On the kiss of Judas

[Giuseppe]

In other terms, if you understand well your view, I would be wrong when I say that, after a long period of only oral cult's experience, the first writer of the first Gospel was Marcion or a direct theological precursor of Marcion.
When you write:

Klinghardt's Marcionite priority requires and unpublished version of Marcion's gospel. I differ from Dr. Klinghardt in that I do not presume Marcionite theological priority, and thus the unpublished ür-gospel need not be Marcionite.

I should think that you have Klinghardt wrong, since that he also told me that the first ür-gospel didn't reflect in no way marcionite teology at all. But now you are saying that Klinghardt suspects the ür-gospel be marcionite, really? Have you read something about this scholar's view?
I'm assuming that for ''gospel'' here you assume ''a oral or written biography of Jesus'' and not the original myth of those ''Christian apostles of the I CE'' (or those the consensus call so).

The acceptance of inconsistencies, and even clearly different, yet still for the most part heretical positions within the Apostolikon, tells me that the Marcionite author worked with existing material to frame his books, and not every inconsistency was accounted for or corrected.

I know well that you have always suspended judgment about anything came before the publishing activity of Marcion. Under the more'' conservative'' frame, you would assume that:

1) First came the proto-Catholics, then Marcion and/or some of its precursor heretics began to publish the first documents, editing other already existing (made by proto-Catholics)

while under the more radical scenario, you would assume that:

2) what Marcion and some of its precursors manipulated and published were texts perhaps even more ''heretical'' (that is ''not Jewish'') than we attribute to Marcion.

is that what you would assume, even at the level of mere abstract possibility? I find it frustrating and fascinating together that your view of origins is more elusive than Proteus.

I'm inclined more and more that the first ur-gospel, in absolute, was 'heretical' resp. to Judaism.

For example, consider what Jesus says in Luke 23:71 :

Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.

The logic would be this:

1) the pharisees accuse Jesus to be an impostor (sedicent Messiah).
2) but, since that the Impostor par-excellence is the Demiurg (because he believes himself the Supreme God),
3) then Jesus accuses the pharisees to identify Jesus with the (Son of) Demiurg.

The Pharisees thus become complicit of the Demiurge in his corrupting work: as the Demiurge had deceived himself and humanity preening himself for the Supreme God (when in fact there was another God superior to him), so the servants of the Demiurge, in particular the Sanhedrin, continue to perpetrate the ''Great Deception'' of the Demiurge, by this time accusing Jesus himself - even the Son of Stranger God! - to impersonate fraudulently for the Son of the Demiurge!

[DCHindley]

I do not mean to derail this discussion, but as I had noted on another thread, a couple authors from 1917, John I. Riegel & John H. Jordan), in their book Simon Son of Man, takes this convoluted and torturous analysis:

[50] ...

It is quite possible that Simon, the Son of Man, was visited there [as he hid in the Gardens of Pomponius II, mentioned by Tacitus, Annals, 5, 8, as these authors imagine that Simon bar Giora escaped from his Roman captors as they were leading him to ritual execution during the triumph celebrated by Vespasian, Titus and Domitian] by his first-born (peter, in Hebrew), that is by Eleazar, as may be gathered from the first two evangelists. That the bariah, or the Bar Iah, was unintentionally betrayed by the kiss of sincere affection given by this peter, or Peter, appears very probable. There are two words in Hebrew that are very different in form and yet almost synonymous in meaning, These words are peter, "first born," and the word which means "only-begotten," or "only child" that is to say, Jehid, or Jehidah. Jehudah is the Hebrew form of "Judas." The lengthening of a Iod or i, Into a Vav or u, which might have been [51] caused by a blur or a blemish, would make a Jehudah out of a Jehidah.

According to the [gospel of] Matthew, the Son of Man, just before his arrest, addressed "the Judas " as Hetaire, which is incorrectly translated "Friend." The thought that the "Unerring One" should address a person deemed his mortal enemy as "friend," an epithet they believed to be false, has been a source of great annoyance to expositors. Really, hetaire is a much more intimate term than "Friend," for it means "comrade," a military expression, of course.

The [gospel of] Mark 14:45, relates the meeting thus: "And when he came, immediately he went up to him and said, 'Rabbi! rabbi!' and he kissed him much," (see note to Revised Version). It is not unreasonable to suppose that the initial letter in "Rabbi " has been an early addition to the original text, which, accordingly, would previously have read, "And when he came, he immediately went up to him and said, 'Abbi! abbi!' ('My father! My father!') and kissed him very affectionately (kataphileo)." (See lexicon of Liddell and Scott). It is not reasonable to assume that such a positive character as the Son of Man undoubtedly was, would knowingly permit a traitor to approach him within arms' length and "to kiss him very tenderly" as a sign to an enemy. It is more than likely that he returned the sincere embrace with equal warmth, and that as they parted from each other's arms, he perceived [52] the officers who had shadowed his son, and at that moment, discovering that all was over, he said, with infinite sadness, as may be gleaned from the Luke 2:48, "Darling [Jehidi], with your kiss you have betrayed the Son of Man."

A singular corroboration of this view is the story of the Peter's denial. The [gospel of] Mark 14:70, quotes the bystanders in the Pretorian Camp [remember, the authors think this all takes place in Rome] as saying to the Peter, "Surely thou art one of them" meaning, no doubt, one of the captives (Galah), "for thou art a Galilean"; and the [gospel of] Matthew adds, "thy blabbing betrayeth (Galah) thee," It is probable that the word in the original Semitic text was not "Galilean," a synonym for Sicarius, or "Zealot,," after Judas the Galilean, but was Galah, intended in the sense of either "captive" or "informer," (from Galah, to discover or inform upon). The charge, then, against the Peter most likely was, "Surely thou art one of the captives (a Galah), thou art the informer (Galah) for thy blabbing betrayed him."

The word in the Greek text usually translated "speech," in the sense of "dialect," namely lalia, does not mean "dialect " in Greek, for that word is the original front which is derived our own word "dialect," that is, dialektos. Lalia means "blabbing," "prattle," "gossip," "loquacity," but never "accent," or "dialect," and evidently referred to the unguarded words, "My Father! My Father!" which the Peter let fall, the unintentional cause of the betrayal of the Son of Man.

[53] We can better understand, according to this view, why "he began to curse and to swear," why, in his frenzied endeavor to undo the mischief he had unwittingly wrought, he vainly protested, "I do not know this man," or, as the Syriac text has it "I do not know this Gibhora," and why, when the lector, or clerk, read the indictment against the Son of Man, the Peter, or the Jehid, went out and wept bitterly. This also gives us a more worthy idea of the Peter, and a more charitable opinion of the Jehid, or the Jehudah.

It is not at all unlikely that the Jehidah, who unintentionally betrayed the Son of Man with a kiss, has been confounded with another Jehudah, or Judas, a traitor whom Josephus mentions in Wars V, 13 .2 ...

Pretty wild, eh? Let's hope our other forum participants do not try to chase their pet ideas so far as these writers have done!

DCH

[Adam]

First principle to work with here is,
Klinghardt is wrong about everything he says. At least judging by his article I read a year or so ago.
Bravo, Stuart, you recognize the fine points of WRITTEN sources underlying what you'll let be called the "Marcionite" gospel. Secondly, you acknowledge that the proto-gospel we're talking about here is precursor to any Marcionite gospel rightly so called.
So forget about Marcion. He's later. Same as Luke is later. They both used a shared precursor document that is significantly different from the precursor document shared by gMatthew and gMark.
What else is there to say about the origins of the Synoptics. (I jest.)
More precisely, I would say that the Proto-gospel used by Luke and Marcion was an earlier read-off than what gMatthew and gMark saw. The fact that 20% of long passages of Mark are found only in Matthew show this. (Mark 6:45 to 8:22)
Considering the tortured read-offs from supposedly the Gospel of the Hebrews, it seems that when the Proto-Matthew (what underlies Matthew and Mark) had been used, somebody thought it wise to obtain the L material and add in what Luke had independently added. No substantial copy is extant, but quotations are so numerous that we know it included elements from all the Synoptics, but particularly Luke.

[Giuseppe]

Attention, please:
Klinghardt told me clearly that the first Gospel didn't reflect in no way the Marcionite ''heretical'' theology. It seems that you both, Adam and Stuart, are confusing Klinghardt with Vinzent.

Klinghardt, in his known 2008 article, gives a critique just against this point:

More precisely, I would say that the Proto-gospel used by Luke and Marcion was an earlier read-off than what gMatthew and gMark saw. The fact that 20% of long passages of Mark are found only in Matthew show this. (Mark 6:45 to 8:22)

This image is taken from p. 17-18 of his 2008 article:


In this case, Klinghardt observes that the Lukan order follows strictly the same order of Mcn (where the latter is attested).
It is much easier to assume a dependence of Luke on Marcion, rather than a disorder Lukan reworking from Matthew (or by some other hypothetical source):

Considering only the numbers of Mattean chapters in the list above, we are in this situation:

It is easy to see which dependence is more economic.

[Peter Kirby]

In this case, Klinghardt observes that the Lukan order follows strictly the same order of Mcn (where the latter is attested).

How certain can we be about the order of the gospel text used by Marcionites, and on what evidence is this conclusion based?

[Giuseppe]

How certain can we be about the order of the gospel text used by Marcionites, and on what evidence is this conclusion based?

I hope to listen how Klinghardt will reply against Roth's ''argument' that seems be something as ''no secure reconstructed version of Mcn, ''therefore'' end of any discussion and the traditional paradigm wins''.

In the whiletime, I see that Matthew condemns Peter, too.

http://vridar.org/2015/11/01/peter-as-a ... f-matthew/

This is another possible clue of the fact that the first gospel dictated ABSOLUTELY the game rules about who 'had' to be the 'good' guys and who the 'bad' guys in the story of Jesus, game rules to which each successive evangelist had to follow (more or less consciously), at price otherwise to rehabilitate a bad as Judas (as does the gnostic Gospel of Judas) and then pay in terms of 'credibility'. In other terms: Marcion's Gospel rulez.

[Adam]

I took this as a ho-hum Christian Conspiracy theory of no value to which I planned to reply only "Nuts", but the final phrase threw me. "Marcion's Gospel rulez". G, I think we have more than an English-as-a-second-language problem here. Can you explain? (I think I don't want you to try, however.)

[Giuseppe]

I took this as a ho-hum Christian Conspiracy theory of no value to which I planned to reply only "Nuts", but the final phrase threw me. "Marcion's Gospel rulez". G, I think we have more than an English-as-a-second-language problem here. Can you explain? (I think I don't want you to try, however.)

I have listened the expression ''(he) rulez'' somewhere in a ironic context, too.

Joke apart, I'm eager to read Klinghardt, against you too quick harsh criticism of the his research.

[Stuart]

First principle to work with here is,
Klinghardt is wrong about everything he says. At least judging by his article I read a year or so ago.
Bravo, Stuart, you recognize the fine points of WRITTEN sources underlying what you'll let be called the "Marcionite" gospel. Secondly, you acknowledge that the proto-gospel we're talking about here is precursor to any Marcionite gospel rightly so called.
So forget about Marcion. He's later. Same as Luke is later. They both used a shared precursor document that is significantly different from the precursor document shared by gMatthew and gMark.
What else is there to say about the origins of the Synoptics. (I jest.)
More precisely, I would say that the Proto-gospel used by Luke and Marcion was an earlier read-off than what gMatthew and gMark saw. The fact that 20% of long passages of Mark are found only in Matthew show this. (Mark 6:45 to 8:22)
Considering the tortured read-offs from supposedly the Gospel of the Hebrews, it seems that when the Proto-Matthew (what underlies Matthew and Mark) had been used, somebody thought it wise to obtain the L material and add in what Luke had independently added. No substantial copy is extant, but quotations are so numerous that we know it included elements from all the Synoptics, but particularly Luke.

A correction, I meant Markus Vinzent, who proposed Marcionite Priority, with the other gospels developed upon it. But it matters not, Klinghardt also has interesting but not completely thought through mechanics concerning Marcion. Both have progressed the field immeasurably, by bringing the concept into reputable scholarship.

On gMark, I see it as a compilation of two documents. One which underlies Marcion (Luke) and one which underlies Matthew. There is very little material which is actually Mark. IMO the underlying proto-Gospel used by Matthew and the one used by Marcion have a common ancestor. This is merely a mechanical observation, actually proposed in 1803 by Marsh, but left on the dust bin (Marsh had no concept of a Marcionite Gospel).

Your comment on the proto-Gospel of Marcion being earlier than Matthew/Mark is pretty much what I see -- it seems to also conflate a third version of the proto-Gospel, which are doublets for the most part in that section you mentioned, common to Matthew/Mark. Also the version Mark used appears to be a little more developed (slightly later version) than the one Matthew used, which is one reason I date Mark posterior to Matthew.

I do not believe either version of the proto-Gospel was ever published. In this I agree with Vinzent (I said Klinghardt mistakenly). There is no evidence of them ever circulating beyond the local rectory. I do not think they were ancient when Marcion (or the author he used) wrote his gospel. IMO these were religious plays, typical of the era, which presented the story of their God and their hero. Marcion popularized it and published it. This IMO was the trigger for all NT books, which came in an explosion of writing as competing factions wished to present Christianity as they viewed it and to diminish their rivals' views. I also think this was when Christianity "broke out" and spread beyond a limited number of places and the rival evangelizing campaigns took place. Internal rivalry drove the expansion, and this happened simultaneously with the writing of the NT in the mid-2nd century.

I refuse to speculate on anything prior to the published material. Anyone who says anything about Christianity prior to say 135 CE is IMO completely guessing, often relying on literature form the late 3rd to 6th century for information. I'm OK if they say up front and loudly with the disclaimer, "This is my speculation" but otherwise not.

[Adam]

I like your post, Stuart,
But I disagree with it as you move along. To the point where I reject your final paragraph outright.