Markus Vinzent's claim about Marcion

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Or just drop it

Yes, I want to roll a great stone against the entrance of this tomb. To bring a simple sense in these various easter-stories:

Mark writes a little divine comedy with ironic elements. The women do not believe in the resurrection. They try to anoint a corpse. They think too late, who could roll away the stone in front of the door.

Michael Turton quotes our boss:

"bought spices" before sunrise on the day after Sabbath? Jewish or not, it is highly unlikely that shops would be open at such as ungodly hour. Arguing that there was no Jewish custom supporting the women's desire to anoint the body, Kirby (2002) writes: "It comes as little surprise then that Matthew and John, who are usually thought to have more knowledge of things Jewish, do not state that the women came to anoint the body on Sunday morning."

Matthew changed Mark's horseplay in a reputable story. He rejects all satirical elements (spices, the anointing of the corpse). “His” women come only to look after the grave. Initially, no need that someone rolls away the stone.


Peter tries to give an explanation why the women want to make her crazy stuff: “And at daybreak of the day of the Lord Mary Magdalene, female disciple of the Lord, who was afraid on account of the Jews since they were inflamed by wrath, had not done for the tomb of the Lord the things that women were accustomed to do for the those who have died and were beloved by them.”


Unlike Matthew and John, the narrators of Luke, Marcion or Ur-Luke do not understand the satirical elements in Mark's story. They tell the story in a naive manner with the spices as a serious incident.


At least John. Like Matthew he understand and rejects the comedy. Mary's and Peter's running back and forth is not convincing, but then he changed Mark's theme of the "seeking of the women" in a very, very fine story, which really impressed me.

Human error, Mary can not recognize the Christ

And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus.

The Lord in his grace speaks to the erring people, shepherds them

Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?”

Mary failed again

Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

But the grace of the Lord is great, he calls her by name. Now Mary can perceive the Lord and both are face to face, attested each other.

Jesus said to her, “Mary.” She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means Teacher).

[Ulan]

Nice summary.

Which leads me to one of the main problem these alternative origin stories have: much most of the NT scholarship has to be re-written. Does Mark actually make sense as a shortened polemic, written as response to Matthew? Does Luke make sense as a basic text?

I know that questions like these are not really an argument, but I would have to rethink lots of assumed relations.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Prof. Vinzent's reconstruction of GMcn

7:23 Blessed is anyone who is not scandalized by me.”
7:24 When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind?
7:25 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury walk in kings’ courts!
7:26 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet, that among those born of women no one is greater than John, the Baptist.
7:27 This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’

critical commentary

Tertullian in his Chapter 18 quotes from or makes clear references to almost all of vv. 7:18-28, without indicating that anything differed from what he expected. Consequently, most reconstructions of Mcg include all these verses. However, he does not quote from or otherwise mention v. 7:21, which has no parallel in either Mk or Mt.

Epiphanius notes only the following regarding these verses: “’Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me,’ is altered. For he had it as though with reference to John.” [7:23] (Scholion 8) Unfortunately, the point that Epiphanius is making is not clear, since he does not provide specific text. However, Tertullian confirms that there was a difference here, as he comments: But John is offended when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god… Now John was quite sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially as a prophet. Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather entertained about Him whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether He were the very Christ.

John Gill has this comment: And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me. The Arabic version renders it, "blessed is he that doubts not of me". The Persic and Ethiopic versions both add to the text, the former rendering the words thus, "blessed is he that is not brought into offence and doubt concerning me"; and the latter thus, "blessed are they who do not deny me, and are not offended in me": particular regard is had to the disciples of John, who both doubted of Christ as the Messiah, and were offended at his popularity and success; Perhaps the most likely difference at this point is a change from “he, whosoever” to “he, if he,” so referring to John.

Epiphanius next notes: “He it is of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face” [7:27a] (Scholion 9) “He that is less in the kingdom is greater than he.” [7:28] (Elenchus 8) He is not noting a change here, but instead pointing out that Jesus knows who John is. Some reconstructions of Mcg omit v. 7:27b: “which shall prepare thy way before thee,” because Epiphanius only mentions v. 7:27a. However, Tertullian quotes the whole of this verse apart from the last two words, so reading: Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way; Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam; This shorter variant is also present in D, it(a, aur, d, l, r1), and it is therefore most likely that Epiphanius saw this variant in Mcg.

critical commentary

As indicated in Lk 1 and 2, Epiphanius states that Mcg did not have “the genealogy and the subject of the baptism,” and as in Lk the passage immediately following the genealogy is the temptation, it would seem natural for Epiphanius to have indicated that it was also not in Mcg if this was the case. However, he says nothing specifc about the temptation, continuing instead ...

Epiphanius ... As he states that “the genealogy and the subject of the baptism” [3:2b-28] were not present, and assuming that his copy of Lk was essentially the same as ours, ...
...
In Adv. Marcion IV Tertullian provides very little specific information regarding his knowledge of the early chapters of Lk, but there is a clue in his chapter 11, where he makes this comment about John the Baptist in v. 5:33: “Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!” Here he is making the point that just as Jesus appears suddenly in Mcg with no prior introduction, so too does John, indicating that the material regarding John in Lk 3 was not in Mcg. ...
...
Although (as noted above) Tertullian did not see any of the early references to John in Mcg, he clearly knew this material, as he refers to vv. 3:4-5 in Adv. Marcion V, chapter 3: The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare the ways of the Lord," [3:4] that valleys and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the rooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth [3:5]

From this and other references in works by Tertullian we can be certain that he knew vv. 3:2-22, and that because the first place in Mcg at which he saw a reference to John was in v. 5:33, none of these verses relating to the baptism were present in Mcg. He also has no comment on the temptation in the wilderness in vv. 4:1-15, so on this basis he may not have seen these verses in Mcg either.

seems interesting to me in the discussion about Marcion priority

[Secret Alias]

I've been saying this for years but no one thought it was that interesting. There was no John the Baptist narrative in the Gospel of Marcion but all our canonical gospels have it. What does that tell you?

The canonical gospels were forged as a set to reinforce certain beliefs. If Peter Kirby's analysis of Josephus is correct the John the Baptist narrative is authentic in Josephus. Is that how the story of John the Baptist entered the gospels - i.e. an incorporation from Josephus?

Is there even a reference to John the baptist here? Are the messengers in fact 'angels' originally? Who knows.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

What does that tell you?

Currently, I read a lot about John. This is just an aside here. It seems that a reconstruction of GMarcion with verses 7:24-26 makes sense, because the attested verse 27 can not effectively follow after the attested verse 23. But it seems that verses 24 and 25 are a small clue against Marcion priority. The questions

What did you go out into the wilderness to see?
A man dressed in fancy clothes?

seem to be an echo of the baptism in the desert and John's clothing made of camel hair. But both informations are not included in Josephus or Marcion.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

deleted

[Secret Alias]

What's always interested me is the tradition that John was the 'little one' in various gospel scenes. Is the 'least' here a reference to John - like the Paraclete - being greater than Jesus?

[Giuseppe]

I know another 'little one' and he was no named John, even if he was named Paraclete.

[Giuseppe]

There was no John the Baptist narrative in the Gospel of Marcion but all our canonical gospels have it.

About John the Baptist in Mcn, I signal this:
http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.it/20 ... te-to.html

the narrators of Luke, Marcion or Ur-Luke do not understand the satirical elements in Mark's story. They tell the story in a naive manner with the spices as a serious incident.

My hope is to see a day a clear possible proof that more allegory in a text doesn't imply ipso facto an older age of text.
And that even behind the apparent letteralism in Ur-Luke there is a pure theological motive that Mark ignores.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
One would expect that also elsewhere in the Gospel no one is described as „good“ (ἀγαθός – agathos).

Mark 10:18
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός.

Is GMark consistently? Yes!
No one is described as „good“ (ἀγαθός – agathos) elsewhere in the Gospel.


Luke 18:19
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός

Is GLuke consistently? No!
Luke 6:45 The good (ἀγαθός – agathos) person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good ...
Luke 19:17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good (ἀγαθὲ - agathe) servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little ...
Luke 23:50 Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good (ἀγαθός – agathos) and righteous man


Marcion (18:19) (Ben wrote:)
Jesus asked him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good, except one: God [Epiphanius has: Do not call me good; one is good: God the father]
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεός ὁ πατήρ [Epiphanius has: μή με λέγε ἀγαθόν. εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθὸς ὁ θεός]

Is GMarcion consistently? No! (Ben wrote:)
Marcion 6:45 The good (ἀγαθός – agathos) man out of the good treasure of his heart brings out that which is good