Newlogos said
The Nicene Creed begins:I believe in one Father, the maker of Heaven and Earth, of all things invisible and visible.
They took this language word for word out of Colossian:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible… Col 1:15-16
The writers of the Creed are putting their names on another author’s text.
. . . .
The hallowed Nicene Creed is not so pure after all. It begins with word-for-word plagiarism from a forged text.
I think we need to distinguish plagiarism from unattributed reference to a well-know source or authority.
TS Eliot lifts all sorts of phrases from the western (and sometimes eastern) canon in the Wasteland. No one would call him a plagiarist. Is Faulkner a plagiarist because he didn’t put a footnote at the end of the title of The Sound and the Fury, citing Macbeth?
Similarly, Colossians was quite well-known by the time of Nicea. The fact that the fathers at Nicea adopted scriptural language to formulate their faith is perfectly natural and not at all duplicitous.
Robert said
Jarek said
Robert said
Jarek said
… The Diatessaron shows the “authorship” of the gospels that are in the making.
What do you mean by this? Are you thinking the Diatessaron was written before the canonical gospels were finished?
Sure. There is no Preface to Luke, No genealogies
It isn’t known whether or not the Diatessaron included Matthew’s or Luke’s genealogy or perhaps a harmonization of the two. As for Luke’s preface, I would not expect that to be included in a separate work harmonizing the four gospels.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus (d. 457/58), stated his reasons why he withdrew Tatian’s Diatessaron from public use in the churches of Syria. Of Tatian’s work he said: He composed the Gospel which is called Diatessaron, cutting out the genealogies..
Jarek said
They have probably been replaced by subsequent editions due to wear and tear. The first to name the authors of the gospels was Irenaeus of Lyons
But you’re claiming there are many editions and supplements. What is Irenaeus naming? A particular edition or the entire collection of editions and supplements?
brenmcg said
Jarek said
They have probably been replaced by subsequent editions due to wear and tear. The first to name the authors of the gospels was Irenaeus of Lyons
But you’re claiming there are many editions and supplements. What is Irenaeus naming? A particular edition or the entire collection of editions and supplements?
Irenaeus for the first time calls the gospels by the names of the evangelists. I’ll try with an example. Tertullian compares his gospel with that of Marcion. And it turns out that in his version of Luke there are verses from the canonical Matthew. What version of the gospel did Tertullian have?
Jarek said
Irenaeus for the first time calls the gospels by the names of the evangelists. I’ll try with an example. Tertullian compares his gospel with that of Marcion. And it turns out that in his version of Luke there are verses from the canonical Matthew. What version of the gospel did Tertullian have?
Tertullian would have had a copy of the gospel of Luke. His copy of Luke would have had minor disagreements with all other copies of the gospel of Luke.
These other copies would in turn have been copied down through the centuries, many of which still survive to this day.
But you seem to be suggesting something different – that there were various “editions” of the gospel of Luke, all but one of which has been lost? The final one which erroneously had the name of Luke attached to it.
brenmcg said
Jarek said
Irenaeus for the first time calls the gospels by the names of the evangelists. I’ll try with an example. Tertullian compares his gospel with that of Marcion. And it turns out that in his version of Luke there are verses from the canonical Matthew. What version of the gospel did Tertullian have?
Tertullian would have had a copy of the gospel of Luke. His copy of Luke would have had minor disagreements with all other copies of the gospel of Luke.
These other copies would in turn have been copied down through the centuries, many of which still survive to this day.
But you seem to be suggesting something different – that there were various “editions” of the gospel of Luke, all but one of which has been lost? The final one which erroneously had the name of Luke attached to it.
Gospel copies were exchanged for various reasons. Because of wear and tear or because someone got a new one and didn’t care for the old one. This was the practice in assemblies such as the Monastery of St. Catherine. The Sinaitic Codex was not found in the library, only by the stove in a tinder bucket. There is nothing left of Marcion, who built a gigantic network of congregations, and therefore I claim that the canonical versions of the gospels also found their way into his organization. Tertullian wrote Adversus Marcionem around the year 200 and he has strange copy of what? Name Luke was not in use by him.
BTW The first time I heard about Luke’s two versions was from Bart Ehrman’s lecture. If you look at the triple tradition, the minority agreements, the Venn chart for the synoptic gospels in general, the dislocation of the material, it wasn’t made in one edition. The process of creating these books was parallel up to a point. Mateusz and Luke’s nativity stories have nothing in common.
Jarek said
Gospel copies were exchanged for various reasons. Because of wear and tear or because someone got a new one and didn’t care for the old one. This was the practice in assemblies such as the Monastery of St. Catherine. The Sinaitic Codex was not found in the library, only by the stove in a tinder bucket. There is nothing left of Marcion, who built a gigantic network of congregations, and therefore I claim that the canonical versions of the gospels also found their way into his organization. Tertullian wrote Adversus Marcionem around the year 200 and he has strange copy of what? Name Luke was not in use by him.
But tertullian did know the names of the gospels – against marcion IV
“Of the apostles therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards … Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.”
Tertullian writing around 200 says there aren’t many varying editions of the text. Just the one used by the catholic church and the Marcion’s gospel used solely by him.
“where will that genuine text 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; or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one”
Also Tertullian’s quotes from Matthew that he claims Marcion erased from his gospel do not necessarily imply tertullian is quoting these verses from his own text of Luke.
brenmcg said
Jarek said
Gospel copies were exchanged for various reasons. Because of wear and tear or because someone got a new one and didn’t care for the old one. This was the practice in assemblies such as the Monastery of St. Catherine. The Sinaitic Codex was not found in the library, only by the stove in a tinder bucket. There is nothing left of Marcion, who built a gigantic network of congregations, and therefore I claim that the canonical versions of the gospels also found their way into his organization. Tertullian wrote Adversus Marcionem around the year 200 and he has strange copy of what? Name Luke was not in use by him.
But tertullian did know the names of the gospels – against marcion IV
“Of the apostles therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards … Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.”
Tertullian writing around 200 says there aren’t many varying editions of the text. Just the one used by the catholic church and the Marcion’s gospel used solely by him.
“where will that genuine text 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; or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one”
Also Tertullian’s quotes from Matthew that he claims Marcion erased from his gospel do not necessarily imply tertullian is quoting these verses from his own text of Luke.
That’s right, my fault. Tertullian knew the names of the Evangelists. His arguments, however, are not so clear and simple. Judith Lieu suggests on the basis of examples that Tertullian uses some harmonization of Matthew and Luke or maybe treats these writings as containers of the text of one gospel embodied in two books. He accuses Marcion of omitting a part of the text that is found only in Matthew and not in Luke 6:35(?). Another problem is the textual variants, as in the case of Luke 12:14. Marcion’s text itself is also not unambiguous. It contains texts from Matthew or Mark’s vocabulary not found in Luke. I’m a little lost between Lieu and Klinghardt.
Tertullian criticizes Marcion for de-Judaizing Jesus.
His claim that Marcion has removed reference to “Jesus fulfilling the law” need not necessitate Tertullian is reading that line from his own gospel of Luke (which Luke himself has removed from Matthew). Luke still has the general sentiment that Jesus is “fulfilling” the law and prophets and its this general sentiment that Marcion has removed from his account.
“In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment: I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?”
He further quotes Luke in support of this general sentiment
“He further declares, that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled.
So I don’t think we should conclude Tertullian had some strange gospel of Luke which contains verses which now are only found in Matthew.
brenmcg said
Tertullian criticizes Marcion for de-Judaizing Jesus.His claim that Marcion has removed reference to “Jesus fulfilling the law” need not necessitate Tertullian is reading that line from his own gospel of Luke (which Luke himself has removed from Matthew). Luke still has the general sentiment that Jesus is “fulfilling” the law and prophets and its this general sentiment that Marcion has removed from his account.
“In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment:
I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.** you do not have permission to see this link ** What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?”He further quotes Luke in support of this general sentiment
“He further declares,
that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled.So I don’t think we should conclude Tertullian had some strange gospel of Luke which contains verses which now are only found in Matthew.
I have a different approach to it. I take a few publications by different authors and look for common points. I do not know whether it is possible to reconstruct Marcion’s gospel precisely because of the Latin source, but I see that placing it at the beginning solves all synoptic problems. Using business criteria, I highly value the thesis that the dynamic development of the gospel had to take place after the market success of the first one. The only success we know is Marcion. The rivalry was parallel in time, as indicated by the Venn diagram.. etc.. etc..
I do not interfere in biblical studies, I do not judge biblical issues. I only take common points that coincide with my assumed reconstruction.
It is a method of checking the assumed thesis against the data. It works well where there is a huge amount of data. You have to come up with some scheme, some reconstruction and verify it. Theoretical physicists do this – if they turned on the LHC and collected data, after a week all the memories of the world would be full. Physicists could look at this for 100 years and come up with nothing. 99.9% of their reconstructions end up in the trash. The measure of success is writing 1 good paper in your entire career. Geniuses write 5 (Einstein), greats write 2 (Landau).
That’s why I assume something guided by non-biblical criteria and check if I can find any biblical works in which the assumption will be confirmed.
Lieu criticized Vinzent for misreading Tertullian. You criticize Lieu for the same thing. I am looking for common conclusions.
“Making heretic” is part of the process of competition between two church organizations. A ruthless fight because they were selling the same thing. And it matters much more than theology. The transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of the prophets is in Marcion’s gospel. Differences have been exaggerated to push one man out of the Church in the interests of another. He was a better missionary. He was a better organizer and disciples of other leaders would drop them and go to him. The first target church building we know is from its organization. Must have had a black legend created again and again for centuries.
Robert said
Jarek said
… I do not know whether it is possible to reconstruct Marcion’s gospel precisely because of the Latin source, but I see that placing it at the beginning solves all synoptic problems. Using business criteria, I highly value the thesis that the dynamic development of the gospel had to take place after the market success of the first one. The only success we know is Marcion. The rivalry was parallel in time, as indicated by the Venn diagram.. etc.. etc.. I do not interfere in biblical studies, I do not judge biblical issues. I only take common points that coincide with my assumed reconstruction. It is a method of checking the assumed thesis against the data. It works well where there is a huge amount of data. …
I’m pretty sure we’ve had this conversation before. Inventing an imaginary hypothetical document that cannot actually be defined precisely does not solve a problem. It merely hides the problem within one’s imagination. A whole slew of earlier scholars went down this rabbit hole in the 19th century. The more they tried to define these hypothetical documents, the more they contradicted each other and even themselves. Better to try and solve a problem by attending to the actual evidence rather than imaginary hypotheses inspired by marketing assumptions.
Invented hypotheses subjected to the process of falsifiability by checking with the collected material have a bright future.
As for the hypothetical document, its statistics are as follows:
[…] On the basis of this list of variants, the problem of agreements between the text attested for *Ev and the text of the critical editions is indicated as follows: of the altogether 566 variants (documented by one or more of the main witnesses of *Ev against the text of NA27 ), as many as 338 (60%) have an agreement in one or more manuscripts ascribed to the ‘Western text’ (D it sy). Another 75 (13%) have agreements with either Greek manuscripts or with witnesses from oriental, especially Coptic and Ethiopian versions. Only 153 of all *Ev-variants against the critical editions (26%) have no agreement at all in the canonical textual tradition. […]
[…] The following figures describe in percentages how much the direct (heresio-logical) attestations for *Ev agree with the readings of the manuscript tradition of canonical Luke. The list contains a total of 566 variants in the text that are attested for *Ev when compared to canonical Luke. Not included are longer passages of Luke.
The list contains a total of 566 variants in the text that are attested for *Ev when compared to canonical Luke. Not included are longer passages of Luke which unambiguously were missing in *Ev, such as Luke 1,1-2,52; 3,1b-4,15; 15,11-32 etc. The distribution of the attestations for *Ev to the different areas of the manuscript tradition of canonical Luke looks like this:
No attestation in the manuscripts of canonical Luke 153 26,7%
Attested in ‘Western’ manuscripts (D it sy) 338 60%
Attested in the oriental versions 37 6,6%
Attested in Greek manuscripts 38 6,7%
Total 566 100%
There are sole attestations by only one of the heresiological witnesses and multiple attestations by two or more of them.
Sole attestation by only one of the heresiological witnesses 431 76%
Multiple attestations by two or more witnesses 135 24%
Robert said
Your numbers above only show that Marcion’s version of Luke’s gospel has had some effect on the textual traditions of other gospels. That’s to be expected. But it does not support your ‘solution’ to the synoptic problem.
The order of names from top to bottom is also important.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)