Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

and an expurgated version of Luke's Gospel, which Marcion claimed Paul meant when referring to “my gospel. http://books.google.com/books?id=Pn6UW0 ... on&f=false

Marcion evidently identified Luke as the book referred to as “my gospel” (Rom. 2:16; cf. 16:25; 2 Tim. 2:8).http://books.google.com/books?id=RbGDws ... on&f=false

Origen calls it "the Gospel quoted by Paul," alluding to Romans ii. i6.2 Eusebius refers St. Paul's words " according to my Gospel " (2 Tim. ii.8) to that of St Luke to which Jerome concurs. http://books.google.com/books?id=H10_AA ... on&f=false

Clement also acknowledges that Paul had a written gospel but does not explicitly identify it with Luke only saying that Romans makes reference to the gospel that Paul used and which referenced the commandments.

It is at the feet of Marcion that many lay the responsibility for designating a Jesus book as εὐαγγέλιον ... He understood those passages where Paul spoke of “my gospel” (e.g., Rom 2:16; 16:25; 2 Cor 4:3) to refer to one particular Jesus book, namely that of Luke, which was allegedly at the Apostle's disposal ... Marcion provided no attribution to his Gospel, the corrected text of Luke, but described it simply as “Gospel. He was allegedly the first to label a Jesus book with such a designation.196 Koester concurs with this assessment that Marcion “introduces this novel ..." http://books.google.com/books?id=rZLwAw ... 22&f=false

He (Marcion) understood phrases in Paul's epistles such as 'my gospel' and 'the gospel of Christ' to be referring to one written book. http://books.google.com/books?id=dk1EgP ... on&f=false

Koester's explanation (sort of) of the Marcion 'my gospel' reference (odd considering Origen testifies the Marcionite Romans ended in chapter 14 and 'my gospel' now appears in chapter 15 - http://books.google.com/books?ei=7QZcVO ... Paul+to%22

Marcion 's new Bible Marcion wanted to replace the Old Testament with the authentic basic documents of Christianity which were Paul's ten letters64 and what Paul had occasionally called 'my gospel' and what Paul had occasionally called 'my gospel'. Marcion took this to be a reference to a written Gospel http://books.google.com/books?id=LBfkAA ... CB8Q6AEwAA

In case you are wondering where the reference comes from the most explicit ancient reference is Origen but there are countless others in Tertullian and other sources:

I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says:4806 “According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;” he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence.

The exact same argument is made by Megethius the Marcionite in De Recta in Deum Fide.

I think that point is sufficiently demonstrated. Another illustration to expand people's minds. The oldest gospel fragments in Syriac, the Old Syriac Version, which are likely the earliest representations of the four gospels in Syriac are known were called the Evangelion Dampharshe ("Separated Gospels") in the Syriac Church. In other words, the traditional assumption was - the four gospels were 'split' from one ur-text. Think about that for awhile (if it is possible for you to think new thoughts). It is always important to see the world through the eyes of our source material rather than merely projecting our own wishes, needs and fears upon the texts.

Ulan wrote:But he sees Marcion at the base of many gospels, see here.

You're fault that I wasted time here

If Mark had been the source of our Synoptics (and therefore to Marcion, had he copied Luke), why does none of the witnesses follow Mark 16:1 – but all have Mark 16:2 parallel? The verse is attested for Marcion. Why did they not follow Mark 16:3-4, but only pick up Mark 16:5 again? Why, if Luke followed Mark, did he – like the other witnesses pick up exactly and only these verses of Mark 16:2.5, but jumped over verses 16:3-4? When we look at Marcion, only he produces exactly these verses as a continuous text (Marcion 20:1-2) which are present as parallels in all 5 other witnesses. If Mark were the source of these witnesses, they would either have needed to know each other or are dependent of one of the others, as it would be a sheer impossibility that all four independent witnesses, having left out the first verse in Mark, pick all the second verse up, all leave aside verses three and four, and all pick up again verse five of Mark.

It's always the same with these ideologues. In truth, neither Matthew nor Luke jump over Mark 16:1, but change the verse. Matthew shortened Mark 16:1,2 to one verse, Luke brings the spices (Luke 23:56; 24:1).

Markus Vinzent's Blog: Join me for research - networking - communication

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:It's always the same with these ideologues. In truth, neither Matthew nor Luke jump over Mark 16:1, but change the verse. Matthew shortened Mark 16:1,2 to one verse, Luke brings the spices (Luke 23:56; 24:1).

He's more or less going for exact matches. See also in the other link: the elements are everywhere, but only one match is perfect. The question would probably be correctly posed as: who exhibits the least edits?

However, if you are of the opinion that he may overstate his cases, I won't blame you.

Markus Vinzent's Blog: Join me for research - networking - communication

Well, he is Professor of the History of Theology at King's College, specialized in Patristics. But I admit that some of the stuff on his blog looks weird. Business ideas?

to Ulan,

Justin quotes from what Irenaeus identifies as Marcion's text, at least according to M. Vinzent here.

Tertullian, not Irenaeus.
Anyway I read the article. That part intrigued me:

In addition, Bellinzoni lists a series of fathers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Pseudoclementine Homilies) that provide the same features. Hence he concludes that 'all knew and used a similar source for this saying of Jesus', 'some kind of documentary authority' (Leon E. Wright, Alterations of the Words of Jesus as Quoted in the Literature of the Second Century, Cambridge Mass., 1952, 63-4), but thinks that 'it is impossible to say whether this source was a variant text of Matthew or Luke or whether it was a text based on one of these gospels' (p. 28).

Even after Justin, at least two anti Marcionite authors quoted the passage (from Lk 10:22) as appearing in Marcion's gospel. Why would they knowingly quote Marcion's gospel?
That does not make sense.
Except if there were slightly different copies (regarding Lk 10:22) circulating during some time after the gospel was written: one set with Father and Son in the original order, another set with the reverse order. Marcion, Irenaeus and Clement were working from one set, others (as witnessed by all the most ancient known manuscripts) from another.
I might put the question to Vincent.

As for the other Vincent's post, the case of Mk 16:1 apparently appearing in Marcion's gospel, but not in the other gospel, is more troubling. Maybe Marcion had also gMark.
I would like to ask Vincent where Marcion's gospel has material or even bits not in gLuke, but appearing in other gospels. However here,

By the way, the same phenomenon can be seen with the following verses in Luke 24:3-6a.9 which are attested in Marcion and, therefore, have parallels in the other four witnesses, not, however Luke 24:8 which is missing in Marcion

it seems Marcion followed closely gLuke, and away from the others.

But wait:
I do not know how Vincent concluded Mk 16:1 was in Marcion's gospel (which cannot be reconstructed exactly because of lacking evidence).
In that site, Mk 16:1-2 appears in Marcion's gospel as:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... cion6.html
Mc 24: 1 But upon the first [day] of the week, at early dawn,
they came unto the tomb,
bringing the spices which they had prepared,
and some others with them.

Let's compare to Mark's gospel (RSV):
Mk 16:1-2 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salo'me, bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.

Let's compare to Luke's gospel (RSV)
Luk 24:1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices which they had prepared

Let's compare to Matthew's gospel (RSV)
Mat 28:1 Now after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Mag'dalene and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.

Except if Vincent has another version for Mc 24:1, it looks to me gLuke version is very close of Marcion's, and both of them shows significant differences with the one of gMark & gMatthew.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Tertullian, not Irenaeus.

Thanks. I should have checked while typing, as this even crossed my mind.

Bernard Muller wrote:I do not know how Vincent concluded Mk 16:1 was in Marcion's gospel...

He means 16:2, not 16:1. The passage might have been clearer if he had repeated the "16:2" in the second sentence, but it's obvious from the context and from the table that he is talking about 16:2 being in Marcion.

The similarity of Luke and Marcion is a given. That's not the point he is trying to discuss. His point was that this whole passage in Luke, Matthew, John and gPeter Is only in parallel to Mark when the verse is also present in Marcion. If the verse isn't in Marcion, the text in the other gospels diverges from Mark.

I have no time to check that now, but that's what this post was trying to say.

to Huller,

I want to also make clear that it is impossible to convince a 70 year old man like Bernard 'new tricks.' I am going through the motions with perhaps the most rigid thinking participant at the forum (one who would change his opinion about Irenaeus's dishonesty just to avoid losing an argument) in order to benefit the entire forum. At 70 no one comes up with new ideas (or gets a boner for that matter) unless stimulated by chemical means. Again I labor here for the benefit of the few reasonable and open-minded people who will recognize the ultimate defeat of the old and the triumph of new.

First, I am not 70. Don't say I changed my opinion about Irenaeus' dishonesty. He was dishonest, but not to your extreme extant, where, when and how much you want him to be.
What about you? you entertained:
By the time he was only eight or nine years of age, Marcus Agrippa believed himself to be, and was accepted as, the once and for all Messiah of the Jewish people – though he espoused a new religious covenant that was open to all, Jew and Gentile alike. He was anointed as such, not only in Palestine but far away in Egyptian Alexandria – undoubtedly on that very throne with its with its ciphered inscriptions that can now be seen in Venice. His position as Messiah had been proclaimed by Jesus himself during his own ministry, and Marcus Agrippa was present at Jesus’ crucifixion.
Now I am asking, as you were asking about Irenaeus:
Is what you entertained in the past (about Agrippa & Jesus) a lie, a mistake, an example of mental incapacitation?
I certainly is not a fan of your new tricks.

In case you are wondering where the reference comes from the most explicit ancient reference is Origen but there are countless others in Tertullian and other sources:
I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says:4806 “According to my Gospel in Christ Jesus;” he does not speak of Gospels in the plural, and, hence, they argue that as the Apostle only speaks of one Gospel in the singular, there was only one in existence.
The exact same argument is made by Megethius the Marcionite in De Recta in Deum Fide.

It is clear to me that Origen and Tertullian wanted Paul's gospel to be one of the canonical gospel, most likely gLuke (because "Luke" is described as a companion of Paul). It was embarrassing having Paul not preaching about the alleged sayings and deeds of human/earthly Jesus.
You need a lot of imagination to think that gospel was a Diatessaron type of document.

Cordially, Bernard