Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Revisiting Talbert’s “Literary Patterns” I was reminded of that ending of Acts that continues to bother sometimes. I’ve written on the endings before (see Endings post) and think that half of the problem is our literary tastes, matured on an evolving heritage long since distanced from its ancient roots, and the other half is our … Continue reading “That “strange” end of Acts and its equally “strange” middle”
In Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (1974) Charles Talbert compiled lists totalling about 40 literary and narrative resonances between the Gospel of Luke and Acts. (He called them parallels back in 1974 but that word has since acquired for many a bad name — sometimes justifiably, but other times less so.) … Continue reading “Luke’s Marcionite source for Paul’s Jerusalem and trial experiences?”
Continuing from Marcion and the Synoptic Problem (3) The argument for Q rests on the understanding that Luke did not know the gospel of Matthew. One of the reasons for this view is Luke’s “otherwise inexplicable” failure to draw on some of the most memorable of material unique to Matthew, such as Joseph planning to … Continue reading “Marcion – Synoptic Problem (4): birth narratives”
Matthias Klinghardt in a recent article, The Marcionite Gospel and the Synoptic Problem: A New Suggestion, attempts to break through the deadlock between the Two-Source-Hypothesis and the Farrer-Goodacre-Theory by introducing into the debate a Gospel of Marcion that predates the gospels of Matthew and Luke. “The resulting model avoids the weaknesses of the previous theories … Continue reading “Marcion enters the Synoptic Problem”
Since Marcion is assumed to be “anti-Jewish” it seems nonsense at first blush to associate his “heresy” with the “Jewish error” in the Pastorals. But in fact what Marcion rejected was the typographical or allegorical reading of the Jewish scriptures. He read them literally and was accused of believing a form of Jewish error. See … Continue reading “The anti-Marcionite character of the Pastoral epistles?”
Marcion presented a formidable challenge to those who opposed his theology and practices. Indeed his opponents spent extraordinary energy in combating his influence, attacking his theology, and constructing alternatives to his practices. It was a massive effort, not only because many people found Marcionite Christianity attractive, but also because his was a complex challenge that, … Continue reading “Marcion’s Challenge”
Continuing my notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle . . . . Tertullian’s entire fourth book attacking Marcion is a comparison of Marcion’s gospel with canonical Luke. Marcion’s opponents never accused Marcion of adding to the Gospel of Luke, but only of omitting sections and changing the wording in places. Knox compared … Continue reading “Marcion’s Gospel, its character and contents”
This was the claim of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Epiphanaeus. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the … Continue reading “Did Marcion mutilate the Gospel of Luke?”
Following from previous post re Hoffmann’s arguments for an early date for Marcion: Marcion is generally said to have launched his heresy from the mid-second century — that is, long after the completion of our New Testament writings. Some of the Pastoral epistles are said to have been completed as late as the early second … Continue reading “Dating Marcion early (2)”
The “heretic” Marcion is a significant figure in the history of early Christianity but the sources for our dates for his activity are contradictory. It is quite possible that if we attempt to understand the reasons for these contradictions in the sources we will see that Marcion’s influence on our canonical New Testament texts as … Continue reading “Tradition and Invention: & the date of Marcion”
The passage in Galatians (2:7-8) that civilly explains how Paul and Peter were each separate but equal apostles, the former preaching the gospel to the gentiles and the latter to the Jews, is evidently a second century catholicizing attempt to re-write history and bring the two apostles into the same “orthodox” fold. The idea of … Continue reading “The anti-marcionite, catholicizing Peter-Paul equivalence in Galatians”
5. Use of Paul’s Letters in Acts The following hyperlinked notes (continued from Tyson) outline evidence from Knox, O’Neill, Enslin, Walker, Leppa, Aejmelaeus, Goulder and Pervo for collectively “mounting a serious counterargument” that the author of Acts knew and used Paul’s letters.
Continuing notes from Tyson’s Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (2006) pp. 14ff . . . . . 4. Influence of Josephus Pervo writes that Luke would have used Josephus as a source quite differently from his other sources such as Mark, Q, Paul and the LXX. He did not quote Josephus or imitate his … Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: 5, the late date reconsidered (4. Josephus)”
Tyson has presented the selective summary of views on the date of Acts (outlined in previous 3 posts) to bring to readers’ attention the fact that the current majority view for the intermediate date for Acts (80-100 c.e.) has not always held the floor. He believes recent scholarship in a number of fields invites us … Continue reading “Dating the Book of Acts: 4, the late date reconsidered (1-3)”