User:Ari89/Sandbox/gg


 * 1) The Gospel of the Lord (non canonical and heretical but not actually gnostic in philsophy) can be unquestionably dated to at or before Marcion and thus no later than the early 2nd century.  G. R. S. Mead and others    have argued that Marcion's gospel predates the canonical Luke and was in use in Pauline churches.

1. If not actually Gnostic (as per Wikipedia consensus on Marcion of Sinope and by the opinion of scholars) why is it on the page? 2. "unquestionably dated to at or before Marcion" If the historical sources of the time attribute it to Marcion (e.g. Tertullian, editing “with a pen knife” (Prescription, 38))then why would it be unquestionably dated to before? To say at the time of Marcion actually has a logical basis on the evidence.

Regarding the claim that Marcion pre-dates Luke: 1. Even if Marcion were a gnostic, which the page itself claims he isn't, why would such a questionable hypothesis be included?

2. The claim is only backed up by fringe (e.g. Price & Doherty) or rather outdated (e.g. Mead) scholarship.

3. The mainstream places Luke first. E.g. Bart D. Ehrman in Lost Christianities p.108 Bruce M. Metzger in 'The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Developments and Significance'

Proposed wording (?)


 * 1) The Gospel of the Lord, a non-gnostic but otherwise uncanonical heretical text, can be dated to the time of Marcion in the early 2nd century. The traditional view holds Marcion did not compose the gospel but, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion" The traditional view and dating has been affirmed by the mainstream of biblical scholars,  however, G. R. S. Mead and others   have argued that Marcion's gospel predates the canonical Luke and was in use in Pauline churches.