So what you're saying is, we should just believe the Church Fathers, etc.? Why not consider what the Marcionites believed? The question then becomes, what is the role of critical inquiry in all of this? Are we genuinely seeking a truthful understanding of the origins of Christianity? If so, what the Marcionites knew or claimed holds significant value. On the other hand, if we're convinced that the truth comes from divine inspiration or some "superior intellect" and we only use textual evidence to support a pre-existing belief, why engage in a discussion at all—except perhaps to gather new arguments and texts that reinforce that belief?The need for Luke's gospel is stated in 1:3 ("having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you"). In other words, Luke was doing Theophilus a favor by "carefully investigating" the many accounts about Jesus that existed, so that he wouldn't have to sort through them all himself, the same way that Eusebius had "carefully investigated" earlier Christian writings and wrote an "orderly account" of Christian history for Christians of his time.
The Marcionites believed their tradition came first. The orthodox, of course, believed the same about theirs. To accept one side's claims without fully engaging with the other's perspective is a failure in scholarly responsibility. And if you're not committed to that kind of inquiry in the first place, by all means, continue doing whatever else it is you're doing.
For me it's about comparing the time period that Marcion is said to have flourished (Antoninus' time) vs. the time that (in my view) Mark and multiple versions of Matthew existed (no later than Trajan's time). Everything we have about Marcion comes from his opponents, including the Marcionite claim to have the original gospel, so that is what we have to go by. If we accept what the orthodox say about the Marcionite claim to have the original gospel, then we also have to take into consideration the time period that Marcion is placed in, and that is a later time than when Mark and multiple versions of Matthew are said to have existed (by a source that Eusebius otherwise disparages for having unorthodox views).
AndI think we both agree that Papias didn't know Luke, and for me, this means that by Papias' time (specifically no later than 110 CE according to Eusebius' chronology, in keeping with Ireneaus' description of Papias as "an ancient man"), there was no need for anyone to counter Marcion's gospel, because it didn't exist yet. And this timeline is in keeping with the time period that Justin Martyr and Hegesippus place Marcion (mid-second century CE). "Everyone" is putting Marcion in the mid-second century CE and "everyone" is calling Papias "an ancient man" and putting him before 110 CE, so for me Mark and Matthew pre-date Marcion's gospel.
Statistics: Posted by John2 — Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:32 pm
