Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 8:38 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:30 pm
The only thing I might add (if we do stick to only Galatians being post-Acts) is why would someone who knew Acts make a letter that makes Paul look out of step with Jewish Christian leaders?

Acts is already anti-marcionite hence the author of Acts has already corrupted *Ev by making it Luke. The next reaction by Marcion is 100% expected: Galatians.

I don't see Acts as being anti-Marcionite (do you have any examples of this?). I date it c. 100 CE (for a number of reasons), though I'm comfortable with it being as late as the 120's or maybe even 130's or 140's. But closer to 100 CE is my guess.

While Irenaeus is the first to mention Acts and wrote in the mid to late 100's CE, he had been a Christian since Polycarp's time (who had been active since the early 100's). So I don't see Irenaeus introducing Acts to the world, it's just that he was the first to mention it.

It's like how Papias is the first to mention Mark and Matthew, but we know that those gospels existed before him because he learned about them from Christian elders. Papias didn't invent Mark and Matthew, and I don't think Irenaeus invented Acts.

And for me Acts has to post-date Josephus' Antiquities, so somewhere between c. 95 CE and the 140's works for me, and I don't think Marcion was on the scene long enough (as a "Marcionite") by the 140's to have needed to be "countered" by anyone.

I gather Marcion was still a "normal" Christian up to the early 140's, and that his father had been a "normal" bishop before him (or so the story goes), and I figure it took time for his influence to spread to a point that it needed to be countered by "normal" Christians. He was still alive in Justin' Martyr's time (150's CE), and that Justin took it upon himself to counter Marcion could indicate that it hadn't been done (or done effectively) until then.

So for me, Acts existed before Marcion, and when Marcionism had gained traction by the 150's, his contemporaries countered him.

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 05, 2024 1:56 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 8:38 pm

John2 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 2:30 pm
The only thing I might add (if we do stick to only Galatians being post-Acts) is why would someone who knew Acts make a letter that makes Paul look out of step with Jewish Christian leaders?

Acts is already anti-marcionite hence the author of Acts has already corrupted *Ev by making it Luke. The next reaction by Marcion is 100% expected: Galatians.

I don't see Acts as being anti-Marcionite (do you have any examples of this?).

in order to claim that Acts precedes Marcion, you have to prove that Luke-Acts precedes *Ev, against the opposed thesis that *Ev (used by Marcion) preceded the expanded version (Luke + Acts).

Hence for me Acts has no more value than the genealogy and birth story added on *Ev by "Luke". Acts don't disturb me at all.

instead of saying Galatians postdates Acts, why not say the epistles are contemporary with the emergence of competing traditions?

"Galatians" postdates disagreements on what the acts of the apostles were, not the text "the acts of the apostles"?

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 1:43 am not the text "the acts of the apostles"?

the claim is just that Galatians postdates the entire text known as Acts of the Apostles.

if you're arguing that Marcion precedes Acts doesn't saying that Galatians postdates Acts contradicts that?
because Galatians was the key Marcionite text, appearing first in his epistle collection

I have to assume you're not contradicting yourself so what you must be saying is the Marcionites pre-existed Acts and were still writing or redacting the epistles when Acts was written.

davidmartin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 10:23 am what you must be saying is the Marcionites pre-existed Acts and were still writing or redacting the epistles when Acts was written.

Precisely. They (Marcion and "Luke") were reacting blow for blow over a short interval of time. Probably the presence of both in Rome helped the "conversation".

ok. Thomas would be opposed to the epistles if it knew them. It seems to know only 'Judaisers', for a while i thought the opponents of the Odes were Pauline types but now i think they're similar to the ones of Thomas and they don't know the epistles either. But to trace the origins 'through' the epistles back to Marcion should in theory 'meet up' with attempts to trace the origins through Thomas, so your view here is quite radical and interesting

By attributing the epistles to the Marcion's school, I am not going to 'trace the origins', unfortunately. Marcion was unaware that Pilate was an allusion to the numerical symbology associated to the number 40: if he had know it, he would have removed Pilate at all from *Ev. Since Marcion didn't like the Book of Exodus where that specific numerical symbology is found.

This fact alone proves that Marcion didn't write *Ev, but he limited himself to add some episodes here and there in it.

ADDENDA:
That is also a good evidence for Marcion having not removed the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, quintessence of the replacement theology, from *Ev. If Marcion had removed that Parable, then he would have removed also Pilate, since Pilate is implied directly by the replacement theology. Denial of the conclusion implies the denial of the premise.

sure, but it looks like there's a camp that was going away from having to observe the law, and another one the opposite direction.
what the epistles and gospels have in common is opposition to the latter (Pillars tradition), but Thomas only opposes the latter when it would also oppose the epistles if it knew them. There could be a scenario 1) Original thing 2) Pillars tradition 3) Epistles 4) 2 and 3 combined
I see hints that 1) is opposing 2) but not 3) because it doesn't know it