Page 41 of 46
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 9:53 pm
by Peter Kirby
Bernard Muller wrote:Why do scholars think any gospels quotes in the dialogues of Adamantius and in Tertullian AM and Origen COM have to be part of Marcion's gospel? Does it say anywhere these quotes are from gMarcion? NO.
In Tertullian AM, these quotes from other gospels than gLuke or gMarcion are inside Tertullian exposures of his own orthodox christology & theology, where he quoted anything which support his views, including pagan authors and OT passages. Nothing to do with what Marcion spelled out in his gospel.
Yes I'd be careful of assuming that any of these guys had a copy of Marcion's gospel at the hip.
It's possible that there was an early tract against Marcion detailing how he corrupted scripture. Perhaps the authors we have got their information at second hand.
Whether they got it second hand, or from memory of reading Marcion, or from having a copy of Marcion nearby, it does seem possible that they are quoting directly from their own preferred Gospel when making quotes.
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:05 pm
by Stephan Huller
76 Marcion's gospel often agrees with Matthew against Luke
[Mt] 5.18 itself rests upon Mt. 24.34f or the source in which this originally stood. The close of 5.18, 4 till all things be accomplished,' does not amalgamate easily with the beginning of the verse, "Till heaven and earth pass away (one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away). Moreover it is difficult to see why the Law should cease to have validity the moment it is fulfilled in its entirety. But the closing sentence in [Mt] 24.34 is perfectly intelligible : "This generation shall not pass away till all these things be accomplished. 'All these things' means here the premonitory signs of the end. 'Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.' Marcion has the same thought in his redaction of Luke 16.17: 'It is easier that heaven and earth shall pass away than one tittle should fall away from my words." For this canonical Luke has 'than for one tittle of the Law should fall.' But this can hardly have been what Lk. intended to say, for this verse stands between two verses which accentuate with the greatest possible emphasis the abolition of the law.
http://books.google.com/books?id=KuMPAA ... 22&f=false
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:13 pm
by Stephan Huller
I am on board with the idea that many of the references in Tertullian come from an original author who cited from his own canon while attacking Marcion exactly as Ephrem does (cf. Commentary on the Gospel of Concord trans McCarthy). This is why Galatians appears first in Tertullian and then invalidates Epiphanius's inferences from the same material. This would also explain why the author says that Marcion 'cut things' which only appear in Matthew etc.
Yet De Recta in Deum Fide has the Marcionite cite from his own gospel, has the Catholic representative pull out a Marcionite gospel many times in the dialogue. De Recta has problems. It too was reworked (likely from a continuous narrative which only featured Megethius to one which has many figures join the debate). But the core text agrees at least a dozen times with observations made by Tertullian and Epiphanius as does Ephrem. There is an underlying elephant here being 'felt' by a number of blind, groping hands.
De Recta in Deum Fide represents a source independent of the Irenaeus-Tertullian-Epiphanius chain. Clement of Alexandria is also independent (but rarely cites specific passages from the Marcionite gospel). Ephrem is yet another. Philosophumena is yet another (even though much of the work knows of Adv Haer. Eznik yet another.
The problem is still inescapable Bernard. Irenaeus's testimony can't be accurate. Once you posit that Tertullian and Epiphanius rely on a source which compiled a list of 'readings' from the Marcionite gospel and that source used a Diatessaron (which is inescapable from the evidence) and then this original text was rework a number of times by those influenced by Irenaeus's claim between Marcion and Luke, we still arrive at the same conclusion, the original author - like Ephrem - necessarily thought Marcion's gospel was close enough to a 'Diatessaron' that he felt comfortable citing his own text against him (as Ephrem does).
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:16 pm
by Bernard Muller
to Huller,
I wasn't talking about you 'reading' the passage specifically but scholars generally. I am over insulting you. You gave me the gift of this investigation. As I said, I will be forever grateful to you. Seriously.
If you are, why don't you slow down the pace of your dumps, so I have time to do some research and write some intelligent answers.
Why are you trying to achieve? Win by exhausting me, or because I cannot keep up looking at all your claims (therefore implying I approve them), prevent me to study what you put forward because of not enough time?
And what about these ultra positive claims you use for titles. What follows are not clear-cut supports for them, far from that. It's just propaganda.
Cordially, Bernard
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:22 pm
by Stephan Huller
Only you are trying to win this 'argument.' I've moved on and am now trying to assemble the arguments for 'more than Luke' in the Marcionite gospel. I am no longer combating you and in the beginning I wasn't trying to make you 'believe' in this idea. I just didn't like that you wouldn't even consider it. I react badly to that. It's a rather knee jerk reaction. I am obsessed in a stupid way with trying to get to 100 for some reason (which will probably mean the arguments will get weaker and sloppier just to fill the hole before I lose interest).
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 10:48 pm
by Bernard Muller
to Huller,
I don't think anyone has ever gathered up all the hints of other passages in Marcion before. Head has 5 I think. The other guy had 4 or maybe 6. It is clearly a lot more than anyone ever suspected. And I am nowhere near finished yet
Did you check these "hints" are not on the same passages? Did you check these passages are hinted to be in gMarcion according to the primary evidence?
Cordially, Bernard
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:09 pm
by Stephan Huller
I am trying to gather up all the suggestions (save for Matt 1:23 which I think doesn't even mention or intimate Marcion) and then I will group them in many different ways.
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:17 pm
by Bernard Muller
I am on board with the idea that many of the references in Tertullian come from an original author who cited from his own canon while attacking Marcion exactly as Ephrem does (cf. Commentary on the Gospel of Concord trans McCarthy). This is why Galatians appears first in Tertullian and then invalidates Epiphanius's inferences from the same material. This would also explain why the author says that Marcion 'cut things' which only appear in Matthew etc.
Yet De Recta in Deum Fide has the Marcionite cite from his own gospel, has the Catholic representative pull out a Marcionite gospel many times in the dialogue. De Recta has problems. It too was reworked (likely from a continuous narrative which only featured Megethius to one which has many figures join the debate). But the core text agrees at least a dozen times with observations made by Tertullian and Epiphanius as does Ephrem. There is an underlying elephant here being 'felt' by a number of blind, groping hands.
De Recta in Deum Fide represents a source independent of the Irenaeus-Tertullian-Epiphanius chain. Clement of Alexandria is also independent (but rarely cites specific passages from the Marcionite gospel). Ephrem is yet another. Philosophumena is yet another (even though much of the work knows of Adv Haer. Eznik yet another.
The problem is still inescapable Bernard. Irenaeus's testimony can't be accurate. Once you posit that Tertullian and Epiphanius rely on a source which compiled a list of 'readings' from the Marcionite gospel and that source used a Diatessaron (which is inescapable from the evidence) and then this original text was rework a number of times by those influenced by Irenaeus's claim between Marcion and Luke, we still arrive at the same conclusion, the original author - like Ephrem - necessarily thought Marcion's gospel was close enough to a 'Diatessaron' that he felt comfortable citing his own text against him (as Ephrem does).
I am not going to participate to that thread anymore. You already made up your mind and you do not give a damn about my comments, just like I did not make any.
I let you gallop with your hobby horse and make unsubstantiated claims based on very biased interpretations. Continue these dumps of yours, which are only about the opinions of modern scholars, which you consider evidence for your cause. The clear-cut evidence from Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanius is ignored by you. Anything goes (which you demonstrated so well for Dionysius), just like Irenaeus (and many others) jumping on what Papias wrote in order to attribute an author to gMatthew.
You are certainly not looking for a dialogue.
Cordially, Bernard
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:36 pm
by Stephan Huller
I have been very complementary to you after you stopped attacking the very idea of the thread. I probably could have picked a better title initially. But let's be honest, you only hung in here because you know you are probably wrong about the Marcion gospel simply being 'cut Luke.' Nevertheless I owe you for prompting me to assemble all this information. But I don't want to keep you doing something you don't want to do. Bye.
Re: Only Fantastically Amazing People Think We Have The Ur-C
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:50 pm
by Stephan Huller
I think 76 should be changed - it is better as an example of Luke coming after Marcion.
Joseph Tyson - "A well-attested verbal difference between the Gospel of Marcion and canonical Luke is in Gos. Mar. 16:17. Marcion's gospel apparently read: "But it is easier for heaven and earth to go away than for one of my words to fall.""2 In canonical Luke at this point we have: "It is easier for heaven and earth to go away, than for one stroke of the Torah to fall" (Luke 16:17). Later, however, canonical Luke and Marcion seem to agree on wording that supports Marcion's reading: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my word remains forever" (Gos. Mar. 21:33 = Luke 21:33: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away"). For Marcion it is Jesus' words that are eternal; canonical Luke has two sayings, one supporting the eternality of Torah and one in agreement with Marcion.