https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Where do you start with this? Galatians has been constructed to be a discussion of the origin of the gospel. Do you notice that the chapter begins with a Catholic assertion about the origin of the gospel?In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, the mystery of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had68 its own authentic materials,69 by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. [2] Well, but70 Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles71 ) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,"72 as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character73 of those Gospels which are published as genuine74 and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their company75 from respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself "became all things to all men,"76 that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from what he taught. [4] And, in like manner, if false apostles also crept in, their character too showed itself in their insisting upon circumcision and the Jewish ceremonies. So that it was not on account of their preaching, but of their conversation, that they were marked by St. Paul, who would with equal impartiality have marked them with censure, if they had erred at all with respect to God the Creator or His Christ. Each several case will therefore have to be distinguished. When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are censured simply for inconsistency of walk, composed the Gospel in a pure form,77 but false apostles interpolated their true record; and if our own copies have been made from these,78 where will that genuine text79 of the apostle's writings be found which has not suffered adulteration? Which was it that enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It is either completely blotted out, as if by some deluge----being obliterated by the inundation of falsifiers----in which case even Marcion does not possess the true Gospel; [5] or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one, that is, of the apostles? How, then, does that agree with ours, which is said not to be (the work) of apostles, but of Luke? Or else, again, if that which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it does agree with ours (which, of course,80 is, also adulterated in its title), then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in its title.
Why is this significant? Because by the last sentence of the section it is clear the Marcionites did not accept the Catholic proposition regarding - i.e. the priority of Luke. We read again in Evans:It is another matter if in Marcion's opinion the Christian religion, with its sacred content, begins with the discipleship of Luke.
So the only think that is known for certain is that the Marcionite gospel was not 'according to Luke.' The author says that it really is a falsified version of Luke. But he makes clear the Marcionite would have denied this proposition.Or if that which Marcion has in use is not at once to be attributed to Luke because it does agree with ours—though they allege ours is falsified in respect of its title—then it does belong to the apostles. And in that case ours too, which is in agreement with that other, no less belongs to the apostles, even if it too is falsified in its title.
implies the following:Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine74 and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them.
Hey, you're the one who triumphantly trumpets your ⅔. (See sig.)Secret Alias wrote:What's the equivalent to Pavlov's dog when it comes to not seeing what's there?
I'm thrilled by this! A wonderful display of rectal tunnel vision!Secret Alias wrote:You guys
Perhaps you should carefully have read the o.p. of the thread that caused this knee-jerk thread and responded constructively there. But no. What we got was: D-i-i-n-n-g-g (Marcion)! Slobber, slobber, slobber.Secret Alias wrote:aren't 'discovering' any 'Marcionite recension.' You're finding bits and pieces of a lot of things (Marcion, the report about Marcion, the improvement of the report about Marcion etc) in the ancient garbage dump.
So the reason you make groundless assertions is because I "never address the question of the apparatus for determining whether or not a given passage is Marcionite or not". Is that a reasonable reaction on your part? I mean your flow of nonsense statements about me? Where did you get the notion of "never" in this context? From the o.p. of one thread aimed at starting a general discussion about Marcion and Galatians? Will you ever stop the baseless knee-jerk reactions? I set out in the o.p. to touch on a number of problems in dealing with the topic in order to stimulate discussion.Secret Alias wrote:But if your reaction is typical my behavior might be explainable. You never address the question of the apparatus for determining whether or not a given passage is Marcionite or not. You never address the problems raised by the author's original statement at the beginning of Book One that the present work has been rewritten at least three times.
Let me repeat, the thread you are frothing about dealt not with his gospel, but his Galatians.Secret Alias wrote:All of this is ignored so that we can pretend we are 'getting at' Marcion's gospel.
You may be right, but you seem incapable on entering into a discourse on anything regarding Marcion, so whether you are right or not gets lost in the shit you spread around. Imagine how onlookers see your presenting Irenaeus as mountainman presented Eusebius. Imagine them looking at your insistence on the nomina sacra IS = Ishu and XS = Chrestos. For some reason Peter hasn't got a hobby-horse smiley. Your lack of consideration of what you read and your lack of reasonable communication skills is your undoing.Secret Alias wrote:This is simply not true. It's just that scholars like to pretend that they are accomplishing something. We aren't getting at Marcion. We can't get at Marcion because there isn't enough good information to draw from.
Same difference. Galatians is about Marcion's gospel according to the statement in Adversus Marcionem.Let me repeat, the thread you are frothing about dealt not with his gospel, but his Galatians.
Well it's an important distinction. If you changed your OP to 'readings related to Marcion' I would let it slide. Or if you chose, you could examine each apparatus each author uses for determining whether a given reading is Marcionite or not. But if you are going to continue to speak about Marcion's this or that I will continue to object (but at least give me credit for having this argument AWAY FROM YOUR THREAD).You may be right, but you seem incapable on entering into a discourse on anything regarding Marcion, so whether you are right or not gets lost in the shit you spread around.