Mark G Bilby: Marcion's Gospel and Data Science

[MrMacSon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quRv7Xg83vQ

Key early points

1. [3.34-4.14] Influenced by Mathias Klingardt, Jason BeDuhn and Markus Vinzent, Bilby thinks "Marcion's Gospel is actually our earliest repository of significant data signals in what became early Christian tradition ... We have [other] early signals, probably, preserved in the Gospel of Thomas, and various papyrus fragments, and other kinds of texts".

https://zenodo.org/record/7542445#.Y8XoK_5Bze8

GMcn corroborates most of the previously established Q materials and confirms numerous Qn sayings that have been debated yet typically have parallels in Matthew and/or the Gospel of Thomas.

https://zenodo.org/record/7542445#.Y8XoK_5Bze8 [p.14 of the pdf]

1.5. Computational Linguistics and the Synoptic [Signals] Problem

2) Inaccurate articulations of the problem have also plagued most prior scholarship by Gospel scholars and scientists/technologists. The "Synoptic Problem" is typically framed thus:

"Mark, Matthew, and Luke have a high degree of similarity. How are they related to each other?"

Articulating the problem in this way isolates these datasets and excludes other datasets from consideration by default. It also narrows the scope of the problem so that any proposed solution is limited to these texts. When scholars propose other texts for serious consideration (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Marcion, the Exposition of Papias), their work is typically dismissed or ignored by the scholarly majority as untenable because it is not isolated to synoptic datasets, which—following from the invalid assumptions above—are exclusively given pride of place by default. The Synoptic Problem thus becomes a confusing maze bounded by circular logic.

To be solved, the Synoptic Problem cannot use only three datasets. We must include not only canonical Matthew, Mark, Luke, but also the three discrete recensions of the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Marcion, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, the Exposition of Papias, the authentic and inauthentic letters of Paul, the Fayyum fragment, the writings of Justin Martyr, the Diatessaron of Tatian, and many other texts.27 Only by accommodating all relevant datasets in our modeling and analysis can we show, understand, and explain their internal and external connections.

---

27 Along similar lines, see John S. Kloppenborg, "Conceptual Stakes in the Synoptic Problem," in Mogens Müller and Heike Omerzu, ed., Gospel Interpretation and the Q-hypothesis, LNTS 573 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2018), 13–42 at 15–17: "In fact the 'Synoptic Problem' has been undergoing an expansion of its purview for quite some time: textual materials are examined that display significant resemblance to the Synoptic Gospels such as Didache 1.3b–2.1; 16.3–8; 1 Clement 13; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Peter; the Dialogue of the Saviour; the Longer (Secret) Gospel of Mark; P.Egerton II, and several other documents, with the goal of producing a 'map' on which to place these various documents.

https://zenodo.org/record/7542445#.Y8XoK_5Bze8 [pp.45-6 of the pdf]

2.0. Five Hypotheses to Recover and Restore the First Gospel (the New Q or Qn)

Hypothesis 1. The vast majority of attested materials in GMcn consistently reflects a simple two source program, drawing on Early Mark (Mk1) and Qn, modestly editing and paraphrasing them, and rotating back and forth between them with minimal redactional stitching. Evaluating this hypothesis involves a preliminary level of trust in the reconstruction of GMcn as an accurate and thorough representation of Early Luke (Lk1). Building this first level of confidence will generate some excitement and momentum and likely lead some scholars to take GMcn seriously for the first time as of potentially significant value to the historical debates about Q.

Hypothesis 2. When Luke has parallels with Matthew and/or Gos. Thomas and those parallels are explicitly corroborated by GMcn, then this confirms their existence in Qn. This is especially helpful for passages that the Critical Edition of Q committee marked as uncertain or stricken. This hypothesis involves an initial level of trust in the reconstruction of GMcn as an accurate representation of Lk1. Of note here is that wording within confirmed Qn passages is often very densely and confidently attested in GMcn. Climbing to this floor will open new views and insights about GMcn and its place in the composition history of early Jesus texts and traditions. [see also pp.79-80 of the pdf]

Hypothesis 3. When GMcn attests to the presence of Qn passages and verses in Luke, the order of these materials is preferable to the ordering of Qn materials in Matthew. The ordering of Qn based on GMcn involves a moderate level of trust in its reconstruction as an accurate representation of Lk1. Lk2 only confirms this trust, inserting new content into Lk1 but still preserving most of the content and order of its base text. Early Matthew (Mt1) by comparison extensively recompiles and reorders materials from its sources. This floor rises above current notions about the order of Q and reconfigures its structural lines.

Hypothesis 4. When Matthew has a parallel with Luke that is not present in GMcn, this is not Qn, and when it is unattested for GMcn, it is probably not Qn. This hypothesis involves a high level of trust in the reconstruction of GMcn as an accurate, thorough representation of Lk1. This is where our solution to the Synoptic Problem dovetails deeply with key passages and arguments outlined by proponents of the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis showing how the text of Luke does in fact depend on that of Matthew at many points. While the view from here may be disconcerting for traditional Q scholars, feeling like nothing less than open surrender to sworn enemies, those who climb to this height will savor some stunning views and see the Synoptic Problem in a completely new way.

Hypothesis 5. When GMcn has a parallel in Luke that is not in Matthew or Mark, then these are additions to Qn. This hypothesis involves the highest level of trust in the reconstruction of GMcn as an accurate and thorough representation of Early Luke. Essentially, this idea involves accepting that the textual strata of Matthew omitted parts of Q that appear comfortably in both Lk1 and Lk2. While there is no reason to think this would be problematic, it certainly runs counter to centuries of scholarly habituation and discourse considering Matthew and Lk2 as the primary bases for reconstructing Q. This is where the GMcn solution reaches its most exhilarating heights, where completely new horizons appear for the study of the Gospels and the earliest 'Joshua' traditions and the history of his followers.

https://zenodo.org/record/7542445#.Y8XoK_5Bze8 [p.77 of the pdf]

nb.

...Jesus : protagonist of various Gospel strata developed after 70 CE outside of Judea
..Joshua : protagonist of the pre-70 CE Gospel; closest approximation to the Historical Jesus

[MrMacSon]

2.0. Five Hypotheses to Recover and Restore the First Gospel (the New Q or Qn)

Hypothesis 2. When Luke has parallels with Matthew and/or Gos. Thomas and those parallels are explicitly corroborated by GMcn, then this confirms their existence in Qn. This is especially helpful for passages that the Critical Edition of Q committee marked as uncertain or stricken. This hypothesis involves an initial level of trust in the reconstruction of GMcn as an accurate representation of Lk1. Of note here is that wording within confirmed Qn passages is often very densely and confidently attested in GMcn. Climbing to this floor will open new views and insights about GMcn and its place in the composition history of early Jesus texts and traditions. [see also pp.79-80 of the pdf]

https://zenodo.org/record/7542445#.Y8XoK_5Bze8 [p.77 of the pdf]

p.80:

Bilby.p.80.png (554.24 KiB) Viewed 1214 times

[mlinssen]

Overall take: Verifiability, transparency, and reproducibility are foundational to legitimate scientific discourse, method, and practice. That is exactly what we need to start bringing to the historical-critical study of the signals and strata of the Gospels.

Ken and chums would disagree of course, and loudly praise their status-quo maintaining turtle process of peer review and academic journal publication, just so they can keep controlling the message

Well, one fights with the tools that one can wield - and it is blatantly obvious how this is going to end, and that it is going to end very soon

[MrMacSon]

Let me kick off with a first few bits:

Summary Highlights of the Scientifically Reconstructed Third Gospel (GMcn, 80s CE)

1. GMcn had two and only two sources: Qn (65–69 CE) and Early Mark (Mk1, 75–80 CE). Hundreds of triangulated signal transmissions confirm this, even based on minimalist critical reconstructions.

2. GMcn was not a later version of Luke significantly contaminated by Matthew. Instead, GMcn was an earlier version of Luke (Lk1) used often by by Early Matthew (Mt1). Dozens of triangulated signal transmissions confirm this, both for materials originally sourced in Qn and Mk1.

3. GMcn was more of an inspirational source than a verbatim textual source for the Gospel of John. Only a few clear signal transmissions appear, but broader narrative frames and themes (e.g., the miraculous catch of fish, post-resurrection appearance tied to eating fish, Dionysian tropes for Jesus) are clear.

4. GMcn was not based on canonical Luke. Instead, GMcn was, together with early strata of Mark, Matthew and John, used as a source in the redaction of canonical Luke. Hundreds of diverse, triangulated signal transmissions confirm this, as do the next several points.

5. Almost all of the most artistically and dramatically powerful stories in Luke were not randomly missing or later excised from GMcn; they were never part of it: prologue, birth of John foretold, annunciation, visitation, birth of John the Baptist, nativity, adoration of the infant Jesus, John preaching repentance and to tax collectors, genealogy of Jesus, baptism of Jesus, temptation of Jesus, decision to go to Jerusalem, woes against Galilean towns, Good Samaritan, visit to Mary and Martha, warning against Herod, Prodigal Son, weeping over Jerusalem, widow's mite, Pilate declaring Jesus innocent, lamenting women, divergent criminals, two of the last sayings of Jesus, (most of) Emmaus Road, and the ascension.

Also [from p.21 of the pdf]

Summary Highlights of the Scientifically Reconstructed Third Gospel (GMcn, 80s CE)

7. The editor of GMcn tended to stick close to the content of its two sources, even while taking liberty to re-word source material and create transitions between source materials. These minor edits tend to play up themes of amazement at Jesus' teaching and miracles and Jesus' piety in seeking solitude and prayer.

8. The editor of GMcn tended to stay close to the order of materials within sources, seldom reordering them, occasionally leaving out whole episodes, and attempting to reconcile sources by moving strategically between them. Much of Early Mark is ignored not because specific episodes are skipped but instead because the editor of GMcn followed Qn as his main source.

11. The text of GMcn is often best attested when its materials are absent from Mark and Matthew e.g.: woes, rich man and Lazarus, warning against avarice, etc. Note the first two points above. Later hostile witnesses to GMcn tended to focus on its unique content, not its content that overlapped significantly with Mk1 (as a GMcn source) and Mt1 (as a GMcn receptor)

nb.

..GMcn : Marcion's Gospel (aka Early Luke, Lk1)


...Q : Quelle ("Source"), the First Gospel as traditionally reconstructed
..Qn : Quelle Neue ("New Source"), the First Gospel as scientifically reconstructed


...Mk1 : Gospel of Mark Redaction 1, created c. 75–80 CE
...Mk2 : Gospel of Mark Redaction 2, created c. 140s CE
...Mk3 : Gospel of Mark Redaction 3, created c. 140s CE


...Lk1 : Gospel of Luke Redaction 1 (aka Early Luke [Lk1] or Marcion's Gospel), created c. 80s CE
...Lk2 : Gospel of Luke Redaction 2, created c. 117–138 CE


...Mt1 : Gospel of Matthew Redaction 1 (aka Early Matthew), created c. 90s CE
...Mt2 : Gospel of Matthew Redaction 2 (aka Late Matthew), created c. 140s CE

[MrMacSon]

..Joshua : protagonist of the pre-70 CE Gospel; closest approximation to the Historical Jesus
....Jesus : protagonist of various Gospel strata developed after 70 CE outside of Judea

Summary Highlights of the Newly Discovered First Gospel (Qn, c. 65–69 CE) [p.20]

1. Joshua of Nazareth (his Hebrew name) is pictured from first to last in Qn as a new Aesop: a brilliant, witty, justice-minded slave who speaks truth to power. The Qn opening quotation, "Physician, heal yourself" (Luke 4.23), recalls Aesop's fable, "The Frog and the Fox." Joshua nearly being thrown off a (geographically non-existent) cliff in Nazareth (Luke 4.29–30) imitates the Aesop Romance, which ends with him thrown off a cliff. The Aesop opening of Qn casts Joshua's escape from Nazareth as the story of a runaway Galilean slave who had been Hellenized. Lk2 confirms yet transforms this base plot by expanding the Nazareth sermon into a declaration of Jubilees, the 50th year when slaves were freed and debts forgiven, akin to the City Dionysia festival and its manumission of slaves. As a famous slave and gifted storyteller who proved himself more intelligent than his master and rival philosophers, Aesop routinely got into trouble by speaking truth to power. The resurrected Joshua’s final saying in Qn (Luke 24.25), "O dullards and sluggards in heart", is a verbatim metrical quotation from two Aesopian fables: "The Fox and the Goat at the Well" and "The Frogs at the Wedding of the Sun".
   .
2. Joshua in Qn performs a creative array of prophetic, restorative speech-acts (blessing the poor; cursing the rich; healing words; oracles; moral guidance; aphorisms; fables) all aimed at freeing people from slavery, debt, and social stigma, and at the just distribution of food and money.
   .
3. Like the Gospel of Mark, Qn has no birth, infancy, or childhood narratives. Unlike the Gospel of Mark, Qn has no baptism, temptation, or opening heavenly portent making Joshua the messiah.
   .
4. In Qn, the first male follower of Joshua is a Roman centurion, who is there from the start of his public life to its end at the crucifixion.
   .
5. In Qn, the first patrons of Joshua were women, and a woman (likely Miryam, ie. the Mary later called Magdalene) is the one who anoints him as messiah through sexual congress. The early stratum of Mark (Mk1) later misogynistically undermined and displaced all of this by having Jesus baptized in the Jordan river by a man (John the Baptist) and affirmed as the "son of god" (the Davidic messiah) directly by god as a father figure through a heavenly portent. In Mk1, Jesus then calls twelve male disciples at the start of his ministry after going up a mountain as if divinely orchestrated; but all of this is absent from Qn. Mk1 also likely omitted the tradition of Miryam anointing Joshua as messiah, only for it to reappear in later strata of Mark in keeping with its displacement by JnR1 to the end of the ministry of Jesus.
   .
6. The transfiguration in Qn serves a clear, unique purpose as the start of a new exodus and the first occasion where Joshua is openly recognized as messiah by a group of men (three disciples, Moses, and Elijah) and by a heavenly portent. Moses and Elijah are paradigmatic prophet-leaders of resistance movements. Mk1 later borrows the male witness and heavenly portent motifs ("this is my beloved son") and narrates them back into Jesus' baptism (which was not present in Qn), yet still copied and transformed the Qn Transfiguration story, leading to redundant messianic heavenly portents in Mk1 and its heirs (Mt1, Lk2, Jn2, etc.).
   .
7. In Qn, the seventy apostles of Joshua are armed with staffs, comprising what looks to be a formidable gang of would-be bandits ready to loot rich Romans and their wealthy Judean enablers.
   .
8. Qn contains our earliest retrievable form of the Lord's Prayer, a form distinctive for its simple monotheism and pleas for revolutionary empowerment, food distribution and debt forgiveness.
   .
9. Qn contains the entire fable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. This earliest major, signature fable likely influenced retellings such as the raising of Lazarus in the Gospel of John, and signature fables such as the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 and the Good Samaritan in Lk2.
   .
10. Joshua and Miryam in Qn are pictured as slave revolt co-leaders akin to Spartacus (antiquity's most famous rebel slave) and Boudica (who led a Celt revolt just before Qn was composed).
    .
11. Qn concludes with a female-led revolutionary resurrection story for Joshua where Miryam, now partnered to James, still leads the movement, the empty tomb signifies the rebirth of political revolution which Moses and Elijah bless incognito, all the while the men do not believe the women

[Leucius Charinus]

1.03.33 Jacob
Marcus Vinzent mentions in his book, Marcion and the Dating the Synoptic Gospels, that Tertullian appears to admit in his opinion that Acts of the Apostles was in response against Marcion's Antitheses. What do you think about that?

Bilby
Yeah, un, that’s an area that I have not looked carefully at. I haven't done a close reading of the Antitheses. I've done a close reading of Tertullian's book IV, Against Marcion, and used brass work, but then went back myself and looked at all the citations, quotations, allusions to Marcion’s Gospel. But I didn't start by looking at the Antitheses. I didn't. I didn't start by considering Marcion’s biography or his theology. I just started by looking at what I would say are the vocal signal data. That Marci- that Tertullian attests to for Marcion.

So, I really, and I think this is a scientific point of view, I don't think it's a reasonable scientific position to start with the biography of a person that was later considered heretical. And to use all his detractors from forty to a hundred, two-hundred years later and, you know, especially when they're all depending on each other and they're just, they just, it's like a cascading, you know, array of insults that are being leveraged, you know, launched at Marcion.

I'm partly influenced here by our Joseph Hoffmann. So, in his book on Marcion which, you know, is before Vincent's work, he cast serious doubt on the whole idea that Marcion, you know, came to Rome in the in the, you know, 140s because to Hoffman it just sounds anachronistic. The idea that in the 140s you have Rome as, like, the centre of Christianity, the centre of Christendom; that just doesn't go together with all the other evidence we have about, kind of, the multi-polarity, you know, the multiple centres and urban centres for the spread of this movement and it's texts.

So, you know, I think it fits sort of Catholic historiography, but it doesn't fit Orthodox historiography, ah, necessarily. And it doesn't fit, you know, just the patterns were seeing from, from other texts: the idea that everything is in Rome; it's everything centred out of Rome; Rome is the centre of authority. I mean, yeah, it was the capital but, you know, [of] the empire; but I don't think that meant that this marginal movement, that had many faces in many locations, that they felt any need to visit Rome and travel and, you know, come to account there or something like that. That to me has the the feel of later legend. You know, like the stories about Peter being killed. And Peter's tomb, ah, you know, his martyrarium in Rome. Those date from the late 2nd century. So, a lot of the stuff, works like it's Peter and Rome and Rome is the centre of everything - like Rome’s a beautiful city, I've been there, it's an amazing place - but, you know, the traditions are late 2nd century traditions.

They're not mid-2nd century traditions about an established universal [Petrine(?)] authority that's based in the location of Rome.

All good points but its a completely mixed bag of sources. These need to be identified and classified as they would be in any database. There are five kinds of sources:

1) canonical material
2) apocryphal material
3) "Ecclesiastical History" material
4) non-Christian material
5) archeological material

[MrMacSon]

So, you know, I think it fits sort of Catholic historiography, but it doesn't fit Orthodox historiography, ah, necessarily. And it doesn't fit, you know, just the patterns were seeing from, from other texts: the idea that everything is in Rome; it's everything centred out of Rome; Rome is the centre of authority. I mean, yeah, it was the capital but, you know, [of] the empire; but I don't think that meant that this marginal movement, that had many faces in many locations, that they felt any need to visit Rome and travel and, you know, come to account there or something like that. That to me has the the feel of later legend. You know, like the stories about Peter being killed. And Peter's tomb, ah, you know, his martyrarium in Rome. Those date from the late 2nd century. So, a lot of the stuff, works like it's Peter and Rome and Rome is the centre of everything - like Rome’s a beautiful city, I've been there, it's an amazing place - but, you know, the traditions are late 2nd century traditions.

All good points but its a completely mixed bag of sources. These need to be identified and classified as they would be in any database. There are five kinds of sources ...

Bilby's not talking about what you imply you think he's talking about:

... I don't think it's a reasonable scientific position to start with the biography of a person that was later considered heretical. And to use all his detractors from forty to a hundred, two-hundred years later and, you know, especially when they're all depending on each other and they're just, they just, it's like a cascading, you know, array of insults that are being leveraged, you know, launched at Marcion.

I'm partly influenced here by our Joseph Hoffmann ... he cast serious doubt on the whole idea that Marcion came to Rome in the 140s because to Hoffman it just sounds anachronistic. The idea that in the 140s you have Rome as, like, the centre of Christianity, the centre of Christendom: that just doesn't go together with all the other evidence we have about the multi-polarity, the multiple centres and urban centres for the spread of this movement and it's texts.

So, you know, I think it fits sort of Catholic historiography, but it doesn't fit Orthodox historiography ... And it doesn't fit the patterns were seeing from, from other texts: the idea that everything is in Rome; it's everything centred out of Rome; Rome is the centre of authority ... it was the capital [of] the empire; but I don't think that meant that this marginal movement, that had many faces in many locations, that they felt any need to visit Rome and travel and, you know, come to account there or something like that. That to me has the feel of later legend, you know, like the stories about Peter being killed. And Peter's tomb; his martyrarium in Rome. Those date from the late 2nd century. So, a lot of the stuff, works like it's Peter and Rome, and Rome is the centre of everything ... the traditions are late 2nd century 'traditions.'

[Leucius Charinus]

All good points but its a completely mixed bag of sources. These need to be identified and classified as they would be in any database. There are five kinds of sources ...

Bilby's not talking about what you imply you think he's talking about:

I am aware of where Bilby is at and what he is talking about in that extract. What I am talking about is where he is going in his overall and ambitious project of large data sets (with which I have some experience). My point is directed towards the future scenario where the canonical gospels, the apocryphal gospels (he mentions Thomas and Peter), selections of the "Fathers" (i.e. Ecclesiastical History, Justin, etc) and even archeology (he mentions the "Tomb of Peter) are being all held within a large scale data set.

My point is that (from my experience) Bilby will need to develop a classification system by which various subsets of the datasets can be easily and readily distinguished from the others.

[mlinssen]

All good points but its a completely mixed bag of sources. These need to be identified and classified as they would be in any database. There are five kinds of sources ...

Bilby's not talking about what you imply you think he's talking about:

I am aware of where Bilby is at and what he is talking about in that extract. What I am talking about is where he is going in his overall and ambitious project of large data sets (with which I have some experience). My point is directed towards the future scenario where the canonical gospels, the apocryphal gospels (he mentions Thomas and Peter), selections of the "Fathers" (i.e. Ecclesiastical History, Justin, etc) and even archeology (he mentions the "Tomb of Peter) are being all held within a large scale data set.

My point is that (from my experience) Bilby will need to develop a classification system by which various subsets of the datasets can be easily and readily distinguished from the others.

You don't even know the title to his 1425 page book, do you?

[Leucius Charinus]

All good points but its a completely mixed bag of sources. These need to be identified and classified as they would be in any database. There are five kinds of sources ...

Bilby's not talking about what you imply you think he's talking about:

I am aware of where Bilby is at and what he is talking about in that extract. What I am talking about is where he is going in his overall and ambitious project of large data sets (with which I have some experience). My point is directed towards the future scenario where the canonical gospels, the apocryphal gospels (he mentions Thomas and Peter), selections of the "Fathers" (i.e. Ecclesiastical History, Justin, etc) and even archeology (he mentions the "Tomb of Peter) are being all held within a large scale data set.

My point is that (from my experience) Bilby will need to develop a classification system by which various subsets of the datasets can be easily and readily distinguished from the others.

You don't even know the title to his 1425 page book, do you?

You might like to check my 2 youtube comments on the vid in the OP and the responses.