Christian Texts and History • Re: The Antitheses and the origin of Luke

Aduersus Marcionem (15)

123§ 4 (p.465, l.9) BP1
42§ 2 (p.547, l.16) BP1
46§ 4 (p.553, l.9) BP1
47§ 4 (p.554, l.22) BP1
47§ 4 (p.554, l.23 - *) BP1
49§ 10 (p.560, l.5) BP1
49§ 15 (p.561, l.8) BP1
416§ 5 (p.582, l.22) BP1
422§ 11 (p.603, l.1) BP1
433§ 9 (p.634, l.22) BP1
436§ 6 (p.644, l.4) BP1
439§ 17 (p.655, l.1) BP1
439§ 19 (p.655, l.25) BP1
442§ 6 (p.660, l.23) BP1
514§ 14 (p.708, l.20) BP1

De carne Christi

7§ 11 (p.889, l.66) BP1

De recta in Deum fide (3)

VAN DE SANDE BAKHUYZEN W.H., GCS 4 (1901).
(p.88, l.30) BP2
(p.88, l.31 - <) BP2
(p.94, l.1) BP2

The fictitious dialogue involving Adamantius (De Recta in Deum Fide, ca. 300 CE) depicts a Marcionite quoting Jn 13:34 and 15:19 and accuses the Marcionites of corrupting Mt 5:17 (2.16, 18, 20).

Panarion 34-64 (4)

HOLL K., GCS 31 (1922), 5-210 ; 215-524.
4211§ 17 (p.125, l.18 - <) BP4
4211§ 17 (p.148, l.23) BP4
4211§ 17 (p.151, l.25 - <) BP4
4212§ 3 (p.170, l.11) BP4

How could all these sources have all misidentified Marcion as corrupting Matthew 5:17? They all go back to one source. They never had the Marcionite gospel.

Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Tue Apr 16, 2024 4:49 pm

---