No video :(

The Marcionite Texts vs the Canonical Scriptures | Dr. Mark G. Bilby

Подписаться 25 тыс.

Просмотров 2,6 тыс.

50% 1

Jack's twitter: / jackbullll
Jack Bull's Patreon: / jackbull
Mark Bilby's Patreon / markgbilby
Jack Bull's website: jackbullinfo.w...
Patristica: / @patristica
(c) 2024, by speakers, distributed under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 international license.
Would you like a sophisticated yet simple apparatus to be able to easily Stream from your Desktop, Laptop or iPhone? Look no further, Streamyard is easy to use and you can stream to several platforms all at once!
Check out StreamYard: streamyard.com...

Опубликовано:

13 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 37

@I_Fish_In_A_TIE Месяц назад

It would be beneficial if each guest stated their dating of the Gospels at the beginning of each show

@stefanslater8414 Месяц назад

Reposting my earlier question, as requested: 'Do you have a citation for Ephiphanius saying Mark's gospel opened in a similar fashion to Luke 3.1? Thanks.' I agree with the thesis that Lk1 = proto-Mark + a sayings source. Helmut Koester also advances linguistic and stylistic arguments to back the idea of proto-Mark. Though I'm sceptical about Koester's faith in 'Secret Mark', many of his conclusions about proto-Mark chime with Dr Bilby's.

@authorjack Месяц назад

No. He doesn't. He's not a scholarship. He's a youtuber.

@mgbilby Месяц назад

It's in the footnote of my First Gospel book on the page on GMcn 3.1: "Elsewhere E refers to "fifteenth year of Tiberias Caesar" as the opening of Mark (!) (Pan. 51.6.12 in GCS 31:256; Pan. 51.19.2 in GCS 31:276) and in regard to the Manicheans (Pan. 66.50.5 in GCS 37:87; Pan. 66.78.1 in GCS 37:119)." ... “Now the arrival of the messiah happened ‘in the fifteenth year of Tiberias Caesar,’ he began his preaching” (Epiphanius, Pan. 66.50.5; GCS 37:87). That citation has made me wonder whether the Manicheans--at least some of them--had/preserved the habit of calling Marcion's Gospel "Mark".

@mgbilby Месяц назад

@@authorjack True. I'm not a scholarship.

@stefanslater8414 Месяц назад

@@mgbilby Thanks for this. Interesting thought about the Manjcheans calling Marcion's Gospel 'Mark'! I've been working my way through your Gospel of the Poor and I'm sympathetic to your idea of proto-Mark. Looking at Mark's language in 1.4a, 7-13 has raised my suspicions that all the John the Baptist material may belong to a later layer of composition. Some of these words cluster in Mk 3.20-35, the Markan sandwich you suspect may have origins in Qn. When I marshal my thoughts, I may contact you!

@ghistecyk8733 Месяц назад

@@mgbilby 😏👍

@br1qbat Месяц назад

I guess the obvious question for a layperson like myself is, how confident should scholars be in this or any reconstruction of Marcion? I know we have some quotes or discussions of Marcion's gospel from the "heresiologist" literature and then there's the assumption (however safe) based on same that Marcion is based in some way on Luke (or even vice versa). I guess the trepidation I have (maybe based on my limited knowledge) is are we sure enough in any reconstruction of Marcion to make definitive statements/comparisons to Luke or Matthew, etc? Or for us to say Marcion included this material and not that material etc. It might be consistent with the reconstructions but if the reconstructions are educated guesswork. . . Like 20:28 how can we make an assertion that Marcion is 1/3 word for word Mark. What evidences are used to slot 1/3 of Mark into Marcion? And what parts of 'early mark'? & what is 'early mark': is that a reconstruction? Or is that from earlier markan manuscripts? (I thought the corpus of Mark manuscripts were generally consistant - most earlier ones lack the post resurrection material, etc - but aren't otherwise radically different from the text as preserved today?) I can see using a reconstruction to peer into what Marcion could have looked like, but now we are using that as what Marcion actually was. See the difference? Are we putting the cart before the horse?

@mgbilby Месяц назад

Science-including computer science-is predicated on binary choices and probabilistic determinations that proceed in logical sequence. Was Marcion’s Gospel real or not? The cumulative evidence strongly favors that it was real. If it was real, what passages were in it and what were not? Epiphanius gives us a great overview of this. Then which verses? Then which words? The clearer and more objective our analysis becomes of data patterns-the present and not present-the clearer the likelihoods become for the gray areas, the unattested. Like any legitimate scientific endeavor, clarity and nuance increases the closer and closer we attend to the data.

@mgbilby Месяц назад

Also, I’m not making flat assertions. Everything I said is laid out with statistical proofs in my First Goapel LODLIB. V4.1 is the most extensive version in this regard.

@br1qbat Месяц назад

@@mgbilby I think you missed my question. I wasn't accusing you or anyone of making flat assertions. Put simply: how confident should scholars be in this reconstruction? Confident enough to take it as if it were a surviving manuscript of Marcion?

@smillstill Месяц назад

@@br1qbat You have a core of Marcion's Gospel that comes directly from extensive quotes in the church fathers. Then you have textual scholars filling in the gaps in sometimes the same and sometimes different ways. When you just have obviously missing short gaps of text, it is pretty safe to fill it with Luke, because he used an early 2nd century copy of Marcion's Gospel and the gaps are very likely the same or essentially the same. When we get to what is included by one or another scholar because it "feels" like it should be included based on similar language rather than the previous two reasons, probability varies from conservative to highly-debatable, depending on the scholar. Dr. Bilby would know the most conservative, exclusive version. If you want a really inclusive version, you can read the Testamentum Evangelicon on the Marcionite Church of Christ site. They also give a really good description of what they included and why.

@mgbilby Месяц назад

Filling in the gaps with canonical Luke is not safe, especially when the Evangelion and Canonical Lyman data patterns diverge so strongly. The Marcioncite Church’s version is completely lacking in rigor and no scholar takes it seriously or even cites it. My First Gospel reconstruction is the most rigorous and accurate available to date and will be the basis for all future, scientifically rigorous versions.

@I_Fish_In_A_TIE Месяц назад

I can't believe I missed this. I would have loved to ask questions.

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

It's not too late. Ask your questions here, and you'll probably get some responses, perhaps even from Jacob or the author.

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

Interesting discussion. Notably, Bilby's theory relies on a particular reconstruction of Marcion's gospel, and it may be possible that the document was reconstructed based on the theory, in which case there could be a risk of circular reasoning. I mention this because, as I understand it, there is not a scholarly consensus about what exactly comprises Marcion's gospel text. When the data fit a theory too perfectly, one has to be skeptical that, despite the best of intentions, there is some circularity involved. NOTE: There is a puzzling mention of text from Matthew in Marcion. If there is any Matthew in Marcion's gospel, how can the gospel be 2/3 Q and 1/3 Mark?

@mgbilby Месяц назад

The two source hypothesis for Marcion's Gospel is not dependent on my reconstruction. BeDuhn has come to the same conclusion, as has Daniel Smith (Kloppenborg PhD student), even while using Roth's edition. The two source hypothesis is, however, of significant help in terms of reconstructing Marcion's Gospel. Starting from the assumption that Marcion's Gospel is derivative of canonical Luke (as did Harnack and Roth) frequently biases the reconstructive decisions toward canonical Lukan wording and away from clear overlaps and agreements of Marcion's Gospel with Mark and Matthew *against* canonical Luke.

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

@@mgbilby Thanks for responding. Your methodology is innovative and systematic & could lead to new insights. Yet, there are some reasons to approach this skeptically. The work you've done might be more compelling if you could: (a) publish your reconstructions of proto-Mark (and proto-Luke); and (b) present a systematic (comprehensive/itemized) comparison of these with the Markan and Lukan sections of Marcion's gospel. A multi-column format could work, with columns itemizing text from column A (proto-Mark), column B (Marcion's Mark), and column C (Canonical Mark), and columns D, E, and F doing the same for the Lukan materials. If such a work could be published, the reader would be able to identify the textual changes (e.g., from A to B, B to C, and A to C). One possibility might be to do such a multi-column presentation for a single chapter from Mark or Luke, illustrating your methodology in a crystal clear manner.

@mgbilby Месяц назад

Marcion’s Gospel has lots of overlaps with Matthew against Mark and Luke. This is not because it used Matthew, but because proto-Matthew used Qn and Marcion’s Gospel (proto-Luke). We need to stop starting with singular authorship (hagiographical legend framing) modes and use signal tracing and mapping to clarify the evolutionary patterns within and across the canonical and non-canonical gospels.

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

@@mgbilby It seems possible that Matthew's Q may have overlapped considerably with proto-Matthew (which may have also overlapped significantly with the Gospel of the Hebrews that Papias referred to). p.s. To your point, I don't believe in "singular authorship" of the gospels, because I believe they all evolved over time, with redaction histories.

@smillstill Месяц назад

It sounds like proto-Mark author had an association with John the Baptist, but strained enough that he demoted him below Jesus. Perhaps Simon Magus, Dositheos or even Menander? Andrew, Simon, Peter and Phillip were said to be disciples of John the Baptist who then followed Jesus. Could it be one of their later disciples? Apparently, some of these guys named in the Gospels and Acts had their own little followings and their disciples had followers. John the Baptist, Simon Magus, Menander and Thomas, at least, had their own followers. Supposedly, Peter's and James's followers got decimated in the Jewish Wars, but could have made a proto-Gospel by 65-75 AD, especially as an ode to their church in Palestine being destroyed. One could say that Matthew and Mark both have a distinctly different flavor from Paul's letters and may have origins in a JtB--> JC--> 4 common Apostles --> followers lineage.

@I_Fish_In_A_TIE Месяц назад

James's followers, the Ebionites, Fled to Pella and were proto-Islam.

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

@@I_Fish_In_A_TIE Re. "proto-islam," you're off by a few centuries (c. 600 CE), and some Ebionites and Nazarenes fled elsewhere (e.g., Syria, Arabia, Alexandria, Antioch, Aksum, India, etc.) ~ 66 CE. It wasn't until centuries later that various forms or spinoffs of Jewish Christianity (e.g., the Elkaisites) developed into a form that Mohammed twisted, merged with regional deities/beliefs, and molded into a new religion. There may have been as much Elkaisitism as there was Jewish Christianity in early Islamic thought.

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

It seems quite likely that there was more than one proto-gospel in existence before the First Jewish War. They may have included proto-Mark, The Gospel of the Hebrews (a Hebrew proto-Matthew?), the "Q Gospel," the Gospel of Thomas, and possibly some others (e.g., a proto-John may have been an early gospel).

@robinstevenson6690 Месяц назад

I find the idea intriguing that: (a) Marcion's gospel drew upon early drafts of Mark and of "Luke's version" of Q, and (b) Canonical Mark and Luke, bear evidence of presumably Marcionite (?) influence. If true, this may help explain why there is evidence of a Pauline influence in Canonical Mark and Luke. If the Pauline Christian Marcion revised and redacted early Mark, for example, and made changes in a more Pauline direction, it may be that much of our Canonical Mark bears a Pauline influence that it didn't originally have. That might be a testable hypothesis - - if one can isolate pre-Marcionite Mark and compare it with Marcionite (and Canonical) Mark, is there any remaining Pauline influence in Mark, or was it perhaps written more exclusively under Petrine influence, as tradition long suggested.

@smillstill Месяц назад

I read an interesting question on Reddit. Why wasn't John the Baptist mentioned as one of Jesus's disciples in the Gospels during the period before he was beheaded?

@I_Fish_In_A_TIE Месяц назад

John taught Jesus

@georgetravers9333 Месяц назад

John baptized Jesus. 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near' flowed through John to Jesus to Jesus'disciples. So I had always assumed Jesus was the disciple of John.

@stefanslater8414 Месяц назад

The two probably did not know one another. John the Baptist's appearance in the gospels is to legitimize nascent Christianity. And attract the support - or undermine the claims - of Baptist sectarians. Indeed, John the Baptist is conspicuous by his absence from the following first and second-century texts. In the canonical collection of Paul's letters, it is written: 'And how are they to believe of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?' (Romans 10.14-15) Nothing is said of John the Baptist. Josephus mentions Jesus and John, yet he makes no connection between the two. Moreover, the Hebrews homily (6.2, 10.22, 11.36-38) and 1 Clement (8.4, 17.1, 18.3, 4) refer to 'washing'/'sprinkling' and 'those who went about "in the skins of goats and sheep," heralding the coming of Christ. Nothing is said of John the Baptist. In the Didache, a chapter (7) is devoted without mention of you know who. Finally, the Syriac recension of Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians (18), unlike the longer version, makes no reference of Jesus' baptism.

@georgetravers9333 Месяц назад

@@smillstill 'teach us how to pray as John the Baptist taught' I assumed this was an instruction of the attitude of entering into prayer - the how and not what to pray - and so not an actual prayer itself. Taught to disciple Jesus by John.

@georgetravers9333 Месяц назад

@@stefanslater8414 And so rather than Christianity trying to bond with John the Baptist for legitimacy, I interpreted they wanted to put down John's influence and inflate Jesus into a God not needing John. Yet without John, there would be no Jesus healed; to promote his way to the truth and the resulting unburdened life.