M. David Litwa
41:30
The Jewish Bible is the sacred scripture for Jews, not Christians.
Marcion is the first who said we need our own sacred scripture.
Our authority is Jesus and Jesus alone.
Jesus brings a new revelation and a new deity and that’s why we are no longer Jews.
Mark Bilby
It was not just the destruction of the temple that was the big rupture (pivot point) but Hadrian’s anti-Jewish policies.
BUT Jesus was a teacher of Torah.
M. David Litwa
When Marcion came to Rome with his big gift, Marcion was a big event.
Mark Bilby
Pliny is the first person to use Christians which is to be understood as messianics.
M. David Litwa
Jesus never viewed Marcion as an apparition or phantasm.
BUT Paul does say Jesus came in the likeness of human flesh.
Tertullian makes mountains out of molehills.
DID MARCION REDACT HIS GOSPEL?
Mark Bilby
No.
Marcion does reference Jewish scriptures in a positive way.
BUT you will not find in Marcion’s gospel: Jesus did this to fulfill this prophecy or that prophecy. That’s the reduction.
There was an editorial program but, basically, the heresiologists were wrong about Marcion.
Steefen
There is one more Super Chat. I’m picking up at 1:02:09 of 1:11:45
Robert said
Steefen said
If Marcion’s gospel was the first gospel,
there is no way, I’m accepting the historical Jesus lived in the late 20s C.E.But that was already your opinion when you thought Mark was the first gospel written around 70 CE. Contrary to Carrier’s 30% probability for an historical Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate, you literally assigned that a 0% probability.
Steefen
Mark’s gospel still seems to be the first gospel.
Mark Bilby says Marcion removed phrases such as Jesus did this, that, or the the other thing to fulfill Jewish prophecies.
Steefen said
Robert said
Steefen said
If Marcion’s gospel was the first gospel,
there is no way, I’m accepting the historical Jesus lived in the late 20s C.E.But that was already your opinion when you thought Mark was the first gospel written around 70 CE. Contrary to Carrier’s 30% probability for an historical Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate, you literally assigned that a 0% probability.
Steefen
Mark’s gospel still seems to be the first gospel.
Mark Bilby says Marcion removed phrases such as Jesus did this, that, or the the other thing to fulfill Jewish prophecies.
No, he does not, he says that later editors added those phrases. Reading the term in the modern sense of blacking out sensitive material sometimes tripped me up too.
Robert said
Something weird has happened. A long thread about Ammon’s nonsense has very recently morphed into a potentially interesting discussion of Mark Bilby’s theory of Marcionite priority and the development of the gospel tradition. Perhaps I should move this to a new thread?
I’m a bit of a Marcion skeptic myself but any time spent on Ammon is a complete waste. So yeah maybe you should start a new thread.
Steefen said
Stephen
Steefen:
Well, you cannot have a Luke gospel written before 100 CE!
Why?
Steefen:
Marcion’s gospel is not Proto-Luke with Canonical Luke following Proto-Luke?
If Marcion had some form of Luke then this indicates that it was written before Marcion got his hands on it. Marcion’s dates are usually estimated between 85ish and 160. That would fit quite comfortably into the traditional scenario that some form of Luke might have been composed in the 80s or 90s.
Robert said
Something weird has happened. A long thread about Ammon’s nonsense has very recently morphed into a potentially interesting discussion of Mark Bilby’s theory of Marcionite priority and the development of the gospel tradition. Perhaps I should move this to a new thread?
Page 8, comment 150 about comment Comment 66.
I’m glad we have this thread about Ammon: it led to this.
Steefen said
Robert said
Something weird has happened. A long thread about Ammon’s nonsense has very recently morphed into a potentially interesting discussion of Mark Bilby’s theory of Marcionite priority and the development of the gospel tradition. Perhaps I should move this to a new thread?
Page 8, comment 150 about comment Comment 66.
This is not an unreasonable starting point … there is no discussion of Ammon past this point, and while there are some Glen and Grace videos, there are also popularizing videos by actual scholars, Dr Tabor & Dr. Ehrman, which provide alternative views to those of Bilby on Mark.
Steefen:
Mark Bilby says Marcion removed phrases such as Jesus did this, that, or the the other thing to fulfill Jewish prophecies.
BruceRM:
No, he does not, he says that later editors added those phrases.
Reading the term in the modern sense of blacking out sensitive material sometimes tripped me up too.
Steefen:
What follows is what Mark Bilby says beginning at 58:57.
Mark Bilby 58:57:
I published Greek editions to data sets of all the past reconstructions of Marcion’s gospels, so you can now compare them very carefully. They’re very different–all the reconstructions.
In any case, to this particular question, Did Marcion redact his gospel?
That is certainly what Tertullian and other Orthodox apologists want us to believe about him. It’s just that there’s hardly any real evidence for that.
Usually it amounts to a case that Marcion was cutting out the Jewish scriptures; but,
if you actually read Marcion’s gospel, you find that he’s continually referencing the Jewish scriptures in a positive way.
So, what Marcion’s gospel is lacking is a bunch of proof texting, salvation historical, explanations and expansions of the Jesus tradition where Jesus did this to fulfill this prophecy and Jesus did this to fulfill this prophecy. That’s the redaction.
So all that salvation historical Septuagintal layering into the story of Jesus is the redaction. Jason BeDuhn has a great article on this called “The Myth of Marcion’s Redactor.” So, I’d encourage you to read that.
= = = =
Steefen:
Mark Bilby says Marcion removed phrases such as Jesus did this, that, or the the other thing to fulfill Jewish prophecies.
Needs to change to:
Marcion’s gospel does not include the verses “Jesus did this to fulfill this prophecy.”
Marcion did not include those verses.
Steefen said
Steefen:
Mark Bilby says Marcion removed phrases such as Jesus did this, that, or the the other thing to fulfill Jewish prophecies.
BruceRM:
No, he does not, he says that later editors added those phrases.
Reading the term in the modern sense of blacking out sensitive material sometimes tripped me up too.
Steefen:
What follows is what Mark Bilby says beginning at 58:57.
Which at the end of the transcript confirms what I just said:
So all that salvation historical Septuagintal layering into the story of Jesus is the redaction. Jason BeDuhn has a great article on this called “The Myth of Marcion’s Redactor.” So, I’d encourage you to read that.
Explicitly and without ambiguity, he is saying that the redactor is the compiler of Luke-Acts, not Marcion or an earlier redactor of a proto-Luke that Marcion received.
So rather than: “Marcion did not include those verses.“, what you wrote before, “Marcion does not include those verses,” or perhaps, “Marcion did not have those verses”.
The original tends to convey the heresiologist’s claim. The first of those two alternatives is a dry statement of the absence, the second rather conveys the hypothesis of the Marcionite scholars, whether in the Vinzent and Bilby vein or the work similar to Litwa’s.
It was the Heresiologists who claimed that Marcion had those verses available, from the canonical Luke, and chose not to include them, so “did not include” … the hypothesis of Bilby, shared with others, is that those verses were not available to include at the time that the Evangelion was composed, because they are later additions to the Evangelion to form Luke, so “did not have”.
Google AI Overview
, though less frequently than Matthew. The clearest instance is Mark 14:49, where Jesus states his arrest must happen to fulfill the scriptures. Other examples include:
- Mark 1:15: Jesus proclaims, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand”.
- Mark 12:10-11: Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-23 regarding the stone the builders rejected.
- Mark 14:27: Jesus cites Zechariah 13:7 regarding the scattering of the sheep.
- Mark 15:24: The casting of lots for his clothing fulfills Psalm 22:18.
So, what Marcion’s gospel is lacking
Steefen said
Google AI OverviewThe Gospel of Mark includes statements that Jesus fulfilled scripture
, though less frequently than Matthew. The clearest instance is Mark 14:49, where Jesus states his arrest must happen to fulfill the scriptures. Other examples include:Mark 1:15: Jesus proclaims, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand”.
Mark 12:10-11: Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-23 regarding the stone the builders rejected.
Mark 14:27: Jesus cites Zechariah 13:7 regarding the scattering of the sheep.
Mark 15:24: The casting of lots for his clothing fulfills Psalm 22:18.While Mark does not explicitly use the formula “this was done to fulfill” as often, he shows the events of Jesus’ life, particularly the passion, as the fulfillment of divine prophecy.
= = =
Mark Bilby:
So, what Marcion’s gospel is lacking
is a bunch of proof texting, salvation historical, explanations and expansions of the Jesus tradition where Jesus did this to fulfill this prophecy and Jesus did this to fulfill this prophecy. That’s the redaction.
Note here that the Google AI regarding Mark adds nothing, because the point of Bilby’s statement is that canonical Luke-Acts is adding those things. In Bilby’s argument, the reason that the Evangalion lacked those things is because it was the original, and those things were not in the original.
BruceR
The Google AI regarding Mark adds nothing
Steefen
for you.
The Google AI regarding Mark adds nothing for you.
I’ve already explored your supposed correction at Comment 186 and found it insignificant.
So, what Marcion’s gospel is lacking
The difference between
Marcion removed the references (when the references are in Mark as shown in Google AI)
and
the references are not in Marcion’s gospel
is insignificant, BruceR.
= = = =
Google AI Overview:
Evangelikon) generally omitted or altered passages suggesting Jesus fulfilled Hebrew scripture, as he believed the Jewish Creator God was distinct from the supreme God of love. While it retained some indirect allusions to scripture, it specifically removed references to Jesus as the Messiah expected by Jewish prophecies.
- Removal of Messianic Context: Marcion’s gospel removed explicit claims of fulfillment and cut references to Jesus being the “Son of David,” distancing him from Old Testament prophecy.
- Redaction of Luke: Marcion used a redacted version of the Gospel of Luke that began abruptly in Capernaum, skipping the birth narrative and genealogy that linked Jesus to1 Old Testament history.
- Rejection of the Law: He removed or altered passages where Jesus affirmed the Law, such as replacing “the Law” with “his words” in certain contexts.
- Exceptions: Despite his rejection of the Hebrew Bible, some indirect allusions that implied fulfillment remained in his text, possibly overlooked or deemed less troublesome than direct, marked quotations.
For a more in-depth look, see this discussion on the earlywritings.com forum.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Secret Alias » Thu Oct 17, 2024 8:40 am
3. There’s a striking parallel, one I’ve mentioned before, between this idea of a “stolen gospel” and Clement’s report of the Carpocratian myth. According to this myth, a gospel—originating in Alexandria—was stolen. Clement’s community tolerated this gospel so thoroughly that they never directly referenced its origins with Mark. I would argue that Peter’s reported attitude toward Mark’s gospel (as relayed by Clement, likely drawing from Papias) is also similar. Peter, as the tradition has it, didn’t necessarily endorse Mark’s written text, but neither did he outright reject it.
4. If this story about Peter’s ambivalence toward Mark’s gospel comes from Papias, as many scholars believe, then Clement is simply repeating Papias’s account. This reflects not only Clement’s lukewarm attitude toward the gospels outside of Mark but also, in my view, Papias’s own ambivalence toward Mark. After all, Papias clearly preferred Matthew, despite acknowledging Mark’s gospel.
In other words, I continue to see “Luke” as the result of a binary tension that took shape in the mid-second century, as different Christian communities grew more ecumenical. This growing tolerance wasn’t limited to Papias—Irenaeus, too, contributed by falsifying Galatians 2—suggesting that Markan communities could learn to live with Matthew, and vice versa. By this point, communities that used Matthew were becoming more tolerant of Mark. In this context, Marcionites and Ebionites stood as polar opposites—“mirrors” of one another. The Marcionites claimed “ONLY Paul’s gospel”—which they equated with Mark—while the Ebionites, according to Irenaeus, insisted on “ONLY Matthew.”
There must have been numerous proto-Mark (Marcionite) and proto-Matthew communities in existence up to Irenaeus’s time. Irenaeus’s genius lay in crafting the notion that Paul’s gospel wasn’t Mark but Luke (hence Acts’ depiction of Paul favoring Luke over Mark).
Through this clever reworking of Marcionite interpretations of Galatians, Irenaeus never denies that Paul refers to a written gospel, as the Marcionites understood it. However, he recasts the narrative:
Paul is now presented as someone who ultimately handed over Luke to the Jerusalem Church and calmly accepted Matthew, with no cause for alarm.
Steefen:
Luke has verses that do not appear in Mark.
Mark did not have Jesus eating after resurrecting, Luke and Marcion’s gospel did have Jesus eating after resurrecting,
In Luke 24:41-43, Jesus explicitly asks for food to prove his physical resurrection to his disciples, eating a piece of broiled fish (and potentially honeycomb in some manuscripts) in their presence.
Steefen said
The difference between
Marcion removed the references (when the references are in Mark as shown in Google AI)
and
the references are not in Marcion’s gospel
is insignificant, BruceR.
It is the difference between whether Evangalion precedes and is a source for canonical Luke, or whether canonical Luke precedes and is a source for the Evangelion that Marcion included in his NT.
Your AI overview reflects the view of the majority of the sources in your AI’s database. However, the question at hand here is not whether that is the majority view, but whether that is the correct view.
“The verses are in Mark” does not answer a hypothesis that canonical Mark is itself a 2nd century redaction of a 1st century original. To do that would require evidence that the verses in canonical Mark were inherited from the 1st century original, or evidence that there are is a consistent style between the parts advanced as 1st century legacy material and parts advanced as 2nd century redacted material.
For either question, I fear that it would be necessary to use the other “AI”, “Actual Intelligence”.
Now, the burden of proof on whether Bilby is correct lies with Bilby, but gaining AI support in mis-stating Bilby’s hypotheses is not debunking Bilby, it is begging the question.
It would be fine and dandy to have evidence contradicting Bilby’s claims, but evidence would be required to do so, not AI overviews. Unconstrained AI overviews will just give back the already established fact that Bilby rejects the close to consensus terms of the debate, and constraining the AI overview enough to actually take Bilby’s views into account while just give a result pandering to the constraints placed on it.
Back to Luke Gorton and Ammon Hilman
Ammon was excitedly curious about what would be found at Herculaneum and Pompeii.
Well, here’s something that was found:
Video: AI Just Decoded a Roman Scroll Sealed for 2,000 Years – Historians are Speechless
Channel: Optic Expedition [and it looks like there is some 60 Minutes in this video as well]
There was a library that belonged to Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Julius Caesar’s father-in-law.
Brent Seales (univ of KY) is the man who figured out how to “unroll”/virtual unwrapping Julius Caesar’s father-in-law’s library scrolls.
21-year old Luke Farritor solved the problem.
Then there was a papyrologist.
And Josephus said the Pauline figure wanted “purple” and gold to be sent to Jerusalem…
= = =
Wow: this video is NEWS ! ! !
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)