User talk:The Riddle of Epicurus/Marcion hypothesis

Is this at all a mainstream hypothesis? Ancient authors reported that the Marcionite canon consisted mainly of a highly cut-down version of Luke, beginning something like "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, God descended into Capernaum, a city of Galilee...". The Marcionite Luke simply could not be the only source for the Gospels, and having it be an important source would seem to move things dangerously close to the end of the 2nd century. AnonMoos (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "dangerously" close? Dangerous to orthodoxy? I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I cannot help to notice that the "mainstream" in these things is defined by scholarly communities that, though they may proclaim secularity and neutrality, are composed largely of people employed at seminaries and with explicit religious affiliations. There is an increasing countercurrent to the Society for Biblical Literature and its definition of the discourse, to a sufficient extent that I don't think Wikipedia can any longer afford to label anything nutty just because you couldn't read a paper on it at the SBL or even because Bart Ehrmann claims that "no serious scholar would say this" (which he is rather fond of saying). I think that it is time to take the SBL as merely one school in a multi-school discipline, and that if a theory is taken seriously by more radical biblical critics like Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, Hermann Detering and Robert M. Price, that should qualify it for inclusion.98.234.51.62 (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not a theologian, and am not directly involved in the controversies you mentioned. AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)