Earthly Stranger vs Heavenly Stranger

[stephan happy huller]

I do not see in your quotes anything clear-cut that Marcion wrote his gospel from gMark.

How much more clear cut can this be?

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark ... And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles.

I am starting to look at this sentence differently:

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the Genesis of our Saviour He considered it to be absurd that under the creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship--that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.

Μαρκίων την γένεσιν του Σωτήρος ημών παντάπασι παρητήσατο, άτοπον είναι νομίζων ύπόπλασμα του ολέθριου τούτου νείκους γεγονέναι τον λόγον τον τη φιλία συναγωνιζόμενον, τουτεστι τώ άγαθω, άλλα χωρίς γενέσεως ετει πεντεκαιδεκάτω της ηγεμονίας πεντεκαιδεκατω της ηγεμονίας Ύιβερίου Καίσαρος κατεληλυθότα αυτόν άνωθεν, μέσον οντά κακοΰ και αγαθού, διδασκειν εν τοις συναγωγαϊς.

I am starting to think that "την γένεσιν του Σωτήρος" is not the generation or birth of Jesus but the book of Genesis. Look at what follows - "He considered it to be absurd that under the creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship." The implication seems to be that he has either Genesis in mind or the first words of Matthew - βίβλος γενέσεως - or something in between.

[neilgodfrey]

Wouldn't literary criticism be more a tool for glimpsing at who wrote the texts?

No. Literary historical criticism is a gateway to audiences, evolution and development of ideas, and related or background historical circumstances. If we don't know who wrote something we don't know who wrote it.

Fwiw, I've begun to post one example of how literary criticism works at http://vridar.org/category/book-reviews ... of-yahweh/

[Rick Sumner]

I don't see how it matters to the historicity question whether Jesus is portrayed as an entirely mortal human or someone from heaven. Adam, Jonah and Job are portrayed as entirely human, too.

The starting point as I see it is to begin with the Jesus we know: the literary Jesus. My understanding is that most scholars accept that the literary Jesus is a mythical figure ("the Christ of faith").

The question is to account for this literary figure. This is a quite different question from something like, "What history can be gleaned from beneath the text?" That latter question appears to me to guide much of the debate. A literary critical approach won't conclude there was no historical Jesus but it will either establish that the narrative derives from genuine history or make the question irrelevant.

I read the op and had every intention of posting exactly this, but much to my delight find you'd already said it by the end of the first page, and far more eloquently than I could for good measure. Alice acted both in wonderland and the real world, Alice in Wonderland still isn't a biography, and Alice Liddell is still irrelevant to the story. Jesus, if he was at all, is at best in the same boat.

[stephan happy huller]

Is there something about this sentence (and the thread) you don't understand:

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the Genesis of our Saviour He considered it to be absurd that under the creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship--that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues.

Μαρκίων την γένεσιν του Σωτήρος ημών παντάπασι παρητήσατο, άτοπον είναι νομίζων ύπόπλασμα του ολέθριου τούτου νείκους γεγονέναι τον λόγον τον τη φιλία συναγωνιζόμενον, τουτεστι τώ άγαθω, άλλα χωρίς γενέσεως ετει πεντεκαιδεκάτω της ηγεμονίας πεντεκαιδεκατω της ηγεμονίας Ύιβερίου Καίσαρος κατεληλυθότα αυτόν άνωθεν, μέσον οντά κακοΰ και αγαθού, διδασκειν εν τοις συναγωγαϊς.

The Marcionites denied this 'halfway position.' The god Jesus was never a mortal man.

[stephan happy huller]

Your next point Bernard:

"however, was that, independent of birth (χωρίς γενέσεως), Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,"

There are two ways that we can take Origen's use of the phrase in his Commentary on John Book 6:

As for the first difficulty which was raised, our churchman will meet the view of the believers in transcorporation by saying that John is no doubt, in a certain sense, as he has already shown, Elijah who is to come; and that the reason why he met the enquiry of the priests and levites with “I am not,” was that he divined the object they had in view in making it. For the enquiry laid before John by the priests and levites was not intended to bring out whether the same spirit was in both, but whether John was that very Elijah who was taken up, and who now appeared according to the expectation of the Jews without being born (χωρίς γενέσεως) for the emissaries, perhaps, did not know about John's birth; and to such all enquiry he naturally answered, “I am not;” for he who was called John was not Elijah who was taken up, and had not changed his body for his present appearance.

In Latin texts it is translated 'fiat sine genesi' in other Patristic writings so the sentence:

άλλα χωρίς γενέσεως ετει πεντεκαιδεκάτω της ηγεμονίας πεντεκαιδεκατω της ηγεμονίας Ύιβερίου Καίσαρος κατεληλυθότα αυτόν άνωθεν

can be best translated:

however without being born he Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar

[stephan happy huller]

And on your final point:

τῆς κατ αὐτον αἱρέσεως απο τῆς σικελίας τις τοὺς εὐαγγελικοὺς λόγους (the evangelical words) μεταφερων αὐταῖς λέςεσι.

He just finished saying he is talking about Marcion's (alleged) corruption - and specifically 'addition' to - Mark's 'evangelical words.' How is this debatable?

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical words (of Mark).

Is a debate even possible here?

[Bernard Muller]

To Stephan

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark ... And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles.

No, it's not clear from that Marcion was said he wrote his gospel from gMark. Actually, I do not see the slightest suggestion that was meant.

"however, was that, independent of birth (χωρίς γενέσεως), Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,"

however without being born he Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar

The context makes this statement relative to Marcion's gospel.
gMark has somewhat hostile mother and brothers (NOT among his followers) for Jesus. So logically, Jesus has/had also a human father. So "without being born" cannot apply to gMark.

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

No, it's not clear from that Marcion was said he wrote his gospel from gMark. Actually, I do not see the slightest suggestion that was meant.

Really? What part of the sentence do you not understand?

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical words (of Mark).

Perhaps this would help:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical words (of Mark).

If you need me to expand the passage even further I can. Is this just a case of not wanting to see what is plainly in the text? I expect this from the others, Bernard, not you.

[stephan happy huller]

Perhaps I should try again:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge,

Έπειδάν ούν Μαρκίων ή τών εκείνου κυνών τις ύλακτή κατά τοϋ δημιουργού

translation - when Marcion and his follower (singular) slight the god assumed to be Lord of both Jews and Christians by certain Christians

and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad,

τους έκ της αντιπαραθέσεως άγαθοΰ και κακοΰ προφέρων λόγους

we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets).

, , δει αύτοΐ(ς) λέγειν ότι τούτους οϋτε Παΰλος ό απόστολος ούτε Μάρκος ό κολοβοδάκτυλος ανήγγειλαν

For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum.

τούτων γάρ ούδε(ις) έν τω (κατά) Μάρκον εύαγγελίω γέγραπται -, άλλα Εμπεδοκλής Μ(έ)τωνος Ακραγαντΐνος

And he despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical words (of Mark).

δν συλαγωγών (Μαρκίων) μέχρι νΰν λανθάνειν ύπελάμβανε την διαταγήν πάσης της κατ' αυτόν αίρέσεως άπό της σικελίας τις τοὺς εὐαγγελικοὺς λόγους μεταφερων αὐταῖς λέςεσι.

And then at the end of the section he not surprisingly provides two examples of arguments raised by a certain Marcionite utilizing Paul and Mark not surprisingly:

And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why call ye me good? there is one good," These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles.

[stephan happy huller]

The gospel reading is specifically Diatessaronic like the Marcionite gospel:

Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός,

This is reading found in Justin, the Diatessaron, the followers of Mark (Marcus), the Naasenes and the Pseudo-Clementine literature.