Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:44 pm**

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 6:03 pmI meant the Church Fathers introduced the notion that that Marcionites had a two God system, when in reality they had one God and lesser angels, very much similar to Jews and Christians of the time. The only difference was the creator was one of those angels, even perhaps the greatest such Angel. This was the invention of the Church Fathers, who then attempted to disprove the invention as impossible.

You're right, in the sense that all religions -- including Christianity -- were in effect polytheistic (many gods) or henotheistic (many gods but one Supreme God to rule them all). I think we get hung up on the label 'god' in a way they didn't back then. 'God' had a sense of the ability of applying judgement and punishment on someone. Thus Satan is a god, and Moses was a god to Pharaoh.

The focus, it seems to me, was on the idea of God-as-Creator. So: "who created the material world?" and "who created the heavens?"

The Marcionites believed that there was a Creator God who created the material world. But given that the material world underwent corruption and change, they proposed that if there was a superior spiritual world, then it had its own Creator God, Marcion's Unknown God. Whereas for orthodox Christians, the Creator God created both the heavens and the earth.

Anyone who saw the physical world as corrupted would naturally wonder how a spiritually-pure God would even create a corrupted material world. Gnostic Christian beliefs rose out of Platonic ideas of pure forms; orthodox Christian ones rose out of Jewish beliefs of God creating a good world based on Laws.

For Gnostic Christians, the flesh is corrupted but humans hold a spark of the Spiritual God. Christ mounted a rescue mission to free that spark. For orthodox Christians, the flesh is corrupted because humans broke the Law of God thus corrupting the world. Christ came to redeem us under the Law.

And then in the Second Century everything got mashed together, as orthodox Christians tried to reconcile Jewish beliefs with Platonic ones.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:20 pm**

GakuseiDon,

You have given in to the terminology of the Church Fathers. There is nothing unique in the Marcionite cosmology among the myriad of Christian teachings that gave the creation to a lesser angel or aeon or archon. Even our NT has references that seem to refer to creation as something not necessarily from the supreme God, but possibly others. We also see a few NT references to the law coming in by intermediaries (i.e., angels, much like Mohammad received the Quran). These were mainstream opinions.

I don't think it's right to use the term second God to describe the creator. That would be like saying Christians today believe in a second God of Satan. The stories of the demiurge are those of a fallen angel, who gets an amnesia so is unaware he is but an angel, whether Marcionite or Valentinian or other Sethian or some other of the Gnostic type sects telling the tale. They would not refer to the creator as a God (at least not within the Empire; one wonders if syncretism impacted Marcionism to the east in similar ways Nestorians and Manicheans seem to have been), rather more of an angel. Maybe compromise and put a small "g" on god.

But the Church Fathers made a very big point of taking this same cosmology of the Marcionites which one would find in dozens of other sects even within their political alliance as being a second god to them, a charge not raised about Valentinians or others. It's quite a remarkable.

Posted: **Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:10 pm**

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:20 pm GakuseiDon,

You have given in to the terminology of the Church Fathers.

I have to plead guilty to this. I've read some gnostic materials but my views have been formed from reading the Church Fathers.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:20 pmThere is nothing unique in the Marcionite cosmology among the myriad of Christian teachings that gave the creation to a lesser angel or aeon or archon. Even our NT has references that seem to refer to creation as something not necessarily from the supreme God, but possibly others. We also see a few NT references to the law coming in by intermediaries (i.e., angels, much like Mohammad received the Quran). These were mainstream opinions.

True. The world was created through the Logos, for example. God is the Creator, the agent is the Logos. It's a way of keeping God -- who is perfect and unchanging -- remote from the material world.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:20 pmI don't think it's right to use the term second God to describe the creator. That would be like saying Christians today believe in a second God of Satan.

Yes, well Paul labelled Satan as that. But I think we get caught up in the label. As I said, the demarcation point is: who is the Creator? According to Tertullian. Marcion was inspired by the idea that the Old Testament said that God was the creator of evil, which he felt was inconsistent with his views of God. Certainly the Old Testament calls the Demiurge "God", so I guess so did Marcion. Just as Paul called Satan a "god".

If the Demiurge was an angel who created the material world, then he is the God of that world. At least, that's the way it seems to be used in Tertullian and Irenaeus. But the main point isn't the label, it is the fact that they were the Creators.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:20 pmThe stories of the demiurge are those of a fallen angel, who gets an amnesia so is unaware he is but an angel, whether Marcionite or Valentinian or other Sethian or some other of the Gnostic type sects telling the tale. They would not refer to the creator as a God (at least not within the Empire; one wonders if syncretism impacted Marcionism to the east in similar ways Nestorians and Manicheans seem to have been), rather more of an angel. Maybe compromise and put a small "g" on god.

On the part I highlighted above: I'd be interested in any texts you have that show this.

Stuart wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:20 pmBut the Church Fathers made a very big point of taking this same cosmology of the Marcionites which one would find in dozens of other sects even within their political alliance as being a second god to them, a charge not raised about Valentinians or others. It's quite a remarkable.

Okay, that's interesting. I'll check through Irenaeus and Tertullian to see if that's the case.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:38 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:58 pm
Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:06 pm BTW, Giuseppe is quite off on this, as Kingdom of God is used throughout Luke, specifically within the attested Marcionite segments, and is used the same as we see in Mark. It is very much worth noting it's usage in the very Marcionite story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
I am denying the presence of a "coming kingdom of god" in Marcion, not merely of a "kingdom of god".

Intrinsic in the concept of a "coming kingdom of god" is the idea that Jesus has to realize something already existing and/or given on the earth (the Torah): but Marcion is clear on this point, that Jesus has come to not realize but to destroy the Torah.

"Coming kingdom of god" should be translated better as "yoke of YHWH".

P.S. Stuart, I am interested to your explanation of the secrecy in Mark. Is it anti-marcionite?

Stuart is completely wrong in trusting the FF.
Marcion had "Kingdom of the father" and "Kingdom of the heavens" exactly as Thomas has, but the FF naturally can't attest to that - although they do

viewtopic.php?p=146811#p146811

Solid find, Giuseppe: the first punches and uppercuts towards Chrestianity are in the very first verses of Mark.
Just look at Justin: even he was full of the father and juxtaposes him to that other god

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10310

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2023 1:19 am**

The request "may your kingdom come" in the Lord's prayer is , in any case, a late mutilation and interpolation, as seen from the more original reading of Gregory of Nyssa ibvoking the holy spirit.

Posted: **Sun Jan 08, 2023 6:14 pm**

mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:38 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:58 pm
Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:06 pm BTW, Giuseppe is quite off on this, as Kingdom of God is used throughout Luke, specifically within the attested Marcionite segments, and is used the same as we see in Mark. It is very much worth noting it's usage in the very Marcionite story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
I am denying the presence of a "coming kingdom of god" in Marcion, not merely of a "kingdom of god".

Intrinsic in the concept of a "coming kingdom of god" is the idea that Jesus has to realize something already existing and/or given on the earth (the Torah): but Marcion is clear on this point, that Jesus has come to not realize but to destroy the Torah.

"Coming kingdom of god" should be translated better as "yoke of YHWH".

P.S. Stuart, I am interested to your explanation of the secrecy in Mark. Is it anti-marcionite?
Stuart is completely wrong in trusting the FF.
Marcion had "Kingdom of the father" and "Kingdom of the heavens" exactly as Thomas has, but the FF naturally can't attest to that - although they do

viewtopic.php?p=146811#p146811

Solid find, Giuseppe: the first punches and uppercuts towards Chrestianity are in the very first verses of Mark.
Just look at Justin: even he was full of the father and juxtaposes him to that other god

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10310

The Patristic writers are our sources. Yes you have to be careful using them. But your reading is definitely a case of cherry picking.

For example some attested Marcionite readings:
AM 4.8.9 (Luke 4:43): regnum dei
AM 4.14.1 (Luke 6:20): regnum dei
AM 4.14.13 (Luke 6:20): regnum caelorum
// this appears to be more likely a direct quote of the Marcionite text before him
agrees with some interesting minuscules 1582* (f1), 118 (f1), 69 (f13), 157, 1424
AM 4.18.8 (Luke 7:28): regnum caelorum
// this is more reference than quote, agrees with Matthew 11:11; the whole passage looks more like Matthew than Luke (1428 only mss to agree)
AM 4.24.7 (Luke 10:11): regnum dei
AM 4.26.11 (Luke 11:20): regnum dei
AM 4.29.5 (Luke 12:31): regnum dei
also P 42.11.6 #33 (Luke 12:31): τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦAM 4.33.6 (Luke 16:17): regnum dei
AM 4.30.1 (Luke 13:20): regnum dei
AM 4.30.5 (Luke 13:28): regnum dei
// this is very much worth notice as the verse is very different in Marcionite form, yet still "the kingdom of God"
also P42.11.6 #40 (Luke 13:28): τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ
// Epiphanius confirms the very different reading for verse 13:28
AM 4.33.7 (Luke 16.16): regnum dei
AM 4.35.12 (Luke 17:14): regnum dei
// Tertullian emphasizes that the text says "kingdom of God" by repeating the phrase
AM 4.35.13 (Luke 17:21): regnum dei
DA 1.16 (Luke 18:16): ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Greek), regnum caelorum (Rufinus' Latin)
// Megethius speaking, so likely Marcionite reading, however it's part of an antithesis pair, a paraphrase not a quote (agrees with Λ*, 157, 579)
// agrees with Matthew 19:14 against Mark 10:14
AM 4.39.11 (Luke 21:31): regnum dei
AM 4.39.16 (Luke 21:31): regnum dei

Kingdom of God is attested in most of the Marcionite passages, agreeing with Luke. We do have three verses with variant reading of possibly Kingdom of Heaven. Are these truly Marcionite readings are locale variants? Luke 6:20 and the paraphrase of an antithesis pair for Luke 18:16 agrees with some minuscules, and both agree with 157, suggesting we might be looking at a local variant. The reading of 7:28 also has some manuscript support barely). It does make one wonder if Luke 7:11-18 was not composed later by a Marcionite scribe, as verses 18-28 as attested seem to align more closely to Matthew's version than the Luke we inherited.

We can only conclude that Kingdom of God prevails in both the Marcionite and Lukan text in most verses, with few to none variant readings of heaven found in manuscripts. But the few which Tertullian or Epiphanius report coincide with variant readings in some manuscripts. Possibly the variants are remnants of the Marcionite reading, or they are evidence that the Marcionite text was full of the same variants, and thus the texts are really part of the same stream (argument made by Clabeaux). So even these cases are only probable readings.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 1:56 am**

Stuart wrote: ↑Sun Jan 08, 2023 6:14 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:38 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 9:58 pm
Stuart wrote: ↑Wed Dec 21, 2022 4:06 pm BTW, Giuseppe is quite off on this, as Kingdom of God is used throughout Luke, specifically within the attested Marcionite segments, and is used the same as we see in Mark. It is very much worth noting it's usage in the very Marcionite story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
I am denying the presence of a "coming kingdom of god" in Marcion, not merely of a "kingdom of god".

Intrinsic in the concept of a "coming kingdom of god" is the idea that Jesus has to realize something already existing and/or given on the earth (the Torah): but Marcion is clear on this point, that Jesus has come to not realize but to destroy the Torah.

"Coming kingdom of god" should be translated better as "yoke of YHWH".

P.S. Stuart, I am interested to your explanation of the secrecy in Mark. Is it anti-marcionite?
Stuart is completely wrong in trusting the FF.
Marcion had "Kingdom of the father" and "Kingdom of the heavens" exactly as Thomas has, but the FF naturally can't attest to that - although they do

viewtopic.php?p=146811#p146811

Solid find, Giuseppe: the first punches and uppercuts towards Chrestianity are in the very first verses of Mark.
Just look at Justin: even he was full of the father and juxtaposes him to that other god

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10310
The Patristic writers are our sources. Yes you have to be careful using them. But your reading is definitely a case of cherry picking.

For example some attested Marcionite readings:
AM 4.8.9 (Luke 4:43): regnum dei
AM 4.14.1 (Luke 6:20): regnum dei
AM 4.14.13 (Luke 6:20): regnum caelorum
// this appears to be more likely a direct quote of the Marcionite text before him
agrees with some interesting minuscules 1582* (f1), 118 (f1), 69 (f13), 157, 1424
AM 4.18.8 (Luke 7:28): regnum caelorum
// this is more reference than quote, agrees with Matthew 11:11; the whole passage looks more like Matthew than Luke (1428 only mss to agree)
AM 4.24.7 (Luke 10:11): regnum dei
AM 4.26.11 (Luke 11:20): regnum dei
AM 4.29.5 (Luke 12:31): regnum dei
also P 42.11.6 #33 (Luke 12:31): τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦAM 4.33.6 (Luke 16:17): regnum dei
AM 4.30.1 (Luke 13:20): regnum dei
AM 4.30.5 (Luke 13:28): regnum dei
// this is very much worth notice as the verse is very different in Marcionite form, yet still "the kingdom of God"
also P42.11.6 #40 (Luke 13:28): τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ
// Epiphanius confirms the very different reading for verse 13:28
AM 4.33.7 (Luke 16.16): regnum dei
AM 4.35.12 (Luke 17:14): regnum dei
// Tertullian emphasizes that the text says "kingdom of God" by repeating the phrase
AM 4.35.13 (Luke 17:21): regnum dei
DA 1.16 (Luke 18:16): ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Greek), regnum caelorum (Rufinus' Latin)
// Megethius speaking, so likely Marcionite reading, however it's part of an antithesis pair, a paraphrase not a quote (agrees with Λ*, 157, 579)
// agrees with Matthew 19:14 against Mark 10:14
AM 4.39.11 (Luke 21:31): regnum dei
AM 4.39.16 (Luke 21:31): regnum dei

Kingdom of God is attested in most of the Marcionite passages, agreeing with Luke. We do have three verses with variant reading of possibly Kingdom of Heaven. Are these truly Marcionite readings are locale variants? Luke 6:20 and the paraphrase of an antithesis pair for Luke 18:16 agrees with some minuscules, and both agree with 157, suggesting we might be looking at a local variant. The reading of 7:28 also has some manuscript support barely). It does make one wonder if Luke 7:11-18 was not composed later by a Marcionite scribe, as verses 18-28 as attested seem to align more closely to Matthew's version than the Luke we inherited.

We can only conclude that Kingdom of God prevails in both the Marcionite and Lukan text in most verses, with few to none variant readings of heaven found in manuscripts. But the few which Tertullian or Epiphanius report coincide with variant readings in some manuscripts. Possibly the variants are remnants of the Marcionite reading, or they are evidence that the Marcionite text was full of the same variants, and thus the texts are really part of the same stream (argument made by Clabeaux). So even these cases are only probable readings.

Let's just first look what our current NT is saying:

BOOK OF Luke
Chapter 1 Dedication to Theophilus
Chapter 2 The Birth of Jesus
Chapter 3 The Mission of John the Baptist
Chapter 4 The Temptation of Jesus
43 But He said to them, “It behooves Me to preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because for this I have been sent forth.”
Chapter 5 The First Disciples
Chapter 6 The Lord of the Sabbath
20 And He, having lifted up His gaze upon His disciples, was saying: “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Chapter 7 The Faith of the Centurion
28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”
Chapter 8 Women Minister to Jesus
1 And it came to pass soon afterward that He was traveling throughout city and village, preaching and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. And the Twelve were with Him,
10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest, it is in parables, so that, ‘Seeing, they may not see; and hearing, they may not understand.’b
Chapter 9 The Ministry of the Twelve
2 and He sent them to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.
11 And the crowds having known it, followed Him; and having received them, He was speaking to them concerning the kingdom of God, and He was healing those having need of healing.
27 And I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death until they shall have seen the kingdom of God.” The Transfiguration
60 And He said to him, “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but you, having gone forth, declare the kingdom of God.”
62 And Jesus said to him, “No one having laid the hand upon the plow, and looking on the things behind, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
Chapter 10 Jesus Sends Out the Disciples
9 And heal the sick in it, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has drawn near to you.’
11 ‘Even the dust from your city having clung to our feet, we wipe off against you; yet know this, that the kingdom of God has drawn near.’
Chapter 11 The Lord's Prayer
20 But if I cast out the demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Chapter 12 The Leaven of the Pharisees
Chapter 13 A Call to Repentance
18 And He was saying, “To what is the kingdom of God like? And to what shall I liken it?
20 And again He said, “To what shall I liken the kingdom of God?
28 There will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you are being cast out.
29 And they will come from east and west, and from north and south, and will recline in the kingdom of God.
Chapter 14 Jesus Heals a Man with Dropsy
15 And one of those reclining with Him, having heard these things, said to Him, “Blessed is he who will eat bread in the kingdom of God.”
Chapter 15 The Parable of the Lost Sheep
Chapter 16 The Parable of the Shrewd Manager
16 The Law and the prophets were until John. From that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone forces his way into it.
Chapter 17 Temptations and Trespasses
20 And having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God is coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with careful observation,
21 nor will they say, ‘Behold here,’ or ‘There.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”c
Chapter 18 The Persistent Widow
16 But Jesus, having called them to Him, said, “Permit the little children to come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of the such is the kingdom of God.
17 Truly I say to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not at all enter into it.”
24 And having seen him, Jesus became sorrowful, saying, “How difficultly those having riches shall enter into the kingdom of God.
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
29 And He said to them, “Truly I say to you that there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God,
Chapter 19 Jesus and Zacchaeus
11 While they were hearing these things, having proceeded, He spoke a parable because of His being near Jerusalem and of their thinking that the kingdom of God is about to appear immediately.
Chapter 20 Jesus' Authority Challenged
Chapter 21 The Poor Widow's Offering
31 So also you, when you see these things coming to pass, know that the kingdom of God is near.
Chapter 22 The Plot to Kill Jesus
16 For I say to you that never again will I eat thereof, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
18 For I say to you that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now until the kingdom of God shall come.”
29 And I appoint to you a kingdom, as My Father appointed to Me,
Chapter 23 Jesus Before Pilate
51 he was not having consented to their counsel and deed—from Arimathea, a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the kingdom of God.
Chapter 24 The Resurrection

I don't see any 'kingdom of (the) heaven(s)' there at all.
But let's go by the exceptions that you have noted:

AM 4.14.13 (Luke 6:20): regnum caelorum
// this appears to be more likely a direct quote of the Marcionite text before him
agrees with some interesting minuscules 1582* (f1), 118 (f1), 69 (f13), 157, 1424

Luke 6:20 And He, having lifted up His gaze upon His disciples, was saying: “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Thomas 54. IS said: some Fortunate are the poor: yours is the reign of king of the heavens.

No need to comment, I think?

AM 4.18.8 (Luke 7:28): regnum caelorum
// this is more reference than quote, agrees with Matthew 11:11; the whole passage looks more like Matthew than Luke (1428 only mss to agree

Luke 7:28 I say to you, no one among those born of women is greater than John; yet the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

46. IS said: starting from Adam toward Johannes the Immerser, in the births of the women there is not he who exalted to Johannes the Immerser So that his eyes will not break. I said it However: he who will come to be in you he been made little person he will know the reign of king and he will be high to Johannes.

Thomasine, but Thomas doesn't specify any particular kingdom. No variants for the verbatim Matthew 11:11 here. NA28 doesn't have any variants, are you using NA27 perhaps?

AM 4.35.13 (Luke 17:21): regnum dei
DA 1.16 (Luke 18:16): ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (Greek), regnum caelorum (Rufinus' Latin)
// Megethius speaking, so likely Marcionite reading, however it's part of an antithesis pair, a paraphrase not a quote (agrees with Λ*, 157, 579)
// agrees with Matthew 19:14 against Mark 10:14

Luke 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Behold here,’ or ‘There.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”c

Thomas 3. IS said: if they should say it to you, they who go before you: "lo behold, the reign of king in the heaven", Well then the birds will make be first to you of the heaven. If they should say it to you: "she in the Sea", well then the fishes will make be first to you. Rather, the reign of king is of your inside and she is of your eye. Whenever you should know you Then they will know you, and you will understand: yourselves are the children of the living father. If it befall However you will know you not, well then you are existing in a reign of poor and yourselves are the reign of poor.

Thomas 113. said they to he viz. his(PL) Disciple : the(F) reign-of(F) king she/r be-coming within what? [al] day she/r be-coming not in a(n) look outward they will say it not : lo-behold [dop] that-one part Or lo-behold that-one(F) Rather the(F) reign-of(F) king of the father she/r being-spread outward from-upon the earth and the(PL) human behold not [dop] she/r

Take your pick from either, I am unsure which one served and perhaps they did both

Three out of three: Thomas matches these, and each of these has a kingdom in Thomas, and one out of three has the typical kingdom of the heavens that Thomas has.
Regarding all other "kingdoms" in Luke: none of those has any parallel in Thomas

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:05 am**

Gospel of Thomas is a very layered document derived from the four Canonical gospels, so no evidence of anything.

The entire point of the post was to point out that the anti-Marcionite material appears to have been derived from at most a small handful of Marcionite manuscripts. The variant readings found in the attestations in many, even most cases, have corresponding variant readings in the manuscripts of the catholic text. In many, even the majority of cases they are white noise, errors by the scribe, or pious adjustments.

We also have a second data point on the church fathers, as many have text type tendencies, hosting a score of variants found in certain branches of manuscripts. This is not from deliberate error, rather the result of a small sample of readings they are aware of from their local repository of books.

Clabeaux made the correct observation that the manuscripts of the Marcionite collection were part of the general milieu of Christian writings in circulation. They represent not so much Marcionite tendencies but the books in an earlier state. Textual errors correspond to those in the received text because they carried over when manuscripts were revised. The process was organic.

One has to be extremely careful to declare that a Marcionite reading was original and not a textual error that by chance fell into the singular manuscript a church father was using for his Marcionite reading.

I believe in this case, we are looking merely at a textual error detectable in a certain group of manuscripts that changed "God" to "heaven" as we find in Matthew. The assumption that the pious scribe who modified the text was Marcionite is probably unfounded. Since the Marcionite text was simply the earlier received text, scribal changes and errors would occur in the same "random" manor as we see in the received text. The only difference being the Marcionite canon froze in time some generations prior to the freezing of the texts in the main Catholic church.

The devil is in the details mlinnsen.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2023 9:57 pm**

Stuart wrote: ↑Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:05 am Gospel of Thomas is a very layered document derived from the four Canonical gospels, so no evidence of anything.

That's a baseless statement that has been debunked by many of the usual suspects already

The entire point of the post was to point out that the anti-Marcionite material appears to have been derived from at most a small handful of Marcionite manuscripts. The variant readings found in the attestations in many, even most cases, have corresponding variant readings in the manuscripts of the catholic text.

Of course, as those are all based on the source - which is Marcion

In many, even the majority of cases they are white noise, errors by the scribe, or pious adjustments.

Your interpretation is worthless

We also have a second data point on the church fathers, as many have text type tendencies, hosting a score of variants found in certain branches of manuscripts. This is not from deliberate error, rather the result of a small sample of readings they are aware of from their local repository of books.

That's a baseless assumption

Clabeaux made the correct observation that the manuscripts of the Marcionite collection were part of the general milieu of Christian writings in circulation. They represent not so much Marcionite tendencies but the books in an earlier state. Textual errors correspond to those in the received text because they carried over when manuscripts were revised. The process was organic.

One has to be extremely careful to declare that a Marcionite reading was original and not a textual error that by chance fell into the singular manuscript a church father was using for his Marcionite reading.

Marcion just stuck to Thomas: Kingdom of the heavens or of the father. Why the hell would he throw in god and risk confusion with the Tanakh God?

I believe in this case, we are looking merely at a textual error detectable in a certain group of manuscripts that changed "God" to "heaven" as we find in Matthew. The assumption that the pious scribe who modified the text was Marcionite is probably unfounded. Since the Marcionite text was simply the earlier received text, scribal changes and errors would occur in the same "random" manor as we see in the received text. The only difference being the Marcionite canon froze in time some generations prior to the freezing of the texts in the main Catholic church.

You believe what you like to believe, as everyone else does.
It's easy Stuart: we have many attestations, throughout the centuries, view different texts and sources, to Marcion saying "Kingdom of the heavens" where, and only where, he has parallels with Thomas.
That's a no-brainer, and your can't bullshit your way out of that

The devil is in the details mlinnsen.

Indeed

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

FF attest to kingdom of the heavens for Thomasine parallels alone

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion

Re: The "coming kingdom of god" absent in Marcion