Talk:Gospel of Marcion

Untitled
Certain portions of the article, particularly in the last paragraph, seemed excessively informal or stylistically awkward, and I felt that they unnecessarily championed Marcion's views and that of his supporters. If they are correct they will stand on their own; in the meantime, to quote Jack Webb, "I just want to get the facts, ma'am."

"For an example of evidence that may support this view, compare Luke 5:39 to Luke 5:36-38..." (The reader may not know Luke by heart. Could these quotes be intered in full? --Wetman 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Marcion deleted 5:39 from his Gospel" Actually I think he used the Backspace key. This should probably be changed to "removed" or "excluded." Cabbruzz (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Deleted" isn't just a computing term. I think the word works fine here. Evercat (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think 'omitted' is the correct term, given the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.85.147 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This article contained a link to the Centre for Marcionite Research Library Website (which contains a full copy of the gospel hyperlinked to the sources used for reconstruction). That website is part of GeoCities, and so is due to go offline tomorrow when GeoCities closes. I have fixed the link so that it now points to a mirror of the website and will continue to work when GeoCities closes.149.254.58.10 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Marcion as pre-dating Luke
There are a lot of references for this possibility here —Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Trond (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Marcion as editor of Luke
I have removed the faulty argument that his editing of Luke seems more likely 'because he also edited the Pauline letters'. In fact Marcion is the first to ever use the letters and there is even a school of criticism which believes that Marcion actually produced these letters in Paul's name. They believe this because there is no clear evidence of the letters existing before Marcion [no one seems to mention them or cite them] and because their unedited contents matches the theology of Marcion perfectly. So there is no proof that it wasn't actually Marcion who had the letters in their most original form. --Brithnoth (talk) 09:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize this is an old post, however are some things that are erroneous that future readers might simply take as all being factual. Yes Marcion could have edited and revised some of these. Yes Marcion could have even forged and produced some, but to imply that Marcion produced ALL of them is simply wrong. "They believe this because there is no clear evidence of the letters existing before Marcion [no one seems to mention them or cite them]"
 * 1) There were not a whole lot that actually wrote prior to this (mostly were divine works) and the few that did, not much of those survive today. The most likely sources that possibly could have come from are: Clement of Rome, Ignatius_of_Antioch, and Polycarp as they were all prior to Marcion. The only extant writing from Clement is 1 Clement, from Ignatius we have several extant letters, and Polycarp only extant work is Letter to the Philipians. All three of those quote from several of the Pauline Epistles numerous times. For example Colossians 1 / 2, Galatians, and Ephesians are cited / quoted by all 3 numerous times. As seen here, here, and here. Nor are those the only works as Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas all cite from these as well in which the time periods of these works can and are debated but the first two specifically are acknowledged by most scholars to predate Marcion's time.
 * 2) This leaves the possibility that Marcion used those works to produce the Pauline Epistles, except 1 Clement specifically mentions and states "epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle" in reference to a cite right in it so clearly there were at least one or more.
 * Conclusion this means there is plenty of evidence at least some existed prior to Marcion, however yes most of evidence of many of these Epistles were not until the later historians with their more numerous written works as well as more of them surviving today. Kevin &#34;Hawk&#34; Fisher (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Marcion and Acts
The author of Luke is generally believed to be the author of Acts. What is the significance of that idea if Marcion wrote Luke? Would the theory be that Marcion wrote Acts or would the theory be that Luke and Acts didn't have the same author?--Davefoc (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't write Luke. Luke wrote Luke. He merely edited Luke to suit his theology. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I'm quite late here, but the only other reply wasn't very helpful, because it simply refused to even consider the question.
 * A better answer, if Marcion predated Luke, would be that it doesn't really change anything for Luke-Acts. It merely places Marcion's Gospel as "Luke's" main source for his gospel.
 * Similarly, Marcion's Gospel of the Lord can just as easily be slotted into the Gospel of Luke's place in both the two-source hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis. If we follow the latter hypothesis, we would actually have a pretty good scenario for why Matthew's very Jewish material were used in a completely different way by Marcion (who would have had no patience for Matthew's OT allusions) and how this was then yet again reinterpreted by the author of Luke-Acts to divest it of its Marcionism. In the two-source hypothesis, Marcion would've combined Q and Mark while again omitting Matthew as "too Jewish" with the author of Luke trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again by (re)introducing a more "OT friendly" angle into Luke-Acts. Mojowiha (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman was cited to bolster up the typical “most scholars agree” deflection—which may as well just say “most Christians agree”—in defence of Marcionites editing Luke, and yet Bart Ehrman suggests there is more evidence that the Catholic church edited Luke from the Marcion gospel, in How Jesus Became God, and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Typically disingenous. The “most Christians” defence is used far to frequently to bolster up a non-existent argument. EeekiE (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * could you indicate the passages (pages and chapter) of Ehrman in which he supports that the Gospel of Marcion precedes the Gospel of Luke? Veverve (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gospel of Marcion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121130122725/www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/meadmarcion.htm to http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/meadmarcion.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Balance
What this article needs is a summary of Tyson to balance the summary of Harnack. Deipnosophista (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * what do you think of the current version of the article? Veverve (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

2018 chapter and 2020 LODLIB on Marcion's Gospel
Epinoia recommended that I take our talk from his user page to the talk page for this entry... I'm copying our thread thus far... Input and suggestions are welcome. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to learn how the process works. Thank you for your patience with me. Obviously, I have a clear interest as a subject matter expert. I'd like to start a conversation with the editorial community in the interest of seeing if we can find some consensus. I'm quite willing to contribute to the article without saying anything about my research, but of course I'd also like my research to be read and considered as part of the broader conversation.

.....................

New to Wikipedia... Thanks for helping to teach me the rules of the road. Would you kindly take some time to review my work and come to your own conclusion about whether it deserves at least some mention on this page? By all means, please ask additional editors on or outside of Wikipedia who have expertise in early Christianity for their views. As noted in my edit, Phil Tite of U Washington has made a robust public statement of support for this research. If having more endorsements would help, I can ask other colleagues to do the same thing.

The open science book format (a LODLIB) is a new Linked Open Data and Open Science approach to academic publishing that I'm pioneering as a recognized expert both in Religious Studies and Information Science. Archiving scholarly findings permanently in open science repositories is common in the hard sciences (e.g., COVID research datasets and pre-prints), but almost entirely foreign to the humanities, especially as a mode of book creation, distribution, and production that sidesteps traditional publisher monopolies. It is quite resonant with Wikipedia's commitment to transparency and global open peer review.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Vocesanticae (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @Vocesanticae: — please read the Wikipedia guideline WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Your work has not yet gone through this process and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source (WP:RS) — please also read other guidelines such as WP:COI, WP:UNDUE, WP:PUFFERY, WP:REFSPAM, WP:PROMO, etc. — it's not my job to "ask additional editors on or outside of Wikipedia who have expertise in early Christianity for their views" — the proper place to address such issues is on the Talk page of the appropriate articles (WP:TALK) — you can initiate a Request for Comment if you wish WP:RFC — in the meantime, please avoid using Wikipedia as means of promoting your work — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My Claremont Press chapter completely meets that guideline.

“First Dionysian Gospel: Imitational and Redactional Layers in Luke and John.” Classical Models of the Gospels and Acts: Studies in Mimesis Criticism. Claremont Studies in New Testament & Christian Origins 3. Edited by M. G. Bilby, M. Kochenash, and M. Froelich (Claremont, CA: Claremont Press, 2018), 49–68. doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3745622 doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbcd1wt.11 ISBN 9781946230188

Are you rejecting it? If so, on what grounds? Vocesanticae (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * — see Conflict of interest and other guidelines already provided — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I read through the guidelines you sent. Thank you. I understand now that it would be a conflict of interest for me to cite my own work, but, having now disclosed and resolved that COI, I'm asking you here, in the context of your Talk page, why you--as your own free-thinking, independent editor--why don't you consider my published chapter to be significant to the discussion about the Gospel of Marcion as it relates to the Synoptic Problem? Vocesanticae (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * — take it to the Talk page (Talk page guidelines, Talk dos and don'ts) — I am only one editor and Wikipedia is based on consensus (Consensus) — if consensus can be reached, then there is no problem — thanks, Epinoia (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the two-source theory to the section "As a version of Mark" — doi are not included in the reference as doi is usually for journals, but feel free to add them to the reference if you wish — cheers, Epinoia (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC) - Epinoia (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Gospel of The Lord
The title of the article is Gospel of Marcion so that implies that the main name is Gospel of Marcion, not Gospel of The Lord. I'm reverting an edit that changes the name throughout the article. Andrew.schalk (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up this article fyi.
Alright? Andrew.schalk (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Normalized and Morphologically Tagged Datasets of Marcion's Gospel
Inviting Wikipedia editors to read and consider including/citing four journal articles and eight related datasets recently peer-reviewed and published in the Journal of Open Humanities Data.


 * "Normalized Datasets of Hahn's and Zahn's Reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.31 (2021) 1–5. doi.org/10.5334/johd.63
 * "Normalized Datasets of Harnack's Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.24 (2021) 1–7. doi.org/10.5334/johd.47
 * "Normalized Datasets of Klinghardt's and Nicolotti's Reconstructions of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.32 (2021) 1–6. doi.org/10.5334/johd.70
 * "Normalized Datasets of Roth's Reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel." Journal of Open Humanities Data 7.27 (2021) 1–6. doi.org/10.5334/johd.57

On that note, please consider adding references to all eight major reconstructions to the opening lines of the article, or making a new subsection detailing all eight major reconstructions published so far. Currently the opening of the article only mentions the reconstructions by Harnack and Roth, which is prejudicially narrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocesanticae (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC) x

I'm going to be changing the title.
It will be renamed to "Marcionite Bible." As you can't write a full article on the Apostolikon. Therefor, it will be about both texts. I will also fix the mistake of calling it "The Gospel of Marcion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArabianMountains (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: you have not provided any reliable source for this change. Veverve (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022
 * ': I will once the changes happen. This is a new account, I can't right now. ArabianMountains (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022  (UTC)
 * Oppose - no clear reason given for change - why can't the article cover both the Euangelion and the Apostolikon? - from my reading it seems better to call it a Gospel, as it contains material from the New Testament, than a Bible, which implies inclusion of content from the Old Testament. - Epinoia (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ': It's so both can be covered. Then the Gospel of Marcion page can be a redirect page to a section. Same goes with the Apostolikon. I'm not saying the gospel is the Bible. ArabianMountains (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022  (UTC)
 * - still oppose - Epinoia (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * ': Why so? ArabianMountains (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022  (UTC)
 * - reasons given above in my previous post - and why are you making all your replies bold? - Epinoia (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the user is a clear POV-pusher, here to promote this website and its vision. Veverve (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - thanks - Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

the user appears to have a POV to push. I pinged you since you created Draft:Template:Gospel of the Lord at the request of the user. Veverve (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this fight. That was a purely procedural action because one of the emergency edit filters was throwing up a lot of false positives (as is the nature of emergency filters). Didn't even look at the content, other than a quick skim to make sure I wasn't about to create something speedyable. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 21:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ' I don't understand. ArabianMountains (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2022  (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is I don't have an opinion. The only thing I did here was for technical reasons. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 02:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)