Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

is there any evidence that the Marcionites knew or referred to any of the Gospels or fore-runners to them?

What kind of a stupid question is that? Read Tertullian if not Irenaeus etc.

Stephan,

Matthew 22:15-16 ties the Pharisees to the Herodians:

"Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians."

Stephan Huller wrote:

is there any evidence that the Marcionites knew or referred to any of the Gospels or fore-runners to them?

What kind of a stupid question is that? Read Tertullian if not Irenaeus etc.

which works?

'the Gospel' and 'the Apostle'

Matthew 22:15-16 ties the Pharisees to the Herodians:

And what does that have to do with the Marcionites? in his new book Klinghardt argues that the 'Marcionite Gospel' was first. In his previous work (Gesetz und Volk Gottes http://books.google.com/books?id=dqHgm6 ... 22&f=false) he regards the gospel as a second Mark or Proto-Luke which ultimately was an altered and enlarged re-edition of Mark, which included the material found in e.g. Luke 6:20-49; 7:1-28.36-50; 15:1-10; 16:1-17:4 etc. I tend to think Klinghardt's work supports the identification of the Marcionite gospel as Secret Mark but that's another story.

Stephan,

You wrote (in response to my citation of Mt. 22:15-16 that ties the Pharisees to the Herodians):

"And what does that have to do with the Marcionites? "

I'm not sure. I was responding to your comment that:

"No evidence to suggest any of this was as present in the Marcionite text. Cmp Mark 3:6 with Luke:

But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were furious and began to discuss with one another what they might do to Jesus.

and Matthew:

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus."

I only meant that, unlike the Mk. 3:6 reference that ties the Pharisees to the Herodians but is not mentioned in Matthew and Luke, Mt. 22:15-16 appears to reflect the Mk. 12:13 reference. I was hoping you could explicate what, if anything, that might have to do with the Marcionite gospel.

But GIVEN that the Marcionite gospel came first AND the Marcionite gospel is argued to have related to Luke AND there is no evidence that the Marcionite gospel differed from Luke in having no reference to the Herodians AND Luke takes an positive interest in 'Herod' (Luke 23:15) I don't see how anyone can argue that Luke is anything but pro-Herodian. Mark and Matthew developed as a reaction against that.

MrMacSon wrote:re carbon-dating - It is possible document materials were written on or re-used long after the material was made ie. the writings are not as old as the material

As far as I know there is no direct literary evidence for stockpiling of raw writing surface materials, but it is in theory possible. Many suppose that most folks bought the materials at market as needed or had it made for the occasion, as if this would make any significant period of time between manufacture and use minimal, but I don't think this assumption can be justified.

For instance, Menachem's party seized Masada from the Romans by stratagem, where they found a large arsenal of weapons from Herod's former army, stored away to supply any army a future Roman appointed king might need to raise on the fly. There was also a large supply of food (probably grain but also dried fruits, nuts, etc) that Herod kept on hand for one of those moments when he needed to take refuge from rebels like Antigonus II. There were also similar stockpiles in other fortresses across Herod's former territory.

Some of this material could be as much as 70 years old, or older, by the time the rebels got ahold of it, although Agrippa I of course had control of it for 4 years around 40 CE. We know they used the weapons stored at Masada in the early stages of the war, and the forces of Simon the son of Giora also had access to it when he was given refuge at Masada by Menachem's kinsman who continued to hold it until nearly 74 CE.

While I would not want to eat 70 year old grain and figs (the Roman garrison probably used the food resources and restocked it periodically no doubt), why should we not also suppose that there were stockpiles of writing materials and other necessities (building materials, wood beams, awning cloth, clothing and vestments, skins of varying kinds used to protect structures against the projectiles of siege engines, etc) available long after manufacture?

If you think about it, the likelihood of writing materials being produced decades before they might be used is not impossible. It will just depend on where you acquired it. Local market products will likely be more recently produced, but even stockpiles need to be replenished periodically. Local merchants could have bought older materials as "army surplus" from the vendors who restocked arsenals and fortresses with fresh provisions.

DCH (off sick today)

DCHindley wrote:If you think about it, the likelihood of writing materials being produced decades before they might be used is not impossible. It will just depend on where you acquired it. Local market products will likely be more recently produced, but even stockpiles need to be replenished periodically. Local merchants could have bought older materials as "army surplus" from the vendors who restocked arsenals and fortresses with fresh provisions.

How likely can you imagine it to be in a scribal school? I mean, if you think about it.

And then there is the problem with assuming that the surviving manuscript is also the exemplar. The carbon dating doesn't determine the origin of the literary composition just the date of the writing material. Even if someone did indeed write the text on 70 year old paper - a proposition hard enough to take seriously - it is impossible to believe that the autograph, the original composition, was written on near ancient stock. The 1 century BCE date is just a round approximation. We are always getting bogged down with arguments over probability. The first century BCE date is a safe bet but it could even be older than the carbon dating, perhaps almost certainly older. The first century CE dating is a fringe theory developed only to support an even stupider application - i.e. James the Just.