Posted on 08/15/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by Mr Rogers
And in Matthew 4:4 -- but for those who only have the Book of Luke, they are deprived of "every word" that Jesus said was necessary for man to have eternal life.
I’m not going to go to hell because some texts delete the
every word’ phrase from Matt 4.4.
Yes, I am familiar with Maricon. You didn't answer my question, however. How do you know Marcion changed that particular verse? Or are you just guessing?
Why not the other way around?
Because there is evidence that Christian scribes ad-libed a great deal as they copied, adding and changing words, or even whole sections (i.e. Pericope Adulterae).
My point was: God doesn't misquote himself.
Then familiarize yourself with Irenaeus as well who wrote concerning him:
"Wherefore Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves have shortened."
You didn't answer my question, however. How do you know Marcion changed that particular verse? Or are you just guessing?
Just guessing that according to the evidence and testimony of Irenaeus, and scholars who tell us that most of the textual corruptions took place by the year 200, culminating in the corruptions of Origen, that it was Marcion, and/or one of his followers.
Because there is evidence that Christian scribes ad-libed a great deal as they copied, adding and changing words, or even whole sections (i.e. Pericope Adulterae).
Accidental omissions by overworked scribes are understandable and identifiable and correctable, but then there are the intentional corruptions by Marcion's followers and Origen and his followers.
BTW Irenaeus wrote the following: "The doctrines of the apostles had been handed down by the succession of bishops being guarded and preserved, without any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither additions nor curtailment."
To Irenaeus, there were no long/short/harmonized Scriptures, just the Scriptures and the forged Scriptures.
"Wherefore Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all; and curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves have shortened."
Irenaeus' reference is not specific (which is not surprising). Robert M. Grant, professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago, and author of Gnosticism, The Earliest Lives of Jesus, and The Secret Sayings of Jesus, both Harper, 1963., states the following on the Gospel of Luke and Acts (my emphasis):
"What does this evidence prove? It proves only that the text of Luke has been subject to a good deal of modification -- in various directions. We know that in the second century two tendencies were at work (if not more). On the one hand, Marcion busied himself with deleting what he regarded as interpolations from the gospel; as far as we can tell from later witnesses to his now lost work, he rejected Luke 22:43-4 and 24:12 but accepted the other passages."
To remind you, the subject of your rant against apostate Marcion, based on Irenaeus' non-specific statement you quote, was that he specifically altered Luke 4:4, and I asked you how do you know that?
As it turns out, it looks like Marcion had nothing to do with the short version of Luke 4:4 and that it was just another example of what I call "parallel" Gospels existing in different regions of early Christianity, which is partially responsible for many doctrinal variants.
Marcion, in fact, accepted the longer version of Luke rather than the shorter one, except for the those verses mentioned above, so your allegation about Luke 4:4 being altered by him is not supported.
You make it sound as if Marcion used a chopping knife to cut Luke into pieces when his revisions included a word here and there, such as removing "new" from the "new covenant", not for doctrinal reasons, but because it's not found in other Gospels, and for a good reason! We can surmise that because he doesn't remove the word "new" in the "new covenant" from the the only other one who uses it—his one and only favorite Apostle, Paul.
But for someone who studies these things, your visceral tone makes no sense considering that Luke is the source and cause of most of the Gospel alterations, innovations, neologisms, etc. He introduced as may as 2,700 new words. He habitually altered Markan passages by "embellishing" them with novel things when the same passages in Mark and Matthew have none, etc.
Scriptural 'corruption' and variations of the New Testament are as old as the writings themselves. What we read as the New Testament today is a product of centuries of deliberate and accidental man-made alterations and careful "harmonizing" to produce a text that corresponds to the agreed-upon doctrine of the Church and not the original versions.
BTW Irenaeus wrote the following: "The doctrines of the apostles had been handed down by the succession of bishops being guarded and preserved, without any forging of the Scriptures, allowing neither additions nor curtailment."
And just how did Irenaeus know that the bishop's versions were without curtailment or additions? What proof does he offer for such a sweeping generalization? Apostolic succession? Unfortunately, evidence proves Irenaeus dead wrong.
So then Grant is your authority now and not one of your own Greek fathers???? You not only have a low view of Scripture, but an even lower one of Irenaeus.
Marcion busied himself with deleting what he regarded as interpolations from the gospel
Oh so he was just deleting the interpolations and accepted everything else??? Is that right??? Is that what you are claiming???
Why am I not surprised that you would defend Marcion and throw Irenaeus to the lions???
I've never run across anyone attempting to engage in an honest and rational discussion of Scripture that would ever use this phrase, and I betcha I never will.
I’ll take that bet —
I didn't say I had a low view of Irenaeus or the scriptures. I did say that Irenaeus made a general statement about Marcion which you erreneously construed to include Luke 4:4.
It is also a proven fact that scriptures existed in various versions under the same name and that alterations of NT books was rather common in early Christianity.
It is also a (biblical) fact that Luke altered Mark's Gospel by adding and innovating. I'd be happy to provide you with fine details.
Likewise, it is true and biblically verifiable that Paul, and Luke following in his steps, used the term "new covenant" in a way it was not intended in the Old Testament. The new (post-Babylonian) covenant was to be made only with the House of Judah and the House Israel. (Jer 31:31), which the NT writer mentions in Hebrews 8:8 but then changes it to only the House of Israel(Heb 8:10), thus essentially altering Jeremiah prophesy! (the reason why being no less deceiving, but that's another topic!)
In fact, since we are on the subject of interpolations, Heb 8:10, inbedded inbetween Jeremiah's prophesy, is an interpolation entirely from the New Testament (basically Luke 22:20; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 7:22; 8:6, 13; 9:15; 12:24), made to look like it was part of the OT!
This is not having a "low" view of scriptures but an objective consideration rather than a mythological one.
Oh so he was just deleting the interpolations and accepted everything else??? Is that right??? Is that what you are claiming???
Well, let's see what evidence do you have to the contrary?
Why am I not surprised that you would defend Marcion and throw Irenaeus to the lions???
If this is what you conclude from what I wrote then your perception and comprehension are seriously lacking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.