Leucius Charinus wrote:
With the splattering of a great amount of academic hubris all over the walls.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'academic hubris'. Carrier has a number of academic publications; many -probably almost all- are peer-reviewed. It's hii social & social-media hubris that is 'all over the walls' (the start of most of his blog-posts often contain raging ad hominems against others).

Leucius Charinus wrote:
... In terms of his "background evidence" Carrier also has a basket that is delimited somewhere in the mid 2nd century.

or mostly earlier

I don't know if Carrier has acknowledged the propositions of Joseph B Tyson, Markus Vinzent, or Matthias Klinghardt, that some or all of the Gospels were written after a proposed Marcionite 'canon'.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Perhaps the greatest item of evidence Carrier (like Doherty) uses is the non canonical text known as "The Ascension of Isaiah".

However IMO their problem is to provide evidence it was known before the "background evidence cut-off date of the mid 2nd century". My position is that this text was authored, along with the entire corpus of the non canonical literature, in the 4th century as a literary reaction to the sudden and unexpected appearance of the [canonical] Bible Codex as the most powerful and authoritative political instrument of the new and revolutionary "Christian State".

I strongly disagree with your proposition that these texts appeared as a reaction to a 4th century Bible/Codex/NT Canon.

Some or even many of these apocryphyl / gnostic texts were likely to have been around at the same time as, or probably even before, the Gospel texts. Even texts like the Gospel of John, Revelation, etc may be re-worked pre-Synoptic texts.

and, There were likely several versions of 'key' popular texts: some early, some late. We know more than a few ended up in different versions in different dialects or languages in different locations.

RealityRules wrote:

I don't know if Carrier has acknowledged the propositions of Joseph B Dyson, Markus Vinzent, or Matthias Klinghardt, that some or all of the Gospels were written after marcionite 'canon'.

There was no such thing as a marcionite 'canon'. There is zero historical evidence that any of the so-called heretics had a Canon or would have used a 'Canon' which openly contradicted their own teachings.

The claim in Christian writings that Marcion used gLuke and the Pauline Corpus is just as bogus as the claims that the Gospels were actually composed by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before c 70 CE and that all the Epistles in the Pauline Corpus were actually written by Paul.

It is completely implausible that Marcion would use writings in the NT Canon that directly contradicted his own teachings.

1. Galatians 4:4----- But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law

2. Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him

3. Luke 1:35--- And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Now examine the writings of Justin a contemporary of Marcion.

Examine "First Apology" attributed to Justin.

First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And [u][b]this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us......

Examine "Against Marcion attributed to Ephraem the Syrian.

Against Marcion III

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

Examine Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus.

Refutation of All Heresies 7

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one.

And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities.

This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions—namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship.

Anyone who has examined the NT would easily and quickly realise that such a Canon would be completely useless for teachings of Marcion.

It is just absurd for Marcion to have used gLuke where it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin when Marcion PUBLICLY preached that his son of God was WITHOUT birth.

On the Flesh of Christ

Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity...

The NT Canon itself , a compilation of forgeries/false attribution, was invented AFTER the time of Marcion and no earlier than the 3rd century.

kyrani99 wrote:
Just think if the Greeks hadn't bought the Roman propaganda rubbish of "St" Paul, they may have helped the Jews and drawn the Egyptians into the war too, and given the Roman the hiding they would not be able to forget for an eternity. And it would have been the end of the Eastern Roman Empire.

RealityRules wrote:
To say or infer that the Greeks 'bought' "Roman propaganda" or 'bought' "Roman propaganda rubbish of 'St' Paul" as part of the development of Christianity is simplistic tosh.

I don't understand what you mean. Could you please say why?

proudfootz wrote:Unlikely many people would have sympathy for the Jews, against whom there was widespread resentment for the special privileges granted to them by the Romans.

SOME Jews were given some special privileges but only because it suited the Romans. The Jews are intelligent people and to survive they got themselves involved in commerce and banking. Thus they became a very important part of the supply of goods to the Romans. Also some time later they thought up a way of securing people's gold when they traveled. They took possession of the traveler's gold in one city and issued a receipt. Then the traveler could present that receipt at a Jewish banker at the destination city and get his gold. So the Jews became an indispensable part of the system. But it is wrong to say that the Jews as a whole were not persecuted and maltreated by the Romans. And this is especially true of the Jews in Judea.

kyrani99 wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
Just think if the Greeks hadn't bought the Roman propaganda rubbish of "St" Paul, they may have helped the Jews and drawn the Egyptians into the war too, and given the Roman the hiding they would not be able to forget for an eternity. And it would have been the end of the Eastern Roman Empire.

RealityRules wrote:
To say or infer that the Greeks 'bought' "Roman propaganda" or 'bought' "Roman propaganda rubbish of 'St' Paul" as part of the development of Christianity is simplistic tosh.

I don't understand what you mean. Could you please say why?

You don't refer to any time frame: things were changing all the time in many regions of the Roman Empire (which largely covered the same territory as the former Greek empire of Alexander the Great). No two regions were the same. What evidence if there that 'St Paul' had political influence???? Your post "Just think *if * ..." is 'whataboutery' - a nonsensical speculative exercise.

dejuror wrote:
The NT Canon ... was invented AFTER the time of Marcion and no earlier than the 3rd century.

That is the propostion and argument of Joseph B Tyson, Markus Vinzent, or Matthias Klinghardt, and possibly others (Tyson has been influenced by John Knox who proposed that in the 1940s (he wrote Marcion and the New Testament, 1942), and someone else had outline in a few decades earlier).

eta: In 1881 Charles B. Waite, in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred, suggested that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel.

I have edited the passage that prompted your post-rant -

I don't know if Carrier has acknowledged the propositions of Joseph B Tyson, Markus Vinzent, or Matthias Klinghardt, that some or all of the Gospels were written after a proposed Marcionite 'canon'.

Other academics have recently written extensively about their studies of Marcion and texts attributed to him (in chronological order) -

Ulrich Schmid (2003) “How Can We Access Second Century Gospel Texts? The Cases of Marcion and Tatian”,

in The New Testament Text in Early Christianity/Le texte du Nouveau Testament au debut du christianisme,
eds. Christian-B. Amphoux and J. Keith Elliott. Lausanne: Editions du Zebre, 143: 139-50.

Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. University of South Carolina Press, 2006.

Review by Robert M Price

Dieter T. Roth (2009) 'Towards a New Reconstruction of the Text of Marcion’s Gospel: History of Research, Sources, Methodology, and the Testimony of Tertullian.' A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. in New Testament & Christian Origins, The University of Edinburgh.

available online - https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/7902/Roth2009.pdf?sequence=1

Please note the terms and conditions of use on the first page. It seems to be an extremely thorough study.


Dieter T Roth (2012) 'Marcion & the Early New Testament Text'

in The Early Text of the New Testament; Charles E Hill & Michael J Kruger eds.

This chapter considers the insight that can be gained into the early text of the NT through Marcion’s Apostolikon and Euangelion. Though Adolf von Harnack’s magisterial work on Marcion’s scriptures remains important, recent research has revealed numerous problems with his reconstructions and this chapter seeks to present the results of work done by Ulrich Schmid and the present author on Marcion’s Pauline letter collection and Gospel, respectively. Both Marcion’s Apostolikon and Euangelion reveal affinities to the so-called ‘Western’ textual tradition, though the text is definitely not the ‘D-text’ and likely represents a precursor to the ‘Western’ text. At several points it is shown that Marcion’s text is not as radically emended as has often been assumed, and that in many instances it can be located within and provide insight into the extant textual tradition.

Eric W. Scherbenske (2013) 'Marcionite Paratexts, Pretexts, and Edition of the Corpus Paulinum'

Chapter 2 in Canonising Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum, Oxford University Press

Scherbenske contends that Marcion's text of Paul's letters was shaped by Marcion's Antitheses and the so-called “Marcionite prologues” (argumenta). These 'paratexts' introduced the principles by which Marcion edited the text, thereby offering justification for “correcting” the text in accordance with his hermeneutic and introducing interpretations of the text under Marcionite rubrics. As an isagogic work, the Antitheses served to guide readers to a Marcionite interpretation of the text. Particularly important is the investigation of the impact of Marcion's Antitheses and argumenta on the reception of his text: Marcion's paratexts were so influential in shaping readers' perceptions of Marcion's text that his opponents consistently indicted him for corrupting the “authentic” text, even for textual readings he did not create, but merely transmitted.

Jason D. BeDuhn (2013) 'The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon' Polebridge Press; Paperback

"Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion: Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion’s era. It didn’t. Marcion’s [early] critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet." http://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/marcion-forgotten-father-inventor-new-testament/

Clayton N. Jefford (2014) The First NT: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon by Jason D. BeDuhn (review) Journal of Early Christian Studies 22(3): pp. 471-472. "BeDuhn has achieved his goal, providing a useable reconstruction of Marcion’s texts that others will find immediately useful. He is careful to acknowledge that his rendering is sometimes secure and at other times..."

'Jason BeDuhn introduces Marcion, reconstructs his text, and explores his impact on the study of Luke-Acts, the two-source theory, and the Q hypothesis.'

“A comprehensive and impressively documented scholarly study of Marcion’s original compilation of sacred scriptures … an essential contribution to personal and academic Christian Studies collections”
—Midwest Book Review

“In this bold undertaking, Jason BeDuhn sets forth, for the first time, a complete English translation of the Bible of Marcion. With a useful introduction to all relevant issues, a readable translation of this First New Testament, and copious notes supporting each textual decision, BeDuhn has provided a work of scholarship that is sure to be both welcomed and controversial. For historians of early Christianity, this will be a book to be reckoned with.”
—Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

“This is an important book that fills a large gap in the resources needed for the study of second-century Christianity and Marcion in particular. It is an exhaustive examination of the relevant sources and a masterful, methodologically sensitive, treatment of Marcion’s significance.”
—Joseph B. Tyson, professor emeritus, Southern Methodist University, author of 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle'

http://www.westarinstitute.org/store/the-first-new-testament/

Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters.

Summary: Are the Synoptic Gospels at odds with Early Christian art and archaeology? Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings (Erich Dinkler); can the Synoptic Gospels step in? Their narratives, however, are as absent from the first hundred and fourty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976). The present volume is the first systematic study of all available early evidence that we have about the first witness to our Gospel narratives, Marcion of Sinope. It evaluates our commonly known arguments for dating the Synoptic Gospels, elaborates on Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD.

"One of the most important insights of my 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (2014) was the discovery that Marcion’s Gospel existed in two different versions, first as a pre-published, presumably stand-alone draft, and secondly as a published edition with the framing of the Antitheses and the 10 Pauline Letters. How did I derive to this conclusion? The key text in this respect is Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2 which, in a second step, I’d like to put into the broader frame of Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion’s Antitheses and his Gospel in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-5, so that we can follow Tertullian’s arguments ..." continued - http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com.au/20 ... ospel.html

"Vinzent’s book doesn’t simply assert priority of Marcions’ Gospel over the canonical text of Luke, but asserts that Marcion’s Gospel preceded all the canonical Gospels." Larry Hurtado blog-post comment

"Vinzent’s views are unique in the renewed debates concerning Marcion’s Gospel in that he believes that Marcion wrote the first Gospel ever written and that all four of our canonical Gospels used Marcion’s Gospel as a source. In his own words, “Marcion, who created the new literary genre of the ‘Gospel’ and also gave the work this title, had no historical precedent in the combination of Christ’s sayings and narratives” (p. 277).
"Vinzent essentially attempts to construct his case on two foundations: first, and foremost, on the basis of his reading of several important sources for and works on Marcion’s Gospel; and second, on the basis of what Vinzent presumes to be the content and readings of Marcion’s Gospel."
- Dieter Roth https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-marcion/

Dieter Roth (2015) The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

"In 'The Text of Marcion’s Gospel' Dieter T. Roth offers a new, critical reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel including various levels of certainty for readings in this Gospel text. An extensive history of research, overview of both attested and unattested verses in the various sources, and methodological considerations related, in particular, to understanding the citation customs of the sources set the stage for a comprehensive analysis of all relevant data concerning Marcion’s Gospel. On the basis of this new reconstruction significant issues in the study of early Christianity, including the relationship between Marcion’s Gospel and Luke and the place of Marcion in the history of the canon and the formation of the fourfold Gospel, can be considered anew."

"Roth also improves on Harnack’s classic work by giving a fresh and independent analysis of the data, and also by providing detailed comments and explanation for his judgements about the text of Marcion’s gospel ... Roth’s newly released study is now the “go-to” work on Marcion’s text of Luke", says Roth's former PhD supervisor Larry Hurtado

Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien

Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher

title translation: The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels:
Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants

(via Google Translate) "Volume I: The oldest gospel is The Gospel, which was in the 2nd century by Marcion and [which] others received. The exact reconstruction of this text, as well as proof that all canonical gospels are dependent on him, allow significant insights for important fields of New Testament scholarship: The origin, tradition, and history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canon of the New Testament, and the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs. Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest Gospel is the basis of the examination of the canonical Gospels tradition of/for the oldest version to the canonical four gospels book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of the Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses, and the interpretations. In the explanation of each reconstruction decision shall be fully explained and the single logia and pericopes Überlieferungsweg traced. This is complemented by a reconstruction translation and a list of variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch with the text of the oldest gospel."

.
so, Yes it is increasingly considered likely that -

dejuror wrote:
The NT Canon gospels ... [were] invented AFTER the time of Marcion

Certainly many of the then contemporaneous texts show theological disputes of competing theological sects -

dejuror wrote:
Examine "First Apology" attributed to Justin [a contemporary of Marcion] -

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us......

Examine "Against Marcion III" attributed to Ephraem the Syrian -

These are two things from which the Marcionites have deflected, for they are not willing to call our Lord 'the Maker,' nor (do they admit) that He was (sent) by the Maker.

Examine 'Refutation of All Heresies VII' attributed to Hippolytus -

But Marcion, a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one.

And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities.

This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles, who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions—namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship.

It is just absurd for Marcion to have used gLuke where it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a virgin when Marcion preached that his son of God was without birth.

On the Flesh of Christ

Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity...

.

.
The Synoptic Gospels being written after the Marcionite texts helps to explain & solve 'the Synoptic problem'.

RealityRules wrote:

dejuror wrote:
The NT Canon ... was invented AFTER the time of Marcion and no earlier than the 3rd century.

That is the propostion and argument of Joseph B Tyson, Markus Vinzent, or Matthias Klinghardt, and possibly others (Tyson has been influenced by John Knox who proposed that in the 1940s (he wrote Marcion and the New Testament, 1942), and someone else had outline in a few decades earlier).

I have edited the passage that prompted your post-rant -

I don't know if Carrier has acknowledged the propositions of Joseph B Tyson, Markus Vinzent, or Matthias Klinghardt, that some or all of the Gospels were written after a proposed Marcionite 'canon'.

Other academics have recently written extensively about their studies of Marcion and texts attributed to him (in chronological order) -

Ulrich Schmid (2003) “How Can We Access Second Century Gospel Texts? The Cases of Marcion and Tatian”,

in The New Testament Text in Early Christianity/Le texte du Nouveau Testament au debut du christianisme,
eds. Christian-B. Amphoux and J. Keith Elliott. Lausanne: Editions du Zebre, 143: 139-50.

Joseph B. Tyson, Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle. University of South Carolina Press, 2006.

Review by Robert M Price

Dieter T. Roth (2009) 'Towards a New Reconstruction of the Text of Marcion’s Gospel: History of Research, Sources, Methodology, and the Testimony of Tertullian.' A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Ph.D. in New Testament & Christian Origins, The University of Edinburgh.

available online - https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/7902/Roth2009.pdf?sequence=1

Please note the terms and conditions of use on the first page. It seems to be an extremely thorough study.


Dieter T Roth (2012) 'Marcion & the Early New Testament Text'

in The Early Text of the New Testament; Charles E Hill & Michael J Kruger eds.

This chapter considers the insight that can be gained into the early text of the NT through Marcion’s Apostolikon and Euangelion. Though Adolf von Harnack’s magisterial work on Marcion’s scriptures remains important, recent research has revealed numerous problems with his reconstructions and this chapter seeks to present the results of work done by Ulrich Schmid and the present author on Marcion’s Pauline letter collection and Gospel, respectively. Both Marcion’s Apostolikon and Euangelion reveal affinities to the so-called ‘Western’ textual tradition, though the text is definitely not the ‘D-text’ and likely represents a precursor to the ‘Western’ text. At several points it is shown that Marcion’s text is not as radically emended as has often been assumed, and that in many instances it can be located within and provide insight into the extant textual tradition.

Eric W. Scherbenske (2013) 'Marcionite Paratexts, Pretexts, and Edition of the Corpus Paulinum'

Chapter 2 in Canonising Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum, Oxford University Press

Scherbenske contends that Marcion's text of Paul's letters was shaped by Marcion's Antitheses and the so-called “Marcionite prologues” (argumenta). These 'paratexts' introduced the principles by which Marcion edited the text, thereby offering justification for “correcting” the text in accordance with his hermeneutic and introducing interpretations of the text under Marcionite rubrics. As an isagogic work, the Antitheses served to guide readers to a Marcionite interpretation of the text. Particularly important is the investigation of the impact of Marcion's Antitheses and argumenta on the reception of his text: Marcion's paratexts were so influential in shaping readers' perceptions of Marcion's text that his opponents consistently indicted him for corrupting the “authentic” text, even for textual readings he did not create, but merely transmitted.

Jason D. BeDuhn (2013) 'The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon' Polebridge Press; Paperback

"Critics of Marcion like Tertullian and Epiphanius complained that Marcion cut and edited scripture to fit his beliefs. Biblical scholar Adolf von Harnack accepted this claim in his definitive text on Marcion: Marcion: The Gospel of an Alien God (1920). However, Tertullian and Epiphanius lived several generations after Marcion, and they assumed the New Testament they read already existed in Marcion’s era. It didn’t. Marcion’s [early] critics were reading history backward instead of forward: there was no New Testament yet." http://www.westarinstitute.org/blog/marcion-forgotten-father-inventor-new-testament/

Clayton N. Jefford (2014) The First NT: Marcion’s Scriptural Canon by Jason D. BeDuhn (review) Journal of Early Christian Studies 22(3): pp. 471-472. "BeDuhn has achieved his goal, providing a useable reconstruction of Marcion’s texts that others will find immediately useful. He is careful to acknowledge that his rendering is sometimes secure and at other times..."

'Jason BeDuhn introduces Marcion, reconstructs his text, and explores his impact on the study of Luke-Acts, the two-source theory, and the Q hypothesis.'

“A comprehensive and impressively documented scholarly study of Marcion’s original compilation of sacred scriptures … an essential contribution to personal and academic Christian Studies collections”
—Midwest Book Review

“In this bold undertaking, Jason BeDuhn sets forth, for the first time, a complete English translation of the Bible of Marcion. With a useful introduction to all relevant issues, a readable translation of this First New Testament, and copious notes supporting each textual decision, BeDuhn has provided a work of scholarship that is sure to be both welcomed and controversial. For historians of early Christianity, this will be a book to be reckoned with.”
—Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Professor of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

“This is an important book that fills a large gap in the resources needed for the study of second-century Christianity and Marcion in particular. It is an exhaustive examination of the relevant sources and a masterful, methodologically sensitive, treatment of Marcion’s significance.”
—Joseph B. Tyson, professor emeritus, Southern Methodist University, author of 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle'

http://www.westarinstitute.org/store/the-first-new-testament/

Vincent M (2014) 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (Studia patristica supplement 2) Leuven: Peeters.

Summary: Are the Synoptic Gospels at odds with Early Christian art and archaeology? Art and archaeology cannot provide the material basis 'to secure the irrefutable inner continuity' of the Christian beginnings (Erich Dinkler); can the Synoptic Gospels step in? Their narratives, however, are as absent from the first hundred and fourty years of early Christianity as are their visual imageries. 'Many of the dates confidently assigned by modern experts to the New Testament documents', especially the Gospels, rest 'on presuppositions rather than facts' (J.A.T. Robinson, 1976). The present volume is the first systematic study of all available early evidence that we have about the first witness to our Gospel narratives, Marcion of Sinope. It evaluates our commonly known arguments for dating the Synoptic Gospels, elaborates on Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 AD.

"One of the most important insights of my 'Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels' (2014) was the discovery that Marcion’s Gospel existed in two different versions, first as a pre-published, presumably stand-alone draft, and secondly as a published edition with the framing of the Antitheses and the 10 Pauline Letters. How did I derive to this conclusion? The key text in this respect is Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem IV 4,2 which, in a second step, I’d like to put into the broader frame of Tertullian’s discussion of Marcion’s Antitheses and his Gospel in Adversus Marcionem IV 1-5, so that we can follow Tertullian’s arguments ..." continued - http://markusvinzent.blogspot.com.au/20 ... ospel.html

"Vinzent’s book doesn’t simply assert priority of Marcions’ Gospel over the canonical text of Luke, but asserts that Marcion’s Gospel preceded all the canonical Gospels." Larry Hurtado blog-post comment

"Vinzent’s views are unique in the renewed debates concerning Marcion’s Gospel in that he believes that Marcion wrote the first Gospel ever written and that all four of our canonical Gospels used Marcion’s Gospel as a source. In his own words, “Marcion, who created the new literary genre of the ‘Gospel’ and also gave the work this title, had no historical precedent in the combination of Christ’s sayings and narratives” (p. 277).
"Vinzent essentially attempts to construct his case on two foundations: first, and foremost, on the basis of his reading of several important sources for and works on Marcion’s Gospel; and second, on the basis of what Vinzent presumes to be the content and readings of Marcion’s Gospel."
- Dieter Roth https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-marcion/

Dieter Roth (2015) The Text of Marcion’s Gospel. (Leiden: Brill, 2015).

"In 'The Text of Marcion’s Gospel' Dieter T. Roth offers a new, critical reconstruction of Marcion’s Gospel including various levels of certainty for readings in this Gospel text. An extensive history of research, overview of both attested and unattested verses in the various sources, and methodological considerations related, in particular, to understanding the citation customs of the sources set the stage for a comprehensive analysis of all relevant data concerning Marcion’s Gospel. On the basis of this new reconstruction significant issues in the study of early Christianity, including the relationship between Marcion’s Gospel and Luke and the place of Marcion in the history of the canon and the formation of the fourfold Gospel, can be considered anew."

"Roth also improves on Harnack’s classic work by giving a fresh and independent analysis of the data, and also by providing detailed comments and explanation for his judgements about the text of Marcion’s gospel ... Roth’s newly released study is now the “go-to” work on Marcion’s text of Luke", says Roth's former PhD supervisor Larry Hurtado

Matthias Klinghardt (2015) Das älteste Evangelium und die Entstehung der kanonischen Evangelien

Band I: Untersuchung | Band II: Rekonstruktion, ÜberSetzung, Varianten. (German) Perfect Paperback. Francke a Verlag, publisher

title translation: The oldest gospel, & the emergence of the canonical Gospels:
Volume I: Investigation | Volume II: Reconstruction, Translation, Variants

(via Google Translate) "Volume I: The oldest gospel is The Gospel, which was in the 2nd century by Marcion and [which] others received. The exact reconstruction of this text, as well as proof that all canonical gospels are dependent on him, allow significant insights for important fields of New Testament scholarship: The origin, tradition, and history of the Gospels, the New Testament textual history, the emergence of the canon of the New Testament, and the history of Christianity in the 2nd century. Volume 1 contains the investigation that determines the relationship between Luke and the oldest gospel, and a model for the development of the Gospels up to the canonical four gospels book designs. Volume II: The reconstruction of the oldest Gospel is the basis of the examination of the canonical Gospels tradition of/for the oldest version to the canonical four gospels book. Volume 2 contains the meticulous reconstruction of the Gospel with the establishment of the text, the distortion of the witnesses, and the interpretations. In the explanation of each reconstruction decision shall be fully explained and the single logia and pericopes Überlieferungsweg traced. This is complemented by a reconstruction translation and a list of variants of the canonical Gospel of Luke, which touch with the text of the oldest gospel."

What if the author "Marcion" is another fabricated identity (like umm Mark?)

RealityRules wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:
With the splattering of a great amount of academic hubris all over the walls.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'academic hubris'. Carrier has a number of academic publications; many -probably almost all- are peer-reviewed. It's hii social & social-media hubris that is 'all over the walls' (the start of most of his blog-posts often contain raging ad hominems against others).

That's precisely what I mean by '[academic] hubris'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

[Academic] Hubris describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish [academic] pride or dangerous [academic] over-confidence.

RealityRules wrote:.
The Synoptic Gospels being written after the Marcionite texts helps to explain & solve 'the Synoptic problem'.

The teachings of Marcion do not solve the Synoptic problem since there is no historical evidence that Marcion actually used any texts from the Gospels in the Canon.

The Synoptic problem is easily solved by comparing details of similar events in the fables called according to Matthew, Mark and Luke. It will be seen that the fables in gMark will almost always have less details than gMatthew and gLuke.

The Jesus stories in gMark were manufactured early than the other Synoptics and before all the letters under the name of Paul.

Now, Christian writings claimed Marcion used the writings of Empodocles who preached about Dualism .

Refutation of All Heresies 7.18

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

Refutation of all Heresies 7

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God).

Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles.

Refutation of All Heresies 7.

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour.

First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say...

It would appear that the teachings of Marcion were not compatible with the Synoptics.

I know what hubris is -

Hubris (..from ancient Greek ὕβρις*) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous over-confidence. In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms of behavior or challenges the gods ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris

pride; insolence; outrage

In the way he is challenging the Chritian academic gods, Carrier is setting himself as a god

Indeed, there is no evidence that someone named Marcion ever existed at all.It's all part of official Church dogma.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

What if the author "Marcion" is another fabricated identity (like umm Mark?)

That's possible. But, at this relatively early stage of trying to unravel these 2nd & 3rd century texts, I think we may as well stick with the attributed names of the authors of these texts for the sake of consistency, at least (especially after all these recent texts about the 'Marcion canon' - biblical 'scholars' will still be coming to terms with these new ideas).

dejuror wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
The Synoptic Gospels being written after the Marcionite texts helps to explain & solve 'the Synoptic problem'.

The teachings of Marcion do not solve the Synoptic problem since there is no historical evidence that Marcion actually used any texts from the Gospels in the Canon.

You don't do logic very well, do you?

The proposition that the Synoptic Gospels developed *after the Marcion texts had been formulated (in some form)* means that Marcion could not have used the Gospel texts as those Gospel texts would not have been written yet!

dejuror wrote:
The Synoptic problem is easily solved by comparing details of similar events in the fables called according to Matthew, Mark and Luke. It will be seen that the fables in gMark will almost always have less details than gMatthew and gLuke.

The Jesus stories in gMark were manufactured early than the other Synoptics and before all the letters under the name of Paul.

People like Hermann Detering, and a few others, think the Olivette Discourse (aka the 'Synoptic Apocalypse') shows Matthew came first. That may only apply to that part of those gospels. These gospels may have developed or been redeveloped / elaborated on together.

.
While -

dejuror wrote:... Christian writings claimed Marcion used the writings of Empodocles who preached about Dualism

- it would appear whether "the teachings of Marcion were not compatible with the Synoptics" is irrelevant.

A key point is that Marcion and his contemporaries seem to represent an intermediate stage in the move from Jewish theology to eventual Christian theology, rather than being the traditional misrepresentation as having supposedly being a heretical 'reaction' to Christian theology.

These are worth noting -

dejuror wrote:
Refutation of All Heresies 7.18 -

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark.

But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

Refutation of all Heresies 7 -

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God).

Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles.

Refutation of All Heresies 7 -

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour./quote]

First Apology

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son. And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us, though they have no proof of what they say...

duvduv wrote:Indeed, there is no evidence that someone named Marcion ever existed at all.It's all part of official Church dogma.

RealityRules wrote:

Leucius Charinus wrote:

What if the author "Marcion" is another fabricated identity (like umm Mark?)

That's possible. But, at this relatively early stage of trying to unravel these 2nd & 3rd century texts, I think we may as well stick with the attributed names of the authors of these texts for the sake of consistency, at least (especially after all these recent texts about the 'Marcion canon' - biblical 'scholars' will still be coming to terms with these new ideas).

Here are twenty of these "attributed names" for the sake of consistency:

Paul and Pseudo Paul
Peter and Pseudo Peter
Mark and Pseudo Mark
John and Pseudo John
Luke and Pseudo Luke
Matthew and Pseudo Matthew
Justin Martyr and Pseudo Justin
Clement and Pseudo Clement
Hegesippus and Pseudo Hegesippus
Lucian and Pseudo Lucian
Tatian and Pseudo Tatian
Irenaeus and Pseudo Irenaeus
Tertullian and Pseudo Tertullian
Eusebius and Pseudo Eusebius
Cyril and Pseudo Cyril
Augustine and Pseudo Augustine
Barnabas and Pseudo Barnabas
Polycarp and Pseudo Polycarp
Origen and Pseudo Origen
Ignatius and Pseudo Ignatius
Josephus and Pseudo Josephus
Jesus and Pseudo Jesus

In honour of all these new 'Marcion canon' - biblical 'scholars' we may add to this list Marcion and Pseudo-Marcion.

I don't think it solves or progresses the underlying problem/solution of this mess in any significant manner.

Forgery is, after all is said and done, forgery.

Sherlock Holmes would be asking for the list of known publishers and financial backers.

Leucius Charinus wrote:
In honour of all these new 'Marcion canon' - biblical 'scholars' we may add to this list Marcion and Pseudo-Marcion.

You are merely muddying the waters -

a. your flippant terminology is muddying -

these are not 'new' biblical scholars.
The idea of a 'Marcion canon' is not 'new', either.

b. pseudo-Tertullian is a recognized notion. You may be right about the others, but it is best to stick with the main game ->

Determing the 'Marcion' texts are intermediate ones, rather than as a reaction to Christianity, is more important*.

The other dominoes will probably fall more readily.

* As I said in my most recent post -

RealityRules wrote:
A key point is that Marcion and his contemporaries seem to represent an intermediate stage in the move from Jewish theology to eventual Christian theology, rather than being the traditional misrepresentation as having supposedly being a 'heretical' reaction to Christian theology

RealityRules wrote:

dejuror wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
The Synoptic Gospels being written after the Marcionite texts helps to explain & solve 'the Synoptic problem'.

The teachings of Marcion do not solve the Synoptic problem since there is no historical evidence that Marcion actually used any texts from the Gospels in the Canon.

You don't do logic very well, do you?

The proposition that the Synoptic Gospels developed *after the Marcion texts had been formulated (in some form)* means that Marcion could not have used the Gospel texts as those Gospel texts would not have been written yet!

Your proposition does not explain or solve anything.

Again, Marcionite texts do not help to explain and solve the Synoptic Problem.

The Synoptic Problem deals specifically with the chronological order of authorship of gMatthew, gMark and gLuke.

The teachings of Marcion do not show or explain the chronological order of authorship of the Synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark and Luke].