The Father of the New Testament

It is no secret that for the first 100 years of Christian history there was no New Testament, nor were particular writings of Christian luminaries treated as scripture. On the contrary, only the Old Testament was accorded the status of scripture among the groups which would become the proto-orthodox. Christians interpreted the OT scriptures in many varied and sometimes contradictory ways under the claimed inspiration of the spirit of Christ, but their writings did not carry the weight of scripture. The writings of those believers allegorized the OT and saw Christianity as a continuation and fulfillment of the OT. It was a Judeo-Christian religion, and from the writings of the early non canonical Christian authors, it was more Judeo than Christian.

Meanwhile,another form of Christianity was developing in Asia Minor(the place of Paul's evangelization). It burst onto the pages of history in the first half of the second century. A wealthy man named Marcion from the city of Sinope in the province of Pontus-Bithynia which is adjacent to Galatia emerged as one of the most influential people in Christian history. Marcion, a shipping magnate, spread his version of Christianity into the Mediterranean and along the caravan routes to the east towards Syria and Persia. The dates for Marcion's life are a bit uncertain with estimates ranging from the 70's CE to about 160 CE.

It is unknown whether Marcion innovated his own Christian viewpoints or if he was carrying on a tradition inherited from earlier teachers. His father was himself a bishop. In any event, the emergence of Marcion into the historical record is our first glimpse of Pauline Christianity, the Pauline epistles, and the Gospel of Luke. He considered Paul to be the only authorative teacher of the gospel. He, along with Paul, cursed alternate or competing gospels.

Marcion presented the Christian world with its first New Testament, or canon, ca 140 CE. His New Testament contained ten epistles of Paul and one Gospel which seems to be a short version of the Gospel of Luke which he called simply "Euangelion," or "Gospel" not attributed to an author. The Pauline epistles he brought forth are Romans, Galatians, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Laodiceans (Ephesiahs), Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, and Philemon. He considered the epistle to the Galatians to be the most important.

Marcion's theology was quite different from that which became orthodox Christianity. He believed that the Old Testament God was not the father of Jesus. Rather, he considered the God of the Jews to be a primitive lower being who created the material world and who had very objectionable characteristics. He was jealous, envious, vindictive, retributative, angry, cruel, intrusive, and judgmental. He was a demiurge who trapped the souls of men in the misery of material bodies. In contrast, Christ made known a previously unknown God of love and benevolence. Marcion didn't deny the reality of the Jewish God, he simply dismissed him as the God of a different religion, and he rejected the Old Testament. He wished the Jews well, but proclaimed that Christianity had no part of the Jewish religion.

The Marcionite name for the heavenly savior was ISU CHRESTOS. Whether the ISU was a form of sacral abbreviation for IESUS or if it was the actual name or title cannot be known. Likewise, the spelling of CHRESTOS may have been original Pauline for the "Good helper" rather than the meaning of anointed as indicated by the familiar Christos spelling which may have been later scribal license. For him, Christ was the sudden savior, a phantom (not an actual man) who descended from God in the form of a fully mature human, snatched believers out of the control of the evil God of the Old Testament, freed them from the bondage of the Torah, and then he ascended back to the Father. He was not the Messiah of Jewish expectations. Marcion and his followers upheld an extremely high moral standard, even believing that sex within marriage was wrong, but they did not subject themselves to the Torah or any of the Jewish practices. His New Testament did not in any way tie the prophecies of the OT to Christ or to the church and its teachings.

Marcion went to Rome ca 140 CE to present his ideas to the church leaders there. They utterly rejected him. He went on to lead his followers into all the known world. Marcionism became the main competitor to emerging orthodoxy. Marcionite churches (called synagogues) could be found throughout the empire. The Marcionites called themselves "Christians" and seemed to hold the trademark for that term. The proto-orthodox groups coalesced around the name "Catholic." The oldest Christian church found by archaeologists was Marcionite, located in Syria and dating from 318 CE. The inscription on this synagogue is dedicated to "The Lord and Savior ISU CHRESTOS." The pervasiveness of Marcionite Christianity was so complete,that if not for the prohibition of sex which precluded organic growth, it could have been the winner rather than catholic orthodoxy. Marcionism persevered alongside catholic Christianity well into the 300's CE.

Marcion's importance for the history and development of Christianity are these:

1. Marcion gives us the first attestation to the Pauline epistles. Without him, Paul's letters may never have been known. The epistles he presented were not identical to those in the orthodox canon. Missing are references to OT prophecies, messiah talk, and even the vague verses which can be construed to be indicate humanness for Jesus.

2. Marcion was the first to suggest that the new covenant represented a separate and new religion. He is in this sense the father of New Testament Christianity. His complete break with the Jewish epic and refusal to see Christianity as the inheritor and fulfillment of that continuing epic was a direct challenge to emerging catholic orthodoxy. Many protestants, especially Baptists, would find this familiar.

3. He is the first Christian to put forward a canon, an authoritative collection of writings intended to be the final arbiter in faith and practice. This "sola scriptura" stance makes him in a sense the first protestant.

4. He broke with the legalism which characterize proto-orthodox Christianity proclaiming that salvation comes through faith only. "Sola Fide" also sounds quite protestant.

5. His Gospel lacked any geneology, birth stories, childhood exploits, and association with John. The ISU of the Gospel was docetic, a heavenly being who burst on the scene only seeming to be a man. The Gospel is a form of Luke, but it is about 1/3 shorter than canonical Luke. His detractors said he shortened the original Luke, however it is just as possible that his version was the original and that orthodox scribes added the material which is now there in canonical Luke. Since Marcion was the first to present Luke's gospel, as far as history knows, it simply cannot be known whether his version was the original and later added to or if he excised objectionable material from the original. This is an interesting conundrum for fundamentalist inerrancy.

6.The reaction against him by the proto-orthodox church in Rome had incalculable implications for the history and development of Christianity, virtually all forms of which derive from that stream.

A. Marcion was roundly denounced by the Roman church. Polycarp called him "the firstborn of Satan." In that Marcionite congregations were called synagogues, and were referred to as Satanic, it is interesting that John the revelator calls a group of churches in Asia Minor (Marcionite territory) "synagogues of Satan."

B. Marcion got the ball rolling on the concept of a canon of authoritative writings by Christian authors. In the next few decades, the proto-canon began to greatly expand. Three more Pauline epistles were written 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus. These epistles which clearly reflect a period when church structure and authority were coming into play make a case for a hierarchical structure and a requirement to be obedient to those in "offices" above. They also imply a much more human Jesus than the Marcionite Paulines. Interpolations into the texts of the ten Marcionite Paulines occurred. 1 Pet, and 2 Pet were written to bolster the case of catholic Christianity. The book of Acts was produced to make a case for apostolic authority, apostolic succession, and to domesticate Paul, that is, to turn him into an apostle in line with the others and even submitting to their authority. Acts created an entirely fictional historiography of the supposed origins and spread of the church previously unmentioned in any of the writings of other Christians. Luke may have been expanded to include a miraculous and human birth account to "prove" the humanity of Jesus to counter Marcion's ghost Jesus.

C. The concept of apostolic succession made possible the authority and preroggatives of the orthodox leadership to issue directives and assign the label "authentic" or "spurious" to Christian writings vying for canonical status. Many gospels, forgeries, and interpolated copies began to appear. Church leaders arbitrarily set up standards for accepting a writing as authentic and authoritative. The critera included a claim to have been written by an apostle, a claim to have been written by someone who knew an apostle, and a writing had to reflect the beliefs of a broad part of the proto-orthodox movement. Another word for this is tradition. Since many of the newly authored writings had no basis for apostolic authorship claims, the church looked for and/or created stories on the thinnest of rationale to claim apostolicity for the various expanded canon. This is a place where protestant adherants to the sola scriptura principle need to take a breath and realize that many of the NT books which were finally declared canonical are there only on account of church tradition. As Bonhoffer put it, "Protestants, in denying the authority of tradition, have cut off the branch on which they sit."

D. The Pauline epistles which make up the bulk of the NT have no historical attestation prior to Marcion. His version of the Paulines may in fact be the original. That is an open question which cannot be answered by detractors or apologists. That the Paulines were interpolated in places is quite evident. Were they even written by Paul? That also cannot be known.Marcion himself could have written them. We just don't know. But we do know that prior to Marcion's emergence in Rome with his Pauline corpus, no Christian group or writer had been referring to Paul as an authority nor to his writings as authoritative. If Marcion's Pauline Christianity was not the original version, or at least an evolved version, then where was it? The proto-orthodox leadership did with Paul what it did with various societal/cultural beliefs and practices; it absorbed rather than rejected. Marcionism/Paulinism became so pervasive that it was easier to absorb Paul, interpolate, redefine, and write in his name than to reject him outright. The result is the Judeo/Christian religion which became Christianity as we know it. Prior to Marcion, most of the other forms of Christianity had been largely Jewish with Platonic influences. Marcion's Paulinism mixed with Jewish Christianity formed a syncretic amalgam, a synthesis of the absorption of two differing streams.

E. The Creeds of the church were not just statements of faith. They became necessary in reaction to alternate and competing beliefs. The first creed "The Roman Symbol" which later evolved into the apostles creed was a reaction to Marcion. Among other things, it points out that God the father is the creator, Jesus was truly man born in the normal manner (albeit with a miraculous conception), and that there will be a final judgment with punishments, all very un-Marcionite concepts. This original creed is thought to originate from the late second century.

It is interesting to note that when Constantine called the first catholic council to accomplish doctrinal unity, the locale chosen was Nicea in the heart of Marcionite country. Since Marcionism was still competing with catholicism, Constantine's choice of Nicea must have been political, as was his legalization of catholic Christianity. The Nicene Creed, while primarily aimed at Arianism, also targets Marcionism.

Today's protestant fundamentalists have Marcion to thank for their doctrine of scripture alone. Prior to him, there was no apparent interest in according authority to any Christian writings, let alone calling them scripture. Marcion's New Testament Christianity with its own scriptures was the work of "the firstborn of Satan," as he was called by the Catholic fathers whose use of the magesterium of tradition gave us so many of the New Testament books which fundamentalists so glibly assume to be simply "the Word of God." The knowledge that the primary theological corpus of the NT, the Pauline epistles, were mediated through a heretic, interpolated by catholic copyists, and added to by creative pseudo-Pauls, should be eye-opening. Irenaeus of Lyon, writing against Marcion ca 190 CE was part of the scramble to create an authoritative canon to counter him and to define the faith. His dubious criteria for choosing just four gospels out of the dozens floating around at his time gave us the "historical Jesus" as we know him. As he said, there can only be four gospels because there are four winds (directions of the compass), seems a bit tenuous as a means of weeding out other gospels. Why just four? "Just because..." None of the four chosen can make a strong case for apostolicity. All except for expanded Luke are anonymous, and Marcion's version of Luke was also anonymous. All four gospels began to get traction in orthodox thought in the decades after Marcion, because they taught a human Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews, and the lynchpin which made Christianity the successor of Judaism. But the acceptance of apostolicity for all of them, as well as the epistles, is a matter of faith! Faith in what? Church tradition.

Thank you for the New Testament Marcion.


Bart Willruth

47 comments:

Evan said...

Bart I have been hoping for a post just like this to clarify some thoughts of my own regarding Marcion.

Incredibly well done and compelling scholarship. Thanks for that.

Anonymous said...

This is very interesting to me. Thanks so much! At least Marcion had enough sense to reject the OT God.

Evan said...

John the interesting thing is how different Marcion's Christology was.

Yet he was living in the SECOND century. He was far closer historically to any historical Joshua, and yet he had no difficulty believing that he appeared on earth fully formed as a 15 year old.

How is it possible for the apologist to argue the gospels are accurate and deal with the spread of Marcionism?

If Marcion were so demonstrably wrong, how did he convince Christians who should already have been steeped in the gospel traditions that should have been circulating for nearly 100 years at this point?

You rarely hear an apologist deal with this fact. It is an interesting counterfactual to wonder what might have happened to the Roman church had Marcionism never existed -- almost certainly orthodox beliefs now held to be sacred and going all the way back to Jesus would simply not have existed.

Thus, using my Constantine analogy orthodoxy depends as much on Marcion as it does on the proto-orthodox. Christianity needed him as much as it needed Maxentius to drown on a bridge, and THUS, God must have inspired Marcion's heresy.

Adrian said...

I know virtually nothing about Marcion so all of this comes as quite a shock. I'm leery of the Da Vinci Code effect so I guess I have some background reading & research to do!

If this all pans out, it will be a real eye-opener so thanks for this dose of enlightenment.

bart willruth said...

Here is a follow up on a subject I didn't touch in the post.

Imagine if... Imagine, if Marcionite Christianity had prevailed over catholic Christianity. Who knows how long it would have survived, but if it had, the implications for the Jews would have been immense.

Marcion was not anti-semitic. He had no problem with Jews whatsoever. His issue was with the terrible God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. He simply saw Christianity as a new religion.

Under catholic Christianity, Jews have suffered terribly for 1600 years. Why? Because the Christians who won the battle for survival and supremacy were in the camp that believed that the church had supplanted Judaism in the new covenant because THE JEWS HAD REJECTED AND KILLED THEIR MESSIAH! THEY HAD KILLED GOD!

When catholic Christianity supposed that the holy history of the Jews had become theirs, that their myth was a continuation of the Jewish covenantal promises, the belief was that the Jews in their guilt and failure to recognize their Messiah were cursed.

Imagine how differently history would have played out if Christianity had just gone its own way without condemning another people and religion in the process. For further reading on this, I highly recommend "Constantine's Sword." The pogroms of the middle ages, the hate, the suppression, and the holocaust would not have occurred for the cause would have been removed.

The crusades? Why bother? To the Marcionites, Jerusalem and who controlled it it was of no consequence.

The inquisition? The Marcionites had no interest in persecuting abberant beliefs.

All in all, the last 2000 years would have been more peaceful without the triumphalism of catholic Christianity and its offspring, protestantism.

Bart

Evan said...

Bart, like I say, counterfactuals can go just about any way you want them to.

Exclusivity is one of the draws of religion (witness the strength of fundamentalist protestantism vs. other more open faiths) and so who knows what would have eventually devoured Europe.

More interesting to me is the development of Islam might very well have been substantially different had the Romans not persecuted and destroyed the Marcionite church in Anatolia.

Islam might have found a less fertile soil had there been a strong eastern Marcionite church.

I'm curious also about what is known of the genesis of Mandaean thought and its relationship to the 1st century Judeo-Christian milieu.

Trou said...

Thanks for a great post Bart. I wonder, with the Paul's writing so important to Marion, what Paul must have actually taught before his writing was interpolated. Elaine Pagels wrote a book that was a commentary of Paul's writing that was Gnostic and favored by Valentinius and his Gnostic faction.
One thing that I would like to ask is if Paul did exist, why does his ministry parallel Apollos who even had the same sidekick and traveled the same routes in his ministry? Could Paul have been credited with some of the acts of Apollos? The name sure sounds similar also. Has anything come up in your studies that shed light on this?

Pastor Merrill said...

Christianity started about 35BC and the New Testament was completed about 100BC so the statement that the New Testament didn't appear till 100 years later is inaccurate.

Pastor Merrill said...

Christianity started about 35BC and the New Testament was completed about 100BC so the statement that the New Testament didn't appear till 100 years later is inaccurate.

zilch said...

That is fascinating, Bart. And along with Evan's Constantine story, it shows how easily things might have gone very differently with Christianity, and thus with history.

But I will also agree with Evan about the limits of counterfactual histories: it's impossible to say what would have happened, if Marcion (or Constantine) had never lived, say. I would hesitate to guess that the last two thousand years would have been more peaceful without Christianity as we know it. After all, the idea of killing for one's faith evolves again and again in the ideosphere, and it's pretty obvious why: it confer fitness on the followers of the religious memeplex.

Warriors who are willing to kill, and to die, for their religion, are like the immune system of a living thing: the warriors and white blood cells die themselves, but the system is protected and survives. If Marcion hadn't existed, it seems quite likely that some other sect of Christianity, or another religion altogether, might have gained power in Europe and been just as bloody. But who knows?

In any case, the contingency of Christianity ending up as the major religion of the West seems obvious. Many Christians point to the pervasiveness of their religion as a proof of its truth; but a critical examination of all the historical accidents that led to its rise and evolution to its present form, such as those Bart and Evan have presented here, weakens this argument greatly.

I suspect that the particular form Christianity evolved is a combination of good design and luck. Sort of like the form of human beings.

Trou said...

Pastor Merrill said...
"Christianity started about 35BC and the New Testament was completed about 100BC so the statement that the New Testament didn't appear till 100 years later is inaccurate."

You are misinformed on 2 counts. There is evidence that Christianity started before Christ (you say 35BC, is that a typo?) due to our knowledge of the Essenes who taught all the major doctrines of Christianity and their social structure was the same. They were even dispersed in the same areas as Christians were said to start. Google Essene and Christian parallels.
Second, the New Testament canon was not agreed upon until the 4th century. Also, the date you give for the completion of the books in the New Testament is very early. I doubt you would get an agreement with scholars on 100ad except for the very partisan. Google the origin of the New Testament canon to see what is more realistic.

bart willruth said...

Pastor Merrill said...
Christianity started about 35BC and the New Testament was completed about 100BC so the statement that the New Testament didn't appear till 100 years later is inaccurate.

Whenever Christianiaty started, and for the sake of argument let's assume your date of 35 CE, there is no attestation for any document that made its way into the New Testament dating from the first century. So far as I am aware, there is no clear attestation for any of thos writings prior to Marcion. Certainly, there i no evidence prior to Marcion that anyone was collecting these documents into a proto-New Testament, no Christian writing was referred to as scripture, and no Christian writing was being used as authoritative.

You claim that the NT was completed by 100 CE. The basis for that claim is solely the claims of a few late second century apologists and others who came later. You are thus entirely dependent on church tradition for your sola scriptura stance.

The fact that Marcion didn't include the epistles to Timonth, 1 and 2 as well as to Titus raises an obvious question why? The simple answer is that they had not yet been written. Not only do they reflect a situation not possible in the lifetime of Paul, but they are not written in his style, and they do not reflect the theology of his authentic epistles.

It would have been foolish for Marcion to offer an abridged version of Paul's epistles or to ignore some, because all his opponents would have had to do is to point out his omissions. That this wasn't done is very telling.

Bart

bart willruth said...

Trou said...
Thanks for a great post Bart. I wonder, with the Paul's writing so important to Marion, what Paul must have actually taught before his writing was interpolated.

Even though no copies of Marcions NT have survived (no doubt they were fed to the fires in the 4th century book burnings) the apologetic reaction to him were so prolific that most of his NT can be reconstructed through the rants of his detractors.

His Pauline epistles are notable for their lack of Jewish teachings, Messiah identification, and church supercessionism vis a vis Israel.

His Gospel begins with the words, "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius, ISU descended and was preaching in Capernaum." Like a phantom he descended from the heavens, having no earthly background, and only seemed to appear human. The descent and ascent of a savior emenation of God as Marcion describes it is in keeping with similar concepts that were in the air in diarpora Judaism. I may deal with that in my next post.

Jason said...

Well done. Very interesting stuff.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart ~ Once again you have displayed more than partial truths regarding the early church as it pertained to their observance of God’s word and historically verifiable record that had been . First I commend you that that yes Marcion did have his own gospel in 140 AD there is no doubt…yes the church already in existence at the time, with a clear message of a real Jesus rejected his (Marcion’s) gospel as unauthentic and yes in AD 393 at the Synod of Hippo confirmed the 27 books of the New testament cannon that we have today.

Our agreements however end at that.

Bart, …” It is no secret that for the first 100 years of Christian history there was no New Testament, nor were particular writings of Christian luminaries treated as scripture.”…

Here you play fast and loose with the record. The problem is failure to accurately set forth the Oral historicity that was a prevalent way of communication important truths in the day. The Jews system was vastly different than the Roman oral tradition which lent itself to embellishments. The Jewish tradition of oral historicity was NOT parallel to the Greco-Roman tradition, partially because in Semitic though the story represented the words and oracles of the one true and living God. The written record was not extant as it is today, but there was a specific set of beliefs that were prevalent in the oral historicity that are clear in the written narratives.

Bart…” Meanwhile,another form of Christianity was developing in Asia Minor(the place of Paul's evangelization). It burst onto the pages of history in the first half of the second century”

This statement is untrue and based on speculative analysis of the historical record and is unevidential. There were no multiple “Christianities”. There was only one. History confirms that although minor practices differed from place to place, essential truths were unified in every region that Christianity was evangelized. That is clearly proven by the congruence of the written record recovered from each region and cross referenced. Produce the evidence of multiple Christianities and we can talk…That leads to the next point…

Bart… . “Marcion's theology was quite different from that which became orthodox Christianity. He believed that the Old Testament God was not the father of Jesus. Rather, he considered the God of the Jews to be a primitive lower being who created the material world and who had very objectionable characteristics.”… and… “ For him, Christ was the sudden savior, a phantom (not an actual man) who descended from God in the form of a fully mature human,”

This is why Marcion’s message was rejected by those who were followers and direct understudies of the Apostles and their messages. Marcions message just WASN’T TRUE. Jesus was a REAL man (not myth) as you continue to suggest here and the Apostles understood and taught him as not only human, but also God.
First, Marcion went as far as to change and eliminate portions of scripture, (similar to you anti-Christ advocates) Common sense says that in order to do that those scriptures already existed. He eliminated certain features of the written word that was already in effect and widely spread by the time Marcion produced his perversions.

Further, your story is out of time. You continue, as in other posts to REQUIRE Christianity to be and invention of the second and third century. In fact in order to make your assertions work, Christianity needs to compete with Marcion for primacy and there is NO EVIDENCE in either point to support your assertions.

More accurately, Marcion COPIED after the word that was already in existence since some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus.

History strongly confirms that the Gospel message and written record was already in existence BEFORE Marcion produced his perversions. This is confirmed in the writing s by the following church fathers:

Clement of Rome (95AD) {whom Origin in De Principus, Book II, Ch. 3 calls a disciple of the Apostles ~ J. Anderson ‘The Bible the Word Of God’ p. 28 –1905} quoted directly from what we know as the New Testament

Ignatius (70-110 AD)wrote 7 epistles containing quotes from Matthew, John (Gospel narratives that you suggest DIDN’T EXIST) Acts, Romans, I Cor., Galatians, Ephes. ,Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thess., I & II Timothy, James and I Peter. And Calls both PETER AND PAUL Apostles.

Justin Martyr (100-165AD) in his “Dialogue with Trypho” in 133 AD pp. 49,103,105, & 107) before every NT quotation, specifically gives honor to the NT GOSPEL narratives as scripture by saying , “It Is Written” followed by the quoted saying.

Now you also said this...Bart..."Whenever Christianiaty started, and for the sake of argument let's assume your date of 35 CE, there is no attestation for any document that made its way into the New Testament dating from the first century. So far as I am aware, there is no clear attestation for any of thos writings prior to Marcion."

I'll let you down softly because you didn't make a dogmatic assertion here...You said "As far as I know" but anyway, you were off base here...This is why:

John Ryland’s MS – which is a fragment of the Gospel of John and oldest extant fragment of the New Testament, Located in John Ryland’s Library in Egypt, has been dated to be pre 100 AD and in agreement with the TRADITIONAL date supposed by scholarship over the centuries. ~ Normal L. Geisler and William E. Nix “General Intro. To The Bible” 1986 p. 268

You and I both agree that John was generally considered to be the LAST Gospel produced. By virtue of that it is further clear to see that a written record was ALREADY in use and existence BEFORE AD 100 and long be fore Marcion.

There are others but this clearly establishes that the EVIDENCE is that the written narratives were ALREADY in existence by the time Marcion produced his first perversion. (I am ASSUMING that your AD140 date of Marcion is correct…ALTHOUGH there is scholarship to suggest a later date, it really doesn’t matter because the texts were already around by the time he took them apart and perverted them)

Finally, for now, I wanna clear up this…Bart… you said “Irenaeus of Lyon,… As he said, there can only be four gospels because there are four winds (directions of the compass), seems a bit tenuous as a means of weeding out other gospels. Why just four? "Just because..." None of the four chosen can make a strong case for apostolicity."

No. Here’s another one of those partial and dishonest things you like to throw around to make your point. In context the reader should know that Iraneus was brought up under Polycarp who was a disciple of John (Apostle) His writings attest to the CANNONICAL recognition of the 4 gospels, Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Tim., Titus, 1 Peter, 1 John, and Revelation. In his writing “Against Heresies, III, ii, 8” he said that it was evident that by AD 180 the idea of a fourfold gospel had become so axiomatic throughout Christendom that it could be referred to as an established fact "as obvious and inevitable and natural as the four cardinal points of the compass(As we call them) the four winds" –F.F. Bruce “Books and Parchments” 1984. THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE from your misrepresentation of his statement in the above assertion. You statement is TOTALLY out of context and without foundation.

Now, I’ll massacre you with the suggestions that Paul copied after Marcion but there is really no reason to do so because I’ve already proven that the evidence says Paul’s narratives were written, in use, and confirmed as such as early as AD 55. Luke similarly NO LATER than AD 65. Either way both Paul and Luke (which is NOT ANONOMOUS…which is another absurd assertion) This means they were in WRITTEN from SOME 75 TO 85 years before Marcion produces his fantasy. No need to go line by line because the argument that Paul was in some kind of race simply doesn’t exist.

Sorry Bart. This article does what all other mythic Jesus and gospel stories do..Falls FAR SHORT of truth and is misplaced and depends on parallels which are not verifications of coexistence. In fact any parallels found only confirm that Christianity was being copied by pagans, and mythics were trying to keep up with the explosive growth of Christianity and the real Jesus that lived, died and had already rose BODILY.

Use reputable scholarship next time to get at least a little more close to facts and actual truth.

Thanks.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Pastor Merrill~ You're on point don't let these anti-Christ advocates scare ya!

All bark...NO bite.

bart willruth said...

Harvey said

Here you play fast and loose with the record. The problem is failure to accurately set forth the Oral historicity that was a prevalent way of communication important truths in the day. The Jews system was vastly different than the Roman oral tradition which lent itself to embellishments. The Jewish tradition of oral historicity was NOT parallel to the Greco-Roman tradition, partially because in Semitic though the story represented the words and oracles of the one true and living God. The written record was not extant as it is today, but there was a specific set of beliefs that were prevalent in the oral historicity that are clear in the written narratives.

Harvey, this is mere assertion. Oral traditions, if they were circulating are hearsay. If you want to give them inspired status, go ahead. But your assertion that there were oral traditions accurately portrtaying historical events are just "what if" arguments. No evidence exists for your assertion except your subjective need for it.

Harvey said,
There were no multiple “Christianities”. There was only one. History confirms that although minor practices differed from place to place, essential truths were unified in every region that Christianity was evangelized. That is clearly proven by the congruence of the written record recovered from each region and cross referenced. Produce the evidence of multiple Christianities and we can talk…

Harvey, I will refer you to Bart Ehrman's book "Lost Christianities" for some detail on the multiple forms of Christianity which existed. Have you ever looked at the many versions of Gnostic Christianity, the Ebionites, and the Marcionites of this study. You can say that none of these were authentic Christianity, but that is a conclusion based on the survival of one form of Christianity. There were actually dozens and dozens of variations of Christianity competing with one another. Your assertion that there was unity of belief on the major issues is untrue, unless you look only at the early authors who agree with your conception of authentic Christianity and ignore those at variance.

Harvey said,
This (Marcion's theology) is why Marcion’s message was rejected by those who were followers and direct understudies of the Apostles and their messages. Marcions message just WASN’T TRUE. Jesus was a REAL man (not myth) as you continue to suggest here and the Apostles understood and taught him as not only human, but also God.

Harvey,

Marcion's message was rejected by some proto-orthodox leaders in Rome. Do you believe that the bishop of Rome spoke for a universale church in the 140's CE? The Vatican would agree with you. However, Marcion's message was not universally rejected. It was pervasive throughout the empire for hundreds of years. It didn't survive to the present day. You assert that his message was rejected by those who were the understudies of the apostles (apostolic tradition), but how do you know that the leaders in Rome were the authentic understudies of the apostles and not those in Asia Minor and Syria who agreed with Marcion? Is the survival of one stream of the faith and the non survival of others the criterion by which one determines which second and third century Christians were authoritative?

Harvey said,
First, Marcion went as far as to change and eliminate portions of scripture, (similar to you anti-Christ advocates) Common sense says that in order to do that those scriptures already existed. He eliminated certain features of the written word that was already in effect and widely spread by the time Marcion produced his perversions.

Harvey,

You may be right about Marcion eliminating portions of the texts in his possession, although using the term scripture for those texts in a retrospective concept in that prior to Marcion, only the OT was called "scripture" by any Christian. I did make it clear in my post that it is unknown whether Marcion excised portions of text or if later apologists added to Marcion's texts. We simply don't know. We have no knowledge of the contents of the 10 Pauline epistles or the Gospel presented by Marcion prior to his appearance in Rome. I don't know the answer to this question, but of course neither do you. To make a dogmatic assertion as you do is just a faith statement. That meddling with the texts occurred is evident from the warning and curse in the Revelation against taking away from or adding to the words of the prophecy. We do know from the detailed studies of textual criticism that it was far more common for additions to be made to texts rather than deletions. Copyists were frequently wont to clarify (in their own minds) the meaning of a text or to add in their own pet doctrinal idea within the text of a document deemed authoritative by others in their circle, but deletions were far less common. The bottom line is that unless copies of the 10 epistles and the Gospel are found which predate Marcion, we will never know. If you are honest with the evidence, you will recognize the truth of that statement; of course to do so would mean that the canonical epistles and gospel of Luke which you believe to be inerrant are of uncertain content.

Harvey said,
Further, your story is out of time. You continue, as in other posts to REQUIRE Christianity to be and invention of the second and third century. In fact in order to make your assertions work, Christianity needs to compete with Marcion for primacy and there is NO EVIDENCE in either point to support your assertions.

Harvey,

Aside from the book of Acts, there is no evidence for proto-orthodox Christianity coming from the first century, nor for the Jerusalem church, nor for Palestinian Christianity in general. Many forms of Christianity, not just Marcionite, were competing in the second and third centuries. Orthodoxy was an evolutionary process which only prevailed subsequent to Constantine. Suppression of the other forms and the destruction of their "scriptures" occurred in the decades following. The concept of a single authentic line of Christianity proceeding from Pentecost in Jerusalem and constantly contending with heresies is a later construction of catholic Christianity. It is a retrospective history written by the winners.

Harvey said,
More accurately, Marcion COPIED after the word that was already in existence since some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus.

Harvey,

Facts not in evidence. The dating of the gospels and epistles have clear terminii ad quem, but could have been written at ANY time thereafter until the first clear attestation thereof.

Harvey said,
'll let you down softly because you didn't make a dogmatic assertion here...You said "As far as I know" but anyway, you were off base here...This is why:

John Ryland’s MS – which is a fragment of the Gospel of John and oldest extant fragment of the New Testament, Located in John Ryland’s Library in Egypt, has been dated to be pre 100 AD and in agreement with the TRADITIONAL date supposed by scholarship over the centuries. ~ Normal L. Geisler and William E. Nix “General Intro. To The Bible” 1986 p. 268

Harvey,

If this fragment can be dated prior to 100 CE, and this is an open question, there is no reason to assume that it is a fragment of the gospel of John. It could just as easily have been part of the source material which was compiled into John's gospel. In kind, the preamble of John's gospel clearly draws from Philo's concept of the divine Logos. John's gospel also draws conceptually on the Odes of Solomon. In fact many streams of information fed into John's gospel as well as the synoptics.

Harvey said,
Now, I’ll massacre you with the suggestions that Paul copied after Marcion but there is really no reason to do so because I’ve already proven that the evidence says Paul’s narratives were written, in use, and confirmed as such as early as AD 55. Luke similarly NO LATER than AD 65. Either way both Paul and Luke (which is NOT ANONOMOUS…which is another absurd assertion) This means they were in WRITTEN from SOME 75 TO 85 years before Marcion produces his fantasy. No need to go line by line because the argument that Paul was in some kind of race simply doesn’t exist.

Harvey,

Massacre? Let's not get violent here.

Canonical Pauline epistles do indeed indicate a date in the 50's CE. Were they written in that period? We don't really know. Your assertion that they were confirmed at that time is unfounded. I am inclined to believe that at lease some of Marcion's 10 epistles of Paul are of Pauline origin, but I don't know it as a fact. Several of those epistles such as Ephesians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, reflect a later time period than the 50's.

Canonical Luke is indeed not anonymous, but it has no attestation prior to Marcion, and he didn't seem to be aware of its authorship. That the internal authorship claim of canonical Luke is contained in the section of humanizing first three chapters of Luke not present in Marcion's version is an argument in favor of anonymity and later interpolation. The other synoptic gospels received their authorship attestation in the late second century. Why not Luke also?

The bottom line is that Marcion was to first to compile a kind of New Testament. He was the first to accord the concept of scripture of Christian writings. The Roman church absorbed his canon and expanded it with writings intended to debunk him. There is no evidence to suggest that either the writings in his NT existed prior to 140 CE or that they exised in a different form to that of his. Marcion's version of Christianity was the main competitor with proto-orthodoxy for many decades, something clearly unlikely if as you assert the church was so unified on the belief in a fully human Jesus a la the gospels.

Peter said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett,


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"History strongly confirms that the Gospel message and written record was already in existence BEFORE Marcion produced his perversions. This is confirmed in the writing s by the following church fathers:

Clement of Rome (95AD) {whom Origin in De Principus, Book II, Ch. 3 calls a disciple of the Apostles ~ J. Anderson ‘The Bible the Word Of God’ p. 28 –1905} quoted directly from what we know as the New Testament

Ignatius (70-110 AD)wrote 7 epistles containing quotes from Matthew, John (Gospel narratives that you suggest DIDN’T EXIST) Acts, Romans, I Cor., Galatians, Ephes. ,Philippians, Colossians, I & II Thess., I & II Timothy, James and I Peter. And Calls both PETER AND PAUL Apostles.


Can you please provide the quote Clement of Rome wrote that show he knew about the Gospels. Catholic Encycloped writes about Clement of Rome "The New Testament he never quotes verbally. Sayings of Christ are now and then given, but not in the words of the Gospels. It cannot be proved, therefore, that he used any one of the Synoptic Gospels."

Ignatius guotes Matthew in his letters "The tree is known by its fruit", "Let him accept it who can" and "In all circumstances be "wise as a serpent", and perpetually "harmless as a dove". He also quotes Luke "Take hold of me, touch me and see that I am not a bodiless ghost." in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans. These Q like (and ancient Jew) sayings don't necessary prove that the Gospels existed, especially when you read around the these quotes and notice that those are quoted in a slighly different context.

You also mentioned Justim Martyr who quoted Luke 3:22 as "this day have I begotten Thee" (Dialogues with Trypho 88.8 and 103.8) which supports the idea that Luke 1-2 might not have existed at least in the current form during his time. So who knows who wrote Luke...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart~ I made a mistake regarding the fragment I mentioned. It was DISCOVERED in Egypt. It's currently located in Manchester, England not Egypt as I misstated.

So far as the objections you raise, I'll get back in further detail tomorrow. You can do a little study in the meantime on Sir William Ramsey who was the greatest archaeologist some say to have ever lived. He held the same view as most of you for lateness of the new testament and skepticism toward Luke in particular...He changed his total position in favor of the evidence that supports not only the early writing of Luke but also the early WRITING of the NT as we know it.

Once again, I'll follow up on this tomorrow along with the info you requested Peter.

Thanks.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Peter~ One more thing I quoted ALREADY where the inscriptions were found in Justin Martyr's records. I'll quote it again,

"Justin Martyr (100-165AD) in his “Dialogue with Trypho” in 133 AD pp. 49,103,105, & 107) before every NT quotation, specifically gives honor to the NT GOSPEL narratives as scripture by saying , “It Is Written” followed by the quoted saying."

Those references settle that fact that Justin at least knew 2 things:
1- The NT was a written narrative
2- The NT narrative was EQUIVALENT with what was called scripture or the "Word Of God"

This was BEFORE Marcion presented his misdirection in approx 140 or so.

bart willruth said...

Harvey said,
"Justin Martyr (100-165AD) in his “Dialogue with Trypho” in 133 AD pp. 49,103,105, & 107) before every NT quotation, specifically gives honor to the NT GOSPEL narratives as scripture by saying , “It Is Written” followed by the quoted saying."

Justin dedicated his Apology to Emperor Antoninus who ruled from 138-161. Internal evidence is gained by noting that Justin said in the Apology that "Christ was born 150 years ago under the reign of Quirinius." Since Quirinius came into office in 6 CE, the earliest date for Justin's Apology is 150 years after 6 CE and could be from a later point than the inception of the reign of Quirinius. Therefore, Justins first work, the Apology is datable no earlier than 156 CE, and it could be a bit later. His "Dialogue with Trypho" was his last work, likely 160 CE or after.

Further making your date of 133 CE untenable is the fact that Trypho and his friends are described as being exiled from Jerusalem in the aftermath of the war. Since that war and the expulsions occurred in 135 CE, we must allow time for the exiles to move and get established in their new homes in Greece and to make contact with Justin.

Incidentally, Justin's description of Christ seems to be somewhat docetic, appearing to be human but maybe not being so.

Regarding Marcion's date, most scholars put him in Rome ca. 140 CE, but some believe he could have been there earlier.

Peter said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett,

Now we have established that your statement
"More accurately, Marcion COPIED after the word that was already in existence since some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus"
is not supported by any evidence and your reference to Clement of Rome and Ignatius don't support your claim that the Jesus' life story was around before 120 CE. Now let's look at your claim about Justin Martyr. Justin Martyr had some text about Jesus which was Essene style adoptionist version (Codec Bezea Luke 3:22 and Mark 1:11 a la Gospel to the Hebrews). This type of herectic (not orthodox) view was condemned by the 4th century. And like Bart metioned from the dating it is hard to say from the dating who had the first version (and which one) of the Jesus' story.

Now that you know that there is not evidence that
"Marcion COPIED after the word that was already in existence since some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus"
please do not propagate this kind of myth; it would be bearing false witness punishable by eternity in the Christian hell.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Peter ~ Ooh, so now you want to be a heretic hunter? Please...spare me the emotion...So far as what I said, get some reputable scholarship and you'll see what's accepted as true and accurate by people who know what they're talking about, unlike the Doherty's and Ehrman's that are into sensationalism.

I'll keep the story short with you because I don't want to go too far off topic...but look at this:

Clement wrote his epistle to the Corinthians. For the most part, it reads very similarly to the New Testament epistles. Clement shows himself to be extremely familiar with the LXX version of the Old Testament, and his numerous allusions to the New Testament are remarkable considering the historical proximity between himself and the apostolic age. Importantly, 1 Clement shows that the Early Church had a definite sense of unity.

Further: Clement's letter is permeated with Scriptural references (at least 150 quotes from both the Old and New Testaments), and he skillfully wove the Scriptural quotes together to encourage the Corinthians to return to their holy calling, to "attend to what is good, pleasing, and acceptable in the sight of Him who formed us."

No chapter and verse because as you know chapter and verse did not exist at the time...further:

Clement uses the Wisdom of Solomon exactly as he uses the rest of Scripture, thus the case for understanding Clement's Christology as Wisdom Christology is beyond doubt. In conclusion, our analysis of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians yields several promising conclusions:

That the Church was unified, and had a the bonds of an ancient kinship group that would maintain unity;

That soteriology was closely bound to this unity;

That Wisdom Christology was the common property of Christian

Churches (the epistle was written to the community in Corinth-cf. Paul's 1 Cor. 1:24, 8:6; 2 Cor. 4:4).

I mean I can go into detail of how he outlines church discipline as according to NT, Christology, Salvation and other points as according to ALREADY accepted NT doctrine but somehow I don't belive that means anything to an individuals who doesn't care about the true evidence...It's all suspect to suspicious minds so, I really don't care what you do just know I'm not sleepy writing this one.

Look at the next post to Bart as I'm finished with this little trist with you.

Thanks.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart ~ So far as your statement about Christianities or multiple types of Christian belief in the early church; once again, I and most reputable scholars reject that argument and line of reasoning based on the two facts:

1- The text gathered from all regions which were copied from original MS and copies of the original MS’s confirm that doctrine, teaching and all were the same. Out of over 5600 pieces and fragments etc. there was NO VARIATION of doctrine or essential truths between families.

2- Dr. Craig Evans who wrote ‘Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort The Gospels’ 2006, and over 50 additional books and countless publications on the various subjects and historical veracity for the NT text, when responding to the question about ‘different Christianities” responded as follows:

"The was no question about any of these basic points[Jesus’s messiahship, Atonement on the Cross other essentials etc.] in the first decades of the Christian movement. The NT writings reflect the testimony of the first generation church, which very much depended on the testimony of Jesus’ own handpicked disciples. To take a second century diversity and exaggerate it, then try to smuggle those controversies into the first century by hypothesizing that there was some earlier version of second-century documents, is just bogus. Real historians laugh at that kind of procedure"

So far as scholars like your Bart Ermann is concerned (and even you for that matter) Dr. Evans says this…”they’re trying to smuggle into the first century a , Gnostic understanding of God and Christian life, even though first centure Christian had never heard of these things.”
[‘The Case For The Real Jesus’ 2007 Lee Strobel 35]

To persist in this area is equivalent of malpractice but to you and your patients I can only wish the best…

There were no multiple Christianities. There were heretical teachers and teachings which WERE NOT identified as Christian.

Next Point...See Marcion Post.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart & Peter~ Marcion was a copies and a bad one to say the least but he got you convinced, as he had many in that day, but the fact remains that EVERYONE knew that what Marcion presented was NOT NEW. The text ALREADY existed.

Marcion is due all regards but lets get real. Before Marcion there was:

Basilides (117-138 AD)
There were undoubtedly many heretics before Basilides, but he is the first major heretic for whom we have any significant evidence. Around 135 the Gnostic Basilides composed a mighty treatise called the Exigetica which, judging from quotes by critics, contained lengthy exegesis on Gospel stories like the Sermon on the Mount and the Rich Man and Lazarus (M 78-9). His prime point was that he "denied that Jesus really suffered on the cross" [Metzg. New Testament, 79] - in line with the Gnostic idea that a divine being could not undergo such suffering. Instead, Basilides proposed that at the last minute, Simon of Cyrene was switched with Jesus, and as Simon was crucified, Jesus laughed at His enemies, and ascended into heaven.
Clearly, this view is antithetical to Christianity, which holds that Jesus' suffering on the cross paid for our sins. If there was no cross for Jesus, then there was no payment for sins. Basilides would have gutted Christianity and turned it into a form of Gnosticism, and that would have would have rendered it sterile for REALLY changing lives and for God's design for transforming the world.One positive thing that was left behind by Basilides, however: he is known to have quoted the book of 1 Corinthians with the formula, "the scripture says" - the first recorded incidence of a NT quote by that formula (other than the reference in 2 Timothy to Luke).

HOW COULD HE QUOTE WHAT DIDN'T EXIST? This guy shared no commonality with Marcion. You believe a FANTASY. Look further:

Valentinus (135-165)
With Valentinus, we have a heretic who not only tried to change Christianity - using a mix of his own teachings, genuine Christian ideas, and "Oriental and Greek speculations" - but also wrote his own Gospel, which he called "The Gospel of Truth." Now it is evident that there is a recognition here of the authority of a written work - and also, indirect evidence that Valentinus was aware that OTHERS made use of books that were considered authoritative; or else, he would not give his work such a bodacious name as "The Gospel of Truth"! He undoubtedly had to compete with the authoritatively-recognized works of Christianity, so he did what would approximate in our day to putting a label on his work that said, "New and Improved"! In any event, being that he was obviously creating his own material, and was not vested with apostolic authority, there was absolutely no reason to recognize anything he wrote or said as being authoritative for Christianity.

ONCE again It is CLEAR that a written record that was accepted by Christians ALREADY existed...He didn't copy from Marcion either...Look further:

Marcion had his own views some of which you pointed out but this is REALLY what happened:

MARCION
he was called upon by the clergy in Rome to expound upon some views of his that he had been promulgating. He taught that the OT was contradictory and barbaric and that the true Gospel was not at all Jewish, but that Jewish ideas had been imported into NT texts by interpolators, and only Paul's teachings are true - and what he said was so shocking that it resulted not only in his excommunication, but also in the return of a substantial amount of largesse that he had donated to the church. Marcion started his own church and was the first to clearly establish a canon, consisting of ten of the Epistles and one Gospel, which Tertullian decades later identified as the Gospel of Luke, though stripped of "unacceptable features" such as the nativity, OT references, etc.

It is obvious that a collection of Paul's Epistles existed at the time for Marcion to pick apart: "Gamble is undoubtedly correct in assuming that Marcion took over an existing collection of Paul's writings." This is a sign of a literal "pre-canon," or an idea of a canon, quite some time before the fourth century, even if it was not a closed canon. Metzger therefore notes that Marcion did not create the idea of a canon, but did accelerate a process of fixing the canon that had already begun! (On the other hand, it seems that the Marcionite heresy caused some reactionary church officials, including Justin Martyr, to avoid quoting Paul for a while.) WHY? Because Marcion appealed to the authority of the writings of the Apostle Paul. Even though he conformed the texts to his own ideas, he clearly realized that only with apostolic authority could his ideas get anywhere; for heretics likely had to "justify their vagaries by appeals to acknowledged standards." [Harr.IC, 210]

The Epistles EXISTED, The gospels EXISTED on and on...

Look at my next post and I'll tell ya WHY...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart much of the confusion comes from a lack and misunderstanding of oral communities and oral narratives. These are current findings and hypothesis that must be considered and is the most accurate way to approach the oral historicity (tradition):

So far as oral historicity that I stated, based on current interdisciplinary studies there is no solid grounds for thinking that the Jesus traditions of the early church were purely oral

1- Contrary to Harris’s (William Harris-'Ancient Literacy')study on ancient literacy which implored a comparativist deductive methodology, (which most historical form-critics eagerly accept) current studies show that actual epigraphic evidence is a also an indicator of literacy within ancient cultures and should be used in balance with the comparativist deductive method that has generally been accepted on it’s own.

2- Cost of materials as evidence for non-early origins has been determined to be a “unanswerable and a meaningless question” due to lack of objective criteria. ~ ‘Papyrus & Parchment’ “The Birth Of The Codex” [New York: Oxford University Press 1973],7

3- Evidence against the common assumptions of universally prohibitive costs of writing materials in the ancient world have been found as afar as Britain at Military Ft. Vindolanda (AD 100) The find was underscored with an abundance of both thin wood leaves (Their paper) and a type of ink pen. This removes the argument that “writing materials were only for the well to do” ~ Bowman, ‘Literacy in the Roman Empire’ 128

4- The vast amount of written materials such as legal deeds, writing of divorce, letters, writings on coins and ossuaries strongly suggest that literary levels were high and relatively wide spread. ~ Mallard, Reading and Writing 168

5- This is further evidenced by the amount of literary evidence recovered from Qumran, which cannot be excluded arbitrarily or considered an anomaly. ~ Snyder, Review Of Jewish Literacy 426.

6- “The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that was simply not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century…to be able to read and explain the scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.” ~ J.P. Meier, ‘A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus Vol. 1: The Roots of The Problem and Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991) 275

7- “The milieu in which Jesus and the original disciples ministered, and the milieu in which remembrances of Jesus life and teachings were passed on, was one that revered the written word and thus valued literacy.” ~ B. Gerhardsson, ‘The Gospel Tradition’, in The Interrelations of the Gospels ed. D.L. Dungan (Levin: Peters,1990) 538

In light of current findings it would be reasonable to assume that the followers of Jesus maintained a notebook of some sorts during their journeys so that certain things could be remembered. “There’s no need to think that this material [of Jesus teachings] was simply memorized by the disciples. ~ R.H. Stein, ‘The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Grand Rapids Baker Academic 1987)205

Coupled with the fact that Jesus displayed his literary awareness of the OT as well as the disciples, and it would seem that not only was Matthew (Tax Collector) but other of the disciples were literate including Judas who was held as treasurer. In addition Eusebius later confirms that Mark (Peter’s Understudy) was literate, it then becomes highly plausible that there was an early circulation of written material available among disciples and whoever wanted to know. This is what I mean by oral historicity not merely oral tradition as the western world comes to think of it. Further info can be found by reading C.M.Albl “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken” The Form and Function Of The Early Christian Testimonia Collections (Boston: Brille, 1999) The Oral Historicity (Tradition) of the Jews was very high and established early.

My final point on this, and I hope you haven’t gained the impression that the Jewish community pre-100 was not an oral community, It was, however, there was much more to the setting than traditional from critics have allowed. Current scholarship is abandoning many form-critical assumptions that there was no story of Jesus prior to the written narratives. Why? Long oral narratives, some of which take multiple days and time spans in excess of 26 hours to complete, have been discovered and within those narratives are relationships between parts that create whole and complete historical stories such as we find within the Gospels. ‘The Jesus Legend’ Boyd/Eddy 2006 p.256

Listen this is way off point but I believe that there is much to study here and research will help uncover more truth. At either rate Bart Ehrman, being the traditionalist that he is, won’t be able to masquerade himself as time goes by. His theories are out of date, defunct, and do not offer the enlightenment that he pretends they do.

In light of current finding and study it is EASY to understand that the writtne natrrative clearly existed long BEFORE Marcion or any of the Gnostic heretics.

Once again, I offer proof across the board and a much MORE PLAUSABLE explaination than either of you have on these points.

Modern scholarship is in my favaor as well as the RECORD of HISTORY which the Bible CANNOT be discounted...

Ooh, by the way, the reason Luke could not have been a second century book is because it has too many truths and descripotions that were ONLY in the first century...Ie: Many of the cities, places and events mentioned were not around in the second century. They were TOTALLY unique to first Century.

There's much more to say but please don't continue to try to place a first century HISTORICAL event in the second century and vice-versa...That's really not scholarship, that PLAIN MISINFORMATION.

Thanks.

By the way Peter, since I know the historical Jesus...I have no worry of HELL...Can you sleep and rest in that confidence?

Peter said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"get some reputable scholarship and you'll see what's accepted as true and accurate by people who know what they're talking about, unlike the Doherty's and Ehrman's that are into sensationalism."

You can appeal to the authority if you want, but you have not presented any evidence to your claim:
"Marcion COPIED after the word that was already in existence since some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus"
What evidence do your "reputable scholarship" offer to us?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
Clement's letter is permeated with Scriptural references (at least 150 quotes from both the Old and New Testaments)"

Very true, but amazingly the leader of the Church does not mention anything from the Gospels. One must conlude that if he refers 150 time to holy scriptures without mentioning the Gospels, those probably did not exist at that time.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"In conclusion, our analysis of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians yields several promising conclusions: That the Church was unified .."

We can even see from Paul's letters that different Christian teachings were around (and still are) when there were around 10,000 Christians (~100 CE) and until the early 4th century all kind of herecies (=orthodoxies at the time) were taught. Even the trinitarims came much later... I'm not sure about how unified the Chruch was on any core doctrine.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

By the way...obviously the interpretation of Christian is missing from your understanding...Marcion (or any of the other heretics)was no more a Christian than a Jehova's Witness, or Mormon is today.

Those who did not accept Jesus as a figure in history were by virtue of that belief EXCLUDED, not because they obtained a copy of the ALREADY written and disseminated word.

I guess next you'll believe that a Hindu is atheist...

Peace.

Peter said...

Slow down District Supt. Harvey Burnett. You seem to move the goal post faster than you can run.
- I refuted your claim that Jesus narratives existed "some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus"
- I refuted your claim that Clement knew about Jesus narrative
- I refuted your claim that Ignatius knew about Jesus narrative
- I asked you to provide evidence of pre-Marcion Jesus narratives but you moved on (hint: Aristides of Athens)

You still make more and more claims without evidence like a true apologist, even thought your previous claims were unsubstantiated.


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
By the way Peter, since I know the historical Jesus...I have no worry of HELL...Can you sleep and rest in that confidence?
I guess based on your previous posts it is pointless to ask you about your evidence of historical Jesus. Since you (nor I) don't seem to know the origin of Christianity that well, maybe you should brush up your knowledge before going to bed tonight.

bart willruth said...

Harvey said,
Those who did not accept Jesus as a figure in history were by virtue of that belief EXCLUDED, not because they obtained a copy of the ALREADY written and disseminated word.

Harvey,

In this statement, you have made your litmus test clear. In effect you are saying that no other versions of Christianity existed or could have existed since if they did not conform to orthodox doctrinal beliefs, they were not Christian. This is a perfect example of circular reasoning, and with your permission I will use it in the future as an example of apologetic methodology.

Even within the documents which became the NT canon, it is evident that there were competing versions of Christianity. Paul in Galatians speaks of other gospels and other apostles whom he calls "false and accursed." The first epistle of John indicates that those who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh were antichrist. To give this warning clearly indicates that there were those who did not believe that he had come in the flesh. Of course, retrospectively, you can claim that none of these were Christians, but I would point out to you that heresy is in the eyes of the beholder. Those other apostles considered Paul a heretic. The human-Jesus deniers considered the Johannine community to be heretical. Catholic Christianity, looking back, considered all variants as being heretical. This is only possible as history being written by the winners. There were obviously many varieties of Christianity early on, all vying for supremacy.

Harvey said,
Ooh, by the way, the reason Luke could not have been a second century book is because it has too many truths and descripotions that were ONLY in the first century...Ie: Many of the cities, places and events mentioned were not around in the second century. They were TOTALLY unique to first Century.

Harvey,

There is clear evidence that Luke-Acts draws on Josephus as a source. His history of the first century naturally feeds into the details of Luke-Acts. By the way, Luke-Acts teaches adoptionism, a position declared heretical by the church of the 4th century. Luke also consciously avoids the concept of atonement.

I am doubtful that continuing this discussion has any point, because the hermeneutic discussed above precludes any reasonable and objective view of evidence. I will state your presupposition once again, just because it is so unbelievably irrational.

Since only orthodox Christianity is authentic Christianity, it is not possible for there to have been other Christianities.

Therefore:

Gnostic Christianity wasn't a type of Christianity.

Marcionite Christianity wasn't a type of Christianity.

Ebionite Christianity wasn't a type of Christianity.

Doscetic Christianity wasn't a type of Christianity.

The Nag Hamadi scrolls do not represent a different type of Christianity.

Valentinus was not teaching an alternate type of Christianity.

The Gospel of Thomas doesn't represent a different strain of Christianity.

In short, none of these were alternate and competing forms of Christianity since they were not authentic Christianity.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Peter~ you said this: "You can appeal to the authority if you want, but you have not presented any evidence to your claim:
"Marcion COPIED after the word that was already in existence since some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus"
What evidence do your "reputable scholarship" offer to us?"

What scholarship do you offer that they DID NOT exist? I have a man that presents altered copies of books that the church leadership RECOGNIZED were altered how? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY EXISTED and church leaders knew EXACTLY what was written in them. The church would not have known the difference if Marcion presented his fantasy off the cuff...PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER...This is most ignornat of both of you in this point but you do you...

Peter said:

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
Clement's letter is permeated with Scriptural references (at least 150 quotes from both the Old and New Testaments)"

Very true, but amazingly the leader of the Church does not mention anything from the Gospels. One must conlude that if he refers 150 time to holy scriptures without mentioning the Gospels, those probably did not exist at that time.

Does your mother exist Peter? Does not mentioning her make her cease to exist? How about your dad? Your argument is foolish. Information must be viewed IN CONTEXT in which it was given. You certainly offer nothing to the convo.

Peter said: "- I refuted your claim that Jesus narratives existed "some 20 to 30 years after the death of Jesus"
- I refuted your claim that Clement knew about Jesus narrative
- I refuted your claim that Ignatius knew about Jesus narrative
- I asked you to provide evidence of pre-Marcion Jesus narratives but you moved on (hint: Aristides of Athens)

You haven't REFUTED ANYTHING! You offer a convoluted mix-up hypothesis based on no scholarship and bad presuppositions so don't be proud.

I've clearly proven, The text existed EARLY on by MS evidence, church father quoted from the texts and the text both epistles and gospels were condsidered equivalent with SCRIPTURE...all you offer is a Catholic Encyclopedia commentary which didn't deal with the subject in any detail.

Peter said: "I guess based on your previous posts it is pointless to ask you about your evidence of historical Jesus."

Yes it is pointless because you're living in complete fantasy land along with your other anti-Christ advocate buddies if you believe that junk. Secondly, we've already argued the point and facts are laid out clearly concering the HISTORICITY of Jesus in the Historical Reliability thread, and all fantasies such as the ones you hold were turned down like they have been for almost 2000 years, from your comments you certainly offer nothing new...go here-

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/03/historical-reliability.html?ext-ref=comm-sub-email

I don't want to start over with you here. You've already proven to be unobjective and not given to actual facts or truth.

Bart~ That's right. Competetion DOESN'T make it Christianity for all the reasons I stated. Once again:

1 - MS evidence shows congruent MS's in all regions.

2- The church father's writing's pre 100AD clearly show a set of beliefs that were consistent throughout the Christian community

3- Gnosticism was an advent of the SECOND century not first. You have produced NO EVIDENCE that it thrived or existed in the first century at all.

4- MS evidence shows that a written record existed early on. Marcion produced chopped up versions of that written record including a changed Gospel account that WAS ALREADY IN USE and familiar to those who heard him.

5- Writings of the early church fathers shows that they were familiar with the ORIGINAL written record and the HISTORICAL fact of Jesus of the gospels and the epistles of Paul.

6- Luke displays ample evidence and information UNIQUE to First century Christianity, much of which DID NOT exist in Second century, and therefore to redate him presents a whole host of problems for you. This once again, proves a line of writings that were already in existence.

7- Church fathers were so familiar with the written record that they recognized Marcion's copies and alterations, heard his teaching and called him a so much of a heretic that they excomm...him.

As I said, anyone who has an inkling of understanding of the actual historical settings and approaches this subject from a best plausibility and most evidential standpoint will into agreement that Marcion only rewrote and reproduced what already existed.

So far as Sir William Ramsey is concerned...The reason you should know him is because he is (One of the GREATES ARCHAEOLOGISTS EVER) He pointed out that "Luke's history is unsurpassed" Further, his claims are UNREFUTED to this day that the NT reflect conditions that are UNIQUE to the second half of the first century AD and which do not reflect conditions of ANY LATER DATE. "St. Paul The Traveller and Roman Citizen" Baker 1962

Once again he was a skeptic and believed as both of you that NT was Second century. EVIDENCE convinced him otherwise.

LOOK (open your eyes) you find that too.

Thanks.

bart willruth said...

Harvey,

One more try. You have defined out the possibility of competing Christianities existing. By defining Christianity as only that of orthodox beliefs, then by definition, there could be no competing versions of Christianity in the first centuries of our era. Therefore, by your definition, there were no alternate and competing versions of Christianity.

Any arguments that I put forward for Marcionism competing with orthodoxy is simply dismissed as a heresy and not really a competing form of Christianity.

You keep pointing out that the Roman clergy dismissed Marcion's ideas, and rightly so, and excommunicated him (a very Roman Catholic concept). You then argue that since the church so clearly rejected Marcionism, it kept itself pure from it. I will point out again that Marcion got bad reviews in Rome, but was received very well indeed elsewhere. Marcionism thrived in Asia Minor and Syria for many decades. Do you then support the Roman Catholic rationale that only the Roman Pontiff can determine authentic belief? If not, why do you ignore the success that Marcion had elsewhere? Just because Rome won the battle of doctrine under Constantine's patronage does not in any objective sense mean that other forms of belief which were extant in prior centuries was invalid as claimants to authentic Christianity.

You are, as I mentioned in the post, entirely dependent upon catholic tradition for your belief structure.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart ~ You said this: "Marcionism thrived in Asia Minor and Syria for many decades. Do you then support the Roman Catholic rationale that only the Roman Pontiff can determine authentic belief? If not, why do you ignore the success that Marcion had elsewhere?"

My only contention here was that Marcionism and gnosticism in general WERE NOT first century Christan problems. That was a second century problem that as you suggest was accepted by many Christians (who by definition became non-Christian under that belief system) and as I add many other people some of whom were pagan and mystics.

Marcion and any number of other heretics were successful for a time and had a certain appeal among those who were into mysticism and who further DID NOT believe in a historical Jesus.

The problem I have with much of what you suggest is that Marcionism was somehow the original Christianity because he (Marcion)brought a cannon together and the church had to scramble to come up with something in response soooo whaaaalaaa, here's the Gospels...as I've said and demonstrated that conclusion is not plausable when we consider all evidence. The narratives were not a Marcion invention or neither a second century church invention in response to Marcion or any other. That's all I'm talking about.

So far as Rome or the Pope is concerned, Yes ancient Catholicism certainly has it's influence one way or another on all Christian churches today, but that doesn't make all Christianity subject or subserviant to it.

A practical example would be your parents...They had their influence, but are you controlled by them today? I'm sure the answer is no.

Bart~ "Just because Rome won the battle of doctrine under Constantine's patronage does not in any objective sense mean that other forms of belief which were extant in prior centuries was invalid as claimants to authentic Christianity.

There has not been any evidence of competing brands of Christianity during first century AD. (I'll give you that heretics ran wild in second and third century) However, according to what we are confident of within first century Christianity other belief systems were Non Christian or as you say "invalid" IF they did not

1- Believe that Jesus was a historical figure

2- Believe that he was God

3- believe in HIS atonement on the cross and

4- Accept the fact His bodily resurrection

The scriptural record was clear on these points and others. As I've demonstrated the early church fathers emphasized all of these essential beliefs and more concerning Jesus in their narratives and ministries.

I'll admit what you suggest is interesting, but I believe the fall of Marcionism was more because of the inauthentic foundation of his message, not the Catholic church, Rome or anyone else. His message just plain wasn't from the Lord.

Thanks.

bart willruth said...

Harvey,

One more item. You place great weight on the text of 1 Clement. Other than the claim of Roman Catholocism that Clement was the second pope, there is no reason to date the epistle prior to Marcion.

Loisy proposes the theory that Clement is the one named in Vision 8 of the Shepherd of Hermas, mid second century, and was an elder in Rome ca 140 CE.

In any event, 1 Clement cannot be confirmed as a first century document.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart ~ Thanks for that info. I will research that out, but I do appreciate the dialogue.

Thanks.

Peter said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett,

You keep on making odd statements like:
"I've clearly proven, The text existed EARLY on by MS evidence, church father quoted from the texts and the text both epistles and gospels were condsidered equivalent with SCRIPTURE"

Then please show where any early Chruch father before 120 CE quotes Gospels. I pointed out that Clement and Ignatius did not like you claimed. Which MS you refer to? Any of them before 120 CE? Repeated claims do not constitute an evidence; show me the quotes. Calling me ingorant or stating that "Information must be viewed IN CONTEXT" does not get you anywhere.

bart willruth said...

Harvey said,

There has not been any evidence of competing brands of Christianity during first century AD.

Harvey,

Since you don't recognize the "Other apostles" and "Other gospels" against which Paul rails in Galatians as competing versions of Christianity, nor do you recognize the docetism denounced in the Johannine epistles as being a competing version of Christianity, are you then dating these texts as second century?

Perhaps those other apostles and other gospels and docetic beliefs were the originals and Paul was the innovator. On what basis do you deduce that Paul wasn't the Christian competitor against an original?

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Bart ~ You asked me the following: "Perhaps those other apostles and other gospels and docetic beliefs were the originals and Paul was the innovator. On what basis do you deduce that Paul wasn't the Christian competitor against an original?"

Paul's writings are inconsistent with gnostic beliefs and certainly don't reflect any docetic beliefs. Look at 3 of his epistles, 1 & 2 Cor. and Galations for example (All of which were included in Marcion's cannon - after he took out what he wanted to take out) Not only are 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Galatians well attested and early (No later than 60 AD) but all three reveal a historical interest in the events of Jesus' life and give facts that agree with the Gospels. Paul speaks of Jesus' virgin birth (Gal. 4:4), sinless life (2 Cor. 5:21), death on the cross (1 Cor. 15:3; Gal. 3:13); resurrection on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4), and post-resurrection appearances (1 Cor. 15:5-8). He mentions the hundreds of eyewitnesses who could verify the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). Paul rests the truth of Christianity on the historicity of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12-19). Paul also gives historical details about Jesus' contemporaries, the apostles (1 Cor. 15:5-8), including his private encounters with Peter and the apostles (Gal. 1:18-2:14). Surrounding persons, places, and events of Christ's birth were all historical.

Paul believed in a PHYSICAL not mythical Jesus and had NOTHING to do with creating a competing gospel. Suggestions to the contrary are not plausable and certainly not supported by any evidence.

So far as Paul's refrence about "another Gospel" etc...in a more practical way, I've talked to my child about drugs and sex (He's 10 years old) Thankfully he's never done either nor been in a situation where's he's been exposed to either. Wouldn't I be negligent if I didn't warn him of such ills? As a father I should have some insight into what he may face in the world.

As a father of the church (An Apostle to be specific) wouldn't it be reasonable to have insight into what would come? I mean if God knows everything as we claim, would he not warn us (The church in general) of what to look out for? This is simply what Paul did by the guidence of the Holy Spirit, to strengthen and build up the church as well as prepare it for future growth and battles. I'm 2000 years removed from his teaching, but I see this everyday and this board is even an example...You preach another gospel in efforts to disprove the true gospel. So true Christians aren't caught by surprise.

As I said there remains no evidence that gnosticism was a competetor of 1st century Christianity and that there multiple "Christianities" and inconsistent beliefs among believers. Speculations as such are just that, SPECULATIONS and are not even plausably argued.

To revisit this Clement of Rome argument, In my research, I find that Clement cited Matthew, John, and 1 Corinthians, approximately 95 to 97AD. The 140 date that you suggest may be for a later writing, but he was quoting what we know as NT scripture BEFORE 100AD.

Further, Ignatius referred to six Pauline epistles in about 110, and between 110 and 150 Polycarp quoted from all four gospels, Acts, and most of Paul's epistles.

Shepherd of Hermas (115-140) cited Matthew, Mark, Acts, 1 Corinthians, and other books.

Didache (120-150) referred to Matthew, Luke, 1 Corinthians, and other books.

So far as additional evidence for early fragment and scriptures (in addition to all the other info I've already given) Jose O'Callahan, a Spanish Jesuit paleographer, in March 18, 1972, identified a manuscript fragment from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) as a piece from the gospel of Mark. The piece was from Cave 7. Using the accepted methods of papyrology and palaeography, O'Callahan compared sequences of letters with existing documents and eventually identified nine fragments as belonging to one gospel, Acts, and few epistles. Some of these were dated slightly later than 50, but still extremely early.

Here's the breakdown:

Mark 4:28 - 7Q6 - AD 50
Mark 6:52,53 - 7Q5 - AD 50
Mark 12:17 - 7Q7 - AD 50
Acts 27:38 - 7Q6 - AD 60+
Rom. 55:11,12 - 7Q9 - AD 70+
1 Timothy 3:16, 4:1-3 - 7Q4 - AD70+
2 Peter 1:15 - 7Q10 - AD 70+
James 1:23, 24 - 7Q8 - AD 70+

Once again in addition to P52 that I mentioned earlier which has been dated from (Late 90's AD to 120 AD) We have a great confidence that the goepels were both early

(WITHIN 20 TO 30 YEARS OF JESUS DEATH ~ PETER!)

and that the message was already in place with a uniform set of beliefs or essentials in every region as demonstrated by the evidence collected from EACH region.

Lastly, please familiarize yourself with yet another skeptic and original "late dater" named William F. Allbright. Here's his findings:

"We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."('Recent discoveries in Bible Lands', 136). Elsewhere Albright said, "In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptised Jew between the forties and eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75)('Towards a More Conservative View,' 3)

Another original "late dater" and former anti-Christ advocate , John A.T.Robinson known for his role in launching the 'Death of God' movement, Robinson also wrote "Redating the New Testament" in which he posited revised dates for the New Testament books that place them earlier than the most scholars previously held.

Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60 (AS I SAID IN THE VERY FIRST POST I PARTICIPATED IN WITH YOU) Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65. This would mean that one of who Gospels could have been written as early as seven years after the crucifixion.

At the VERY latest they were all composed within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. Assuming the basic integrity and reasonable accuracy of the writers, this would place the reliability of the New Testaments beyond reasonable doubt.

This falls in line with what I wrote about oral historicity clearly. Writing was early and inconjunction with oral tadition.

As stated, the gospels were written and accepted early, and remember did not spread until the persecution in 68 to 70 so the message initially, was fairly centralized and highly consistent.

Anyway, this is America, take it or leave it, but you certainly can't change it. It's TRUE.

N E X T!

Thanks.

Spontaneous Order said...

Can someone clarify:

If our knowledge of Marcion 'bible' only comes from its criticism by the proto-orthodox Christianity's defenders, in any of that criticism was there a statement to the effect 'of course Marcion dropped all of 'this' from his 'bible''?

If such an argument isn't present it is a clear case of the dog who didn't bark.

Barry

bart willruth said...

Spontaneous order Barry said,

Can someone clarify:

If our knowledge of Marcion 'bible' only comes from its criticism by the proto-orthodox Christianity's defenders, in any of that criticism was there a statement to the effect 'of course Marcion dropped all of 'this' from his 'bible''?

If such an argument isn't present it is a clear case of the dog who didn't bark.

Barry,

I have been searching in vain for any contemporary or near contemporary of Marcion accusing him of excising, redacting, or altering the text of Paul or his Gospel in any way. So far, the only response I have been able to document is the addition of the Pauline canon with 1 Tim, 2 Tim, and Titus which clearly contradict Marcion. Also, later versions of Luke and the 10 Paulines show differences and additions. It is probable that expanded canonical Luke and its companion Acts of the Apostles which significantly makes no mention of Paul's epistles or their teaching, were part of the catholic response.

None of this proves that Marcion's versions are older than the canonical texts which appear in a different form later, but the onus is on those who would claim that the "expanded" and "more orthodox" versions of those texts were older than Marcion.

The obvious question which you brought up is, If Marcion had changed existing and well known texts to fit his theology, why wasn't that just thrown into his face. His opponents would have only needed to show "authentic" texts to refute him. That they did not is quite telling.

Just as significant is that if Marcion had been aware of a different version of Pauline epistles and the gospel, he would have had to refute it as he did the catholic interpretation of the OT scriptures. That he did not seems to indicate that no alternate versions existed requiring refutation.

It seems more plausible that the catholic church simply absorbed Marcion's canon, interpolated it, added major sections, redacted it, and created new canonical texts to reinterpret the Marcionite myth.

Peter said...

Again, lets look at the facts:

- About the 7Q5 please check the Wikipedia article about it. It also has a picture of the fragment and explains why the majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's arguments of this being Mark 6:52,53.

- 7Q6,1 has three letters we can be sure of and four letters can not be sure of
- 7Q6,2 has four letters we can be sure of and three letters can not be sure of
Those seem to be from the same manuscripts (not Mark = Acts). Because so few letters are know (3+4) experts don't

seem to agree which manuscript those are from. If it is from the known Christian writings the best guess seem to be Sirach.

-7Q7 is the weakest of these claims. Pretty much all Christian to scholars M. Baillet, P. Benoit, Gordon Fee, Colin Hemer, Colin Roberts, Kurt Aland and Metzger reject the ideas the Qumran cave 7 material is from the Gospels. You refered to Mezger as a reliable author earlier, so the Author you quoted earlier is debunking your claims.


You copied and pasted your P52 claims from the bethinking.org article (http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233), but changed the P52 dates to suit your claim. The web page you copied this gives P52 dating 117 - 138 CE (most Christian scholar sources estimate 120 - 150CE). Surely you are not lying for Jesus...


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
To revisit this Clement of Rome argument, In my research, I find that Clement cited Matthew, John ... approximately 95 to 97AD.
You keep on telling this to us. Tell us already what he quoted and were can we find it in the Gospels? It is easy to quote mine, but please present us one solid evidence about Gospels before 120 CE.


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
Anyway, this is America, take it or leave it, but you certainly can't change it. It's TRUE.
I'm not in America and this is the Internet. And of course we can all change it. And you don't seem to have the evidence to support your truth claims

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Peter ~ You said: "Metzger reject the ideas the Qumran cave 7 material is from the Gospels. You refered to Mezger as a reliable author earlier, so the Author you quoted earlier is debunking your claims."

Not true Metzger affirms(ed) the material, he may not like 7Q7... but that doesn't matter your argument is a complete nonstarter. I would expect as mush from an anti-Christ advocate of the highest degree which you are.

Peter: " About the 7Q5 please check the Wikipedia article about it. It also has a picture of the fragment and explains why the majority of scholars have not been convinced by O'Callaghan's and Thiede's arguments of this being Mark 6:52,53.

Yet there are many scholars who are statisfied, in fact the majority of reputable scholars are except for probably Doherty (is he a scholar?- NO just an anti-Christ advocate like you) and Tabor and Ehrman who further have no clue.

- 7Q6,1 has three letters we can be sure of and four letters can not be sure of
- 7Q6,2 has four letters we can be sure of and three letters can not be sure of
Those seem to be from the same manuscripts (not Mark = Acts). Because so few letters are know (3+4) experts don't seem to agree which manuscript those are from. If it is from the known Christian writings the best guess seem to be Sirach."

What does this mean??? Ooh letter identification...(LOL)...Obviously you DON'T know what the process of MS and fragment dating is about and that the entire process has much MORE criteria than being able to identify a letter...FURTHER reputable scohlars are more sure of all the fragments than what you let on...I guess the Essenes put their grandmother's cooking receipies in with the religious texts- Yea I forgot that they found the first Prego ingregients there too (at least according to your scholarship)keep coming Peter-LOL--You're getting to be more and more fun!

Peter:
"You copied and pasted your P52 claims from the bethinking.org article http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233)

And YOU have a problem with that??? Mr CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA and WICKIPEDIA MAN???

Peter:
"but changed the P52 dates to suit your claim. The web page you copied this gives P52 dating 117 - 138 CE (most Christian scholar sources estimate 120 - 150CE). Surely you are not lying for Jesus"

No Peter, keep pulling up sites you'll see other reputable scholars that affirm dates prior to 90 CE for P52. I was being very conservative and most REPUTABLE scholars (which you seem to be out of touch with) render a 120 date to keep from overstating the case. I simply don't mind overstating as I have read the case for an earlier date than what Giesler conservatively gives on the site. There is a sound case for a Pre 90 date underwritten by good scholarship and sound plausability...I leave it at about 100AD or slightly before.

Either way you have NO LEG to stand on...Give it up...put the keyboard down and simply walk away. The evidence is overwhelmingly against your weakness.

To the point, the dating is only ONE set of proof and it's all sound as the MS PROVE that they were in use and widely circulated BEFORE Marcion came along with his revisements and butchered copies.

Further, as I stated earlier the early church understood that Marcion took the Gospel of Luke and the epistles apart. It was common knowledge among church fathers. One that spoke specifically to that point was Iraneus who understood as much when he wrote the following:

"Besides this Marcion mutilated the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that was written concerning the generation of the Lord. He also deleted a large amount of teaching of the Lord...In like manner, too, he remembered the epistles of Paul, removing all that the apostle said concering God who made the world...Marcion says that salvation will be attained only of those souls who have learned his doctrine. However he says that the body being taken from Earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation"
Iraneus (c.180, E/W)1.352

Just another source, yes later date than 140, but commonly circulated and understood...I really don't care what you do with it or where you are JUST LIVE WITH IT! I can.

Email me with your address so I can send you Vox's new book. In fact if you can't wait, go here to order it: http://www.amazon.com/Irrational-Atheist-Dissecting-Trinity-Hitchens/dp/1933771364

I'm confident that you and your anti-Christ friends will be BENEFITTED. 4-real!

By the way, since you accept no evidence, I'm curious, give me a summary of your story and interpretation of the early church and Marcion...2 things, I could use a GOOD laugh! and I'm curious to see how you reconcile history, sources and any of the facts or data...I wanna see if you just make up stuff like many atheists do on occassion(LOL)

Ooh by the way, Bart ~ "It seems more plausible that the catholic church simply absorbed Marcion's canon, interpolated it, added major sections, redacted it, and created new canonical texts to reinterpret the Marcionite myth."

All I can say is WOW! Paste that link and order you a copy of Vox's book too, you need it right away! Just a total disregard for any factual data!

IRRATIONAL ATHEIST CLEANUP EMERGENCY Isle 1! (LOL-LOL!)

C-U scholars LATER!

Peter said...

P52 is located at the John Rylands Uni and their website states:
"[P52] may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language."
P52 is clearly the oldest known MS fragment, not 7Q5, 7Q6 or 7Q7


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"And YOU have a problem with that??? Mr CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA and WICKIPEDIA MAN???"

I don't have a problem you copying, but you copied couple of paragraphs from a web site and CHANGED the MS dates to an earlier date. You are misquoting them! please be honest. Your salvation depends on you not bearing false witness.


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"Email me with your address so I can send you Vox's new book."

That book can be freely downloaded from his site. I have and have mostly read it. So you can refer to it if you want and we can do fact checking...


District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
"By the way, since you accept no evidence", "you have NO LEG to stand on", "ignornat"

Most Christian Scholars do not accept your dating. I'm just going with what the Christian experts tell about these MSs. Please get back to me about Gospels before 120 AD once you have credible evidence.

mrsonic said...

the gospels themselves are competing with each other.why was there a need for matthew to rip-off, modify and update the jesus of mark? why would an eyewitness need to do this? why does luke use other accounts to come up with his own account? luke does not even tell us who he is using and why he rejects one account and accepts the other.we know that harvey's beloved church fathers excepted versions of mat, mark luke and john that are not in the modern day canon.verses and books that are not in todays bible, but part of harvey's 5300 greek manuscripts, were USED IN WORSHIP AND INSTRUCTION once upon a time.
question for everyone
would we be able to derive pauline christianity if we only had gmark?

Anonymous said...

Bart where are your sources for your "no new testament in the first 100 years claim?"

You need to read the experts son.

William Foxwell Albright said that the NT was completed between 30-80 AD.

John AT Robertson said between 20-70 (Redating the NT). If you have ever done any real reading on the subject you would know that Robertson overturned the thinking on the dating of the NT.

Please answer me this: if the NT was not completed until after 70 AD why isn't the destruction of the Temple ever mentioned?

snowbird1 said...

In the Antiochian ancient pagan mythology ISU was the name of the candle that was placed in the hands of a dead person until that person's burial. After the burial the flame was supposed to be kept on for 40 days (sic!)as that was (according to the belief) the time for a soul to journey to the other world. That could have been Marcion's inspiration fot his godman's name. It later got semitized by Judaizers by substituting Greek I with Hebrew Ye to make it similar to Yeshuha (which means Yahwe saves) and that played a bad trick to Marcion who obviously would not like the deed.

snowbird1 said...

Nice feature but full of traps the author like many before him fell into. The author cannot be blamed though, both ante and post Nicene church fathers did such a careful job in making an A a B and a B an A that it is really difficult to straighten the whole situation up now.
So very briefly:
1) Marcion was not a son of a bishop. He created the church so how on earth his father could have a post. Bishop is someone of a fully developed church, there could not be any bishops at the time. Marcion was a Jew so his father could be a rabbi instead.
2)Was there any Christianity before Marcion? Yes, but not of Isu/Jesus type. There were Serapis/Essene worshipers who called themselves Christians.
3) Marcion trimmed Luke and cut out some Paul's letters from the church cannon. A big lie. How, if there was no other church? It is Marcion who wrote first gospel and that means the others added to it. The same with letters. St. Paul is an alter ego of Marcion. Marcion wrote the letters, signed them Paul, fathers added to them and wrote more.
4)Marcion was excomunicated by the Christian community in Rome upon his arrival. Total bullshit. It was Marcion who created the religion and brought it to Rome (if in person is debatable, probably not) so if it was not a miracle nobody new his religion prior to his arrival there.
5. Marcion religion was second to catholic church established in Rome right after Jesus death. Remember 49? Nero, lions, Christians devoured alive? Sheer baloney. Marcion religion was "stolen" in Rome, tailored according to first Jewish Roman and then just Roman needs and purposes, and after all those "spacetime" manipulations, its creator Marcion was finally brandished a duplicator and a heretic. How pathetic.
6. Rome has already six catholic popes before Marcion came there. Another big lie. All individuals and events pertaining to Jesus Christianity (in oppose to Serapis Christanity) prior to the year 140 are fakes. All popes, starting with St.Peter are imaginary products of church fathers that supposed to "fill the gap". Isu and apostles first appeared in Marcion's mind. Isu is as much a Marcion made parable as Jesus parables he tells in 4 doctorized gospels. The first bishop of Rome was the first guy who "bought" Marcion's religion: Pius I. Any alleged predecessor of his must have been either Mithra or Serapis Christian priest.
Got tired if anybody's interested I have more.