Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament: Catalyst or Consequence?

[maryhelena]

I recently paid £21 for this article - of just 6 pages. I had thought I was getting the three articles for this price. The other two articles being by Jason Beduhn and Judith Lieu.

Marcion’s Gospel and the New Testament:
Catalyst or Consequence?

MATTHIAS KLINGHARDT

If the Marcionite Gospel is seen as an alteration of Luke, it has almost no relevance for the New Testament; this was the view of Harnack, who never examined
the fundamental question of the direction of the editorial process. Assuming the
priority of the Marcionite Gospel, however, reveals its innovative potential for
understanding the New Testament: on the one hand, it provides answers to
many old questions, some of them seemingly resolved a long time ago, others
fiercely debated for many decades. On the other hand, the priority of the
Marcionite Gospel promotes the most noble and important task of scholarship:
it poses a whole new set of questions that did not exist before.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... BFD48D4C50

''......the priority of the Marcionite Gospel promotes the most noble and important task of scholarship: it poses a whole new set of questions that did not exist before.''

Where does it go - i.e priority of the Marcionite Gospel - methinks that's the task before scholarship. As for me - well, I'll tag along with Klinghardt for a while to see how far he is willing to go.....

[Peter Kirby]

I recently paid £21 for this article - of just 6 pages. I had thought I was getting the three articles for this price. The other two articles being by Jason Beduhn and Judith Lieu.

Oof.

[maryhelena]

I recently paid £21 for this article - of just 6 pages. I had thought I was getting the three articles for this price. The other two articles being by Jason Beduhn and Judith Lieu.

Oof.

Indeed....

I'll just quote this - indicating, perhaps, where Klinghardt suspects where the priority of the gospel in Marcion's hand might yet go....

The first important aspect is the remarkable uniformity of the tradition: the
Marcionite Gospel appears to be the root from which the whole gospel tradition
emerges and with which all later stages remain closely connected. Obviously,
every subsequent stage had knowledge, and made use of, all available previous
stages of this development. This uniformity leads to numerous consequences,
including the inquiry about the historical Jesus. Whereas the Two-Source
Theory assumes two independent origins, namely Mark and ‘Q’, which allegedly
validate each other and thereby claim a certain reliability, this model involves no
such thing as an independent source. The search for the ‘historical Jesus’,
therefore, becomes a completely different, if not an impossible, task.

my bolding

[Peter Kirby]

If the Marcionite Gospel is seen as an alteration of Luke, it has almost no relevance for the New Testament ... On the other hand, the priority of the Marcionite Gospel promotes the most noble and important task of scholarship: it poses a whole new set of questions that did not exist before.

And if it's fool's gold?

Sometimes the boring answer is also the right one, and pointing that out when it is so truly is a noble task.

[maryhelena]

Whatever happened to the post I don't know - but thanks for links.

[maryhelena]

If the Marcionite Gospel is seen as an alteration of Luke, it has almost no relevance for the New Testament ... On the other hand, the priority of the Marcionite Gospel promotes the most noble and important task of scholarship: it poses a whole new set of questions that did not exist before.

And if it's fool's gold?

Yet to be determined.....in the meantime, let the digging continue.....

Sometimes the boring answer is also the right one, and pointing that out when it is so truly is a noble task.

Boring ? Digging for gold - it's long been a task for fortune hunters - and for those seeking value in whatever their endeavour. Always seeking knowledge, never afraid of missteps - it's a noble task indeed. It's how we got to where we are....

Boring answers - I'd rather have answers that stimulate enquiry rather than answers that leave me bored.... Answers that take me somewhere interesting, answers that don't say 'stop', its all done and dusted, nothing more to see here, move along now.....

[Peter Kirby]

That's a problem isn't it? A bias against the boring if you will.

[maryhelena]

That's a problem isn't it? A bias against the boring if you will.

A bias ? Human nature I suppose. We have own opinions - someone once said - but not our own facts. And it is facts, is it not, that in the search for early christian origins, are in short supply.

[Giuseppe]

on the one hand, it provides answers to many old questions, some of them seemingly resolved a long time ago, others fiercely debated for many decades.

While I don't see nothing of "noble" in these matters (probably because of the my own views on morality, as my avatar makes it clear: only visit the blog of the my favorite philosopher Richard Joyce), I agree with the quote because it says essentially that the people who reject *Ev priority condemn themselves to not know never for the rest of their life why Mark started with a baptism of Jesus by John without spending more words of appreciation for John afterwards, why Mark broke bluntly the messianic secrecy by introducing the Parable of the Vineyard, why Mark introduces (Jesus) Barabbas, why Mark broke another time the messianic secrecy in Mark 14:61, why Mark introduces Joseph of Arimathea, why Mark condemns filial love, etc, etc.

Objectively, if Peter Kirby (a well-known Markan prioritist) had only a day of life, would he be able to answer all those questions by using only a common explanation?
I fear that the answer is no, but then again: who cares?

[maryhelena]

on the one hand, it provides answers to many old questions, some of them seemingly resolved a long time ago, others fiercely debated for many decades.

While I don't see nothing of "noble" in these matters (probably because of the my own views on morality, as my avatar makes it clear: only visit the blog of the my favorite philosopher Richard Joyce), I agree with the quote because it says essentially that the people who reject *Ev priority condemn themselves to not know never for the rest of their life why Mark started with a baptism of Jesus by John without spending more words of appreciation for John afterwards, why Mark broke bluntly the messianic secrecy by introducing the Parable of the Vineyard, why Mark introduces (Jesus) Barabbas, why Mark broke another time the messianic secrecy in Mark 14:61, why Mark introduces Joseph of Arimathea, why Mark condemns filial love, etc, etc.

Objectively, if Peter Kirby (a well-known Markan prioritist) had only a day of life, would he be able to answer all those questions by using only a common explanation?
I fear that the answer is no, but then again: who cares?

You care, Giuseppe..... and that's all that matters. We post because we think, believe, that research into early Christian origin matters. That it has value not only for understanding our cultural past but also, perhaps even more importantly, in understanding the troubled landscape of our own day.