"The Apostolikon provides the earliest documented identification of this letter as a genuine composition of Paul. Many modern researchers do not accept its authenticity.79 Through a series of rhetorical questions, Tertullian implies that Marcion’s text lacked the phrases found in Colossians 1.15b–16, which form part of a poetic passage often referred to as the “Colossians Hymn.” Precisely these phrases, lacking from Marcion’s text, have caused a great deal of comment and consternation in modern scholarship. Paul nowhere else refers to Christ in these terms as creator of the universe, or as the goal or end of creation, a role he elsewhere ascribes to the Father (e.g., Rom 11.36; 1 Cor 8.6). This tension between the Colossians Hymn and Paul’s other letters has contributed significantly to doubts that Paul could have written Colossians, or to the alternative theory that Paul incorporated here a hymn composed by someone else despite its different christology. No one, to my knowledge, has taken into consideration the evidence of the Apostolikon in a possible solution to the problem. The version of the hymn reported for Marcion’s text conforms to the christological views Paul expresses elsewhere, and from that perspective the longer version found in the catholic text has the appearance of containing interpolated phrases."
Nonetheless, it is this that established the framework within which he then turned to “exposition of the adulterated gospel, except not Jewish— presumably as claimed by Marcion—but Pontic.”41 As he works through Marcion’s Gospel, albeit with increasing speed, he adopts the language of textual revision, identifying removal of material and emendation (aufero, interpolo, erado, emendo)—although in practice specific comments on their distinctive elements are still comparatively sparse, and his base text is as often Matthew as canonical Luke; any attempt at reconstruction must bear in mind that he is driven as much as elsewhere by the demands of polemical rhetoric.42 Instead he directs more energy and eloquence to establishing from his opponent’s own texts the prime principles of the unity of God, creator and father, of the fleshly reality of Jesus, and of the resurrection of the flesh in order to receive the just judgement for deeds done in the flesh. This set the pattern for Book 5 analysing the Apostolikon, which followed later, and thus fundamentally transformed both the character and the length of the whole work. Nonetheless, the wider theme of a deliberate falsification of the text by Paul’s opponents is much less dominant there: It is Tertullian who ironically suggests that “perhaps our false apostles and Jewish evangelists” introduced part of Col 1:16b absent from Marcion’s text.43 References to Marcion’s Gospel are few and far less polemical, and Tertullian even appeals to “our shared instrumentum” (commune instrumentum; Luke 4:34). pg.9 - https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/ae605c04-030c-4e64-b144-8122def023a0/content
As a reminder, this thread is dealing with Colossians 1:17ff and specifically, 1:18. We've discussed Marcion some before and I'm not at all convinced by the Marcion revisionist arguments. Furthermore, I've seen no compelling reasons to doubt the originality of Col. 1:15-6. However, that is not really the focus of this thread.
Its not about revision. Its about a lack of critical scholarship. Taking other fathers words for anything they have to say about him when there witnesses are internally inconsistent.
I think it's highly revisionist when scholars suggest that Marcion preceded Paul or Luke and they make these claims with thin "evidence." I agree that the Fathers could and did say things about their opponents that might have been in error/inconsistent, but some recent writers take things too far. Nevertheless, as I said, this thread has nothing to do with Marcion or ancient propaganda.
Why focus on Col. 1:18? Because a blog reader asked what NA28 had to say about it, and this deals with some of what Nincsnevem has written. Again, I would agree that it's not one of the most disputed verses, but I was trying to help out a blog reader since I own NA28.
The video was telling it like it is, fathers with huge amounts of petty and downright abusive speech. What constitutes swearing in my book is not the words but rather the intent behind them..
"Marcion preceded Paul" - not for the scholars I am reading and they think Marcion was the custodian of the genuine Pauline letters, but I thought you already knew that. I think the evidence for an early Luke is non existent which makes "thin" quite good. But we are not going to agree, I know.
Do we have to now define swearing here? It's about more than the motive since words themselves can constitute swearing or profanity. If you walk up and punch somebody in the mouth, regardless of your motive, it's a violent act. The same for using racial epithets or slandering someone. At any rate, I prefer not to hear profane speech.
Marcionite Priority and its problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_of_the_Gospel_of_Marcion
I know the traditional account of Marcion, but I've seen revisionism the last few years. Yeah,, we're not going to agree. I see no evidence for Marcionite Priority.
Regarding Luke, see https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/files_JETS-PDFs_7_7-3_BETS_7_3_69-82_Aune.pdf
"At any rate, I prefer not to hear profane speech. "- but that's what I am reading from these "fathers".
I think you post to me are not for me but for others, because we have already been down the path of actually provable manuscripts from the second century, very few and only of certain writings (not including "allusions" that do not actually confirm the existence of text type, no matter how much one like it too). You have the last word - to someone else.
Duncan, you've read profanity in the church fathers? Can you point me to specific passages where they use profane speech? Anytime we've talked about MSS from the second century or whatever, I found myself disagreeing with practically all of your claims. You now brought up Marcion again, so I was addressing those claims. Not much to hang those assertions on either.
26:7:4, 8-9 So, how did he come upon something that they would know among themselves only and have secret handshakes for? Hmm - Something they would be expelled from the city for??? And it certainly does not fit the character of ascetic Gnostics.
He is clearly making stuff up, is a slanderer and a liar.
You must have misunderstood me, but I'm dropping the issue. I asked for examples of profanity in the fathers' writings, but got something else. Yes, I've read Tertullian and Irenaeus and other fathers. Never seen them swear though.
"The Apostolikon provides the earliest documented identification of this letter as a genuine composition of Paul. Many modern researchers do not accept its authenticity.79 Through a series of rhetorical questions, Tertullian implies that Marcion’s text lacked the phrases found in Colossians 1.15b–16, which form part of a poetic passage often referred to as the “Colossians Hymn.” Precisely these phrases, lacking from Marcion’s text, have caused a great deal of comment and consternation in modern scholarship. Paul nowhere else refers to Christ in these terms as creator of the universe, or as the goal or end of creation, a role he elsewhere ascribes to the Father (e.g., Rom 11.36; 1 Cor 8.6). This tension between the Colossians Hymn and Paul’s other letters has contributed significantly to doubts that Paul could have written Colossians, or to the alternative theory that Paul incorporated here a hymn composed by someone else despite its
ReplyDeletedifferent christology. No one, to my knowledge, has taken into consideration the evidence of the Apostolikon in a possible solution to the problem. The version of the hymn reported for Marcion’s text conforms to the christological views Paul expresses elsewhere, and from that perspective the longer version found in the catholic text has the appearance of containing interpolated phrases."
Jason David BeDuhn pg.225
Nonetheless, it is this that established the framework within which he then turned to “exposition of the adulterated gospel, except not Jewish— presumably as claimed by Marcion—but Pontic.”41 As he works through Marcion’s Gospel, albeit with increasing speed, he adopts the language of textual revision, identifying removal of material and emendation (aufero, interpolo, erado, emendo)—although in practice specific comments on their distinctive elements are still comparatively sparse, and his base text is as often Matthew as canonical Luke; any attempt at reconstruction must bear in mind that he is driven as much as elsewhere by the demands of polemical rhetoric.42 Instead he directs more energy and eloquence to establishing from his opponent’s own texts the prime principles of the unity of God, creator and father, of the fleshly reality of Jesus, and of the resurrection of the flesh in order to receive the just judgement for deeds done in the flesh. This set the pattern for Book 5 analysing the Apostolikon, which followed later, and thus fundamentally transformed both the character and the length of the whole work. Nonetheless, the wider theme of a deliberate falsification of the text by Paul’s opponents is much less dominant there: It is Tertullian who ironically suggests that “perhaps our false apostles and Jewish evangelists” introduced part of Col 1:16b absent from Marcion’s text.43 References to Marcion’s Gospel are few and far less polemical, and Tertullian even appeals to “our shared instrumentum” (commune instrumentum; Luke 4:34). pg.9 - https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/ae605c04-030c-4e64-b144-8122def023a0/content
ReplyDeleteAs a reminder, this thread is dealing with Colossians 1:17ff and specifically, 1:18. We've discussed Marcion some before and I'm not at all convinced by the Marcion revisionist arguments. Furthermore, I've seen no compelling reasons to doubt the originality of Col. 1:15-6. However, that is not really the focus of this thread.
ReplyDeleteIts not about revision. Its about a lack of critical scholarship. Taking other fathers words for anything they have to say about him when there witnesses are internally inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, what's the point of the focus on 1:18, as far as I can see, there is not much dispute as to its wording?
ReplyDeletehttps://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004367197/BP000010.xml?language=en
ReplyDeleteNote πρωτεύων
I think it's highly revisionist when scholars suggest that Marcion preceded Paul or Luke and they make these claims with thin "evidence." I agree that the Fathers could and did say things about their opponents that might have been in error/inconsistent, but some recent writers take things too far. Nevertheless, as I said, this thread has nothing to do with Marcion or ancient propaganda.
ReplyDeleteWhy focus on Col. 1:18? Because a blog reader asked what NA28 had to say about it, and this deals with some of what Nincsnevem has written. Again, I would agree that it's not one of the most disputed verses, but I was trying to help out a blog reader since I own NA28.
I did not approve the video link becaause it's off-topic and like many YT videos of that lot, sensationalistic.
ReplyDeleteThe video was telling it like it is, fathers with huge amounts of petty and downright abusive speech. What constitutes swearing in my book is not the words but rather the intent behind them..
ReplyDelete"Marcion preceded Paul" - not for the scholars I am reading and they think Marcion was the custodian of the genuine Pauline letters, but I thought you already knew that. I think the evidence for an early Luke is non existent which makes "thin" quite good. But we are not going to agree, I know.
Speaks volumes https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13682/earliest-attestation-to-lukes-gospel
ReplyDeleteThe "earliest" attestation to Luke is 1 Timothy - hmm.
Do we have to now define swearing here? It's about more than the motive since words themselves can constitute swearing or profanity. If you walk up and punch somebody in the mouth, regardless of your motive, it's a violent act. The same for using racial epithets or slandering someone. At any rate, I prefer not to hear profane speech.
ReplyDeleteMarcionite Priority and its problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_of_the_Gospel_of_Marcion
I know the traditional account of Marcion, but I've seen revisionism the last few years. Yeah,, we're not going to agree. I see no evidence for Marcionite Priority.
Regarding Luke, see https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/files_JETS-PDFs_7_7-3_BETS_7_3_69-82_Aune.pdf
Synoptic Problem: https://www.drtimwhite.net/blog/2020/8/8/review-of-the-synoptic-problem-by-daniel-wallace-at-bibleorg
Now, can we go back to the actual topic?
Anonymous, see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/05/colossians-115-18-ek.html
ReplyDelete"At any rate, I prefer not to hear profane speech. "- but that's what I am reading from these "fathers".
ReplyDeleteI think you post to me are not for me but for others, because we have already been down the path of actually provable manuscripts from the second century, very few and only of certain writings (not including "allusions" that do not actually confirm the existence of text type, no matter how much one like it too). You have the last word - to someone else.
Found this... couldn't make out where verse 18 begins as regards the omission of "ek" in p46.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Col-3.html
Duncan, you've read profanity in the church fathers? Can you point me to specific passages where they use profane speech? Anytime we've talked about MSS from the second century or whatever, I found myself disagreeing with practically all of your claims. You now brought up Marcion again, so I was addressing those claims. Not much to hang those assertions on either.
ReplyDeleteWhat ?!?!?! Have you actually read this stuff - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03061.htm
ReplyDeleteAnd how about this - Marcion gospel seem to be devoid of miracles - why?
ReplyDeleteNow compare https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103113.htm
It becomes clear why GOOD miracles appear in the later gospels and even more so for Paul in Acts.
https://gnosis.study/library/Критика/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf
ReplyDelete26:4:1-4 , 5-7 >>5:4-6<< secret code in secret.
Now
26:7:4, 8-9 So, how did he come upon something that they would know among themselves only and have secret handshakes for? Hmm - Something they would be expelled from the city for??? And it certainly does not fit the character of ascetic Gnostics.
He is clearly making stuff up, is a slanderer and a liar.
This isn't just swearing, its worse than that.
You must have misunderstood me, but I'm dropping the issue. I asked for examples of profanity in the fathers' writings, but got something else. Yes, I've read Tertullian and Irenaeus and other fathers. Never seen them swear though.
ReplyDeleteThanks Terence. This thread will now close.
ReplyDelete