Page 2 of 3
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:36 am
by spin
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:29 am
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 4:38 am But it is
only this sort of endeavor, ie working with text construction, that has a hope of giving priority.
When Britt & Wingo have applied their statistical tools to the Pauline epistles, they have found that,
independently from their research, Bob Price resulted correct
a lot of times despite of the fact that Bob Price based his arguments only on assigning any portion of epistles to this or that rival Christology according to his own intuition.
I am making something of similar here: if I see that a theological interpretation is correct on the Marcionite priority, then
probably the textual arguments will support it independently from it.
If you want
only textual arguments, then you have to consult Klinghardt.
It can't be a coincidence that Klinghardt's results fit so much to the Marcionite interpretations given by Vinzent to *Ev.
Sorry, there's little here to deal with. Not Price, nor Britt & Wingo. Klinghardt doesn't actually bring much to the discussion. Who has done the textual analysis that gives *Ev priority??
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:37 am
by Giuseppe
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:36 am Who has done the textual analysis that gives *Ev priority??
Matthias Klinghardt.
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:38 am
by Secret Alias
It would seem you are in denial that, from the remnants that exist that purport to being from the gospel that Marcion used
You're ignoring that Irenaeus is Tertullian's original source. That Marcion's gospel is said to be like Luke could in theory have something to do with the shape and contour of Marcion's original gospel. But since the context in which Irenaeus makes these claims assumes the pre-existence of four canonical gospels neatly divided between four pre-existent "heresies" the likelihood that the relationship with Luke is exaggerated is also high. We've all read these heresiological treatises. The Philosophumena says that each one of the Church Fathers "stole" from the ancient philosophers. Marcion Empedocles. But according to Clement Marcion was a Platonist. These claims are equally worthless. Marcion didn't steal from Empedocles nor was his gospel like Luke any more than it was like Matthew or Mark. This is all rhetorical nonsense. We choose to "run with" Tertullian's nonsense because as scholars we love data and Tertullian provides us with a lot of that.
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:42 am
by spin
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:37 am
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:36 am Who has done the textual analysis that gives *Ev priority??
Matthias Klinghardt.
OK, cite the work that does the actual analysis. I think you are kidding yourself. (Certainly not: "The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem:
A New Suggestion". Besides a pretty diagram here, nothing: "Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament:
Catalyst or Consequence?")
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:42 am
by Secret Alias
The arguments that Marcion's gospel was "also like Matthew" is strangely embedded in the early chapters of Adversus Marcionem and throughout the text (borrowing from Justin's lost treatise). They are of course ignored because it ruins the fabric of the "Lukeness" of the Marcionite gospel argument. Scholars want to believe the texts they study. They want to believe that written works always reflect an underlying reality rather than being complete nonsense or literary static. If you spend the time going through Tertullian's treatises you will know they are little more than literary static. Read Against Praxeas. We have no idea who Praxeas is or what the consistent argument is throughout the text. It's just a hodgepodge of recycled arguments like all of Tertullian's treatises.
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:48 am
by Giuseppe
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:42 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:37 am
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:36 am Who has done the textual analysis that gives *Ev priority??
Matthias Klinghardt.
OK, cite the work that does the actual analysis. I think you are kidding yourself. (Certainly not: "The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem:
A New Suggestion". Besides a pretty diagram here, nothing: "Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament:
Catalyst or Consequence?")
This
book in two volumes. It includes also a (cruel) criticism of Roth.
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:54 am
by Secret Alias
Think about the process of writing a dissertation on Against Praxeas. Someone could spend years trying to make sense of this text, but the one perspective that never seems to get considered is: "this is nonsense." The reason? The academic system pushes us to produce overblown analyses, like Roth's treatise. The system is structured to turn "bullshit" into something that looks like gold. It's never designed to support the conclusion that "this is nonsense." No one stands in front of a panel of academics and argues, "This is nonsense." In theory, it’s possible, but when you submit papers to journals, they’re reviewed by people who have already written on the subject, and their perspective was certainly not, "this is nonsense." It’s all like academic hoarding—we take everything so seriously, even when it doesn’t deserve it. That Irenaeus SAID that Marcion stole a copy of Luke and made his gospel from it is one thing. That has been debated. What I am suggesting is that Irenaeus never claimed to actually have a copy of this Marcionite falsified Luke. He actually tells the truth in Adversus Haereses. He says "I will argue from canonical Luke against Marcion because I know he falsified Luke." This is a pathetic argument which Tertullian had to clean up. The original argument was nonsense.
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:57 am
by spin
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:48 am
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:42 am
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:37 am
spin wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:36 am Who has done the textual analysis that gives *Ev priority??
Matthias Klinghardt.
OK, cite the work that does the actual analysis. I think you are kidding yourself. (Certainly not: "The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem:
A New Suggestion". Besides a pretty diagram here, nothing: "Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament:
Catalyst or Consequence?")
This
book in two volumes. It includes also a (cruel) criticism of Roth.
Just started on it.
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:59 am
by spin
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Sep 06, 2024 5:54 am
Think about the process of writing a dissertation on Against Praxeas. Someone could spend years trying to make sense of this text, but the one perspective that never seems to get considered is: "this is nonsense." The reason? The academic system pushes us to produce overblown analyses, like Roth's treatise. The system is structured to turn "bullshit" into something that looks like gold. It's never designed to support the conclusion that "this is nonsense." No one stands in front of a panel of academics and argues, "This is nonsense." In theory, it’s possible, but when you submit papers to journals, they’re reviewed by people who have already written on the subject, and their perspective was certainly not, "this is nonsense." It’s all like academic hoarding—we take everything so seriously, even when it doesn’t deserve it. That Irenaeus SAID that Marcion stole a copy of Luke and made his gospel from it is one thing. That has been debated. What I am suggesting is that Irenaeus never claimed to actually have a copy of this Marcionite falsified Luke. He actually tells the truth in Adversus Haereses. He says "I will argue from canonical Luke against Marcion because I know he falsified Luke." This is a pathetic argument which Tertullian had to clean up. The original argument was nonsense.
I don't find much here that actually shows that we should reject holus-bolus the scraps attributed to the *Ev.
(Never ever used "holus-bolus" in a written sentence before.)
Re: Another argument supporting Marcionite priority of *Ev over the Canonical Gospels
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2024 6:03 am
by spin
And what's overblown about Roth's analysis?