's - yet you are now adding to what you read because you need it to be there in order for your theory to keep working.

Hum…no. No I don't have any agenda here. I explained clearly how I proceeded yesterday and what site I used. I think, however, from your reactions, that you are the one with an agenda and who wants Marcion to be the first gospel at all costs. Good for you, but don't accuse others of being dishonest in return.

Don't you think it is most remarkable tht he is the only one to attests to "Who is he that smote thee?" - VERBATIM?!
How critical are you really? How critical do you want to be?

So now I would have to reject this passage because it is the only one that quotes it? yet it is well attested by Ben Smith whom you yourself advised me to use

150B7249-F627-4192-ABBF-5589B8A9F8F3.jpeg

If you really want to go down this rabbit hole all the way, then spend the 200 euros and buy Klinghardt. But you can start looking with a critical eye at Ben's, and check what is attested by whom before you throw it in here as guaranteed to be in Marcion.

It's a good thing because I'm not counting on you to advise me. I highly doubt that you are the best person to advise someone who would like to learn more on this subject without any particular agenda. And given your reactions, I also doubt that you are the most sympathetic on this forum to interact.

Mind you, you're free to do anything you want - but we already have one Geoff Price on the forum and I'm not in need of another one, so don't expect any feedback from me in that case

Then ignore my messages

I advised Ben's over you using Luke.
I've read Harnack in German and English, and Roth, BeDuhn and Klinghardt in English. And all of Vinzent

Bye

[Sinouhe]

You read what you desire to read. Does Tertullian tell you explicitly where he reads that?

This is how it is classified by the book of Roth:

Luke 4:16 = Tertullian IV.8.2

CB34C666-7D1C-42A0-B62B-A26CA9F20558.jpeg

You have already made a giant step by going from Luke to Ben's - yet you are now adding to what you read because you need it to be there in order for your theory to keep working.

Hum…no. No I don't have any agenda here. I explained clearly how I proceeded yesterday and what site I used. I think, however, from your reactions, that you are the one with an agenda and who wants Marcion to be the first gospel at all costs. Good for you, but don't accuse others of being dishonest in return.

Don't you think it is most remarkable tht he is the only one to attests to "Who is he that smote thee?" - VERBATIM?!
How critical are you really? How critical do you want to be?

So now I would have to reject this passage because it is the only one that quotes it? yet it is well attested by Ben Smith whom you yourself advised me to use

150B7249-F627-4192-ABBF-5589B8A9F8F3.jpeg

If you really want to go down this rabbit hole all the way, then spend the 200 euros and buy Klinghardt. But you can start looking with a critical eye at Ben's, and check what is attested by whom before you throw it in here as guaranteed to be in Marcion.

It's a good thing because I'm not counting on you to advise me. I highly doubt that you are the best person to advise someone who would like to learn more on this subject without any particular agenda. And given your reactions, I also doubt that you are the most sympathetic on this forum to interact.

Mind you, you're free to do anything you want - but we already have one Geoff Price on the forum and I'm not in need of another one, so don't expect any feedback from me in that case

Then ignore my messages

I advised Ben's over you using Luke.
I've read Harnack in German and English, and Roth, BeDuhn and Klinghardt in English. And all of Vinzent

Bye

Good.
You should also write your own book and read it over and over again, never confronting conflicting opinions. It will be very enriching for you I guess.

Bye.

[neilgodfrey]

I had thought I posted a question relating to this point some time back but cannot see what I thought I posted so I will try again -- do excuse me if I have missed an earlier reply.

I think you are right that the original meaning of the verse is "like a lion...". But as you know, the word in Hebrew is very close to the word "pierced", which could have misled some scribes. This would explain why we find the form "pierced" in the Greek translation or in the Nahal Hever manuscript.

My question remains, though -- What and where is the Greek word that means "pierced" in Ps. 22:17?

An earlier post linked to a Mormon article professing belief in God and the meaning of the Greek word as "pierced", but it lacked any supporting evidence for the claim.