The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:00 pm

Bernard Muller wrote: A very simple explanation: a Q writer expanded on what "Mark" wrote and both "Luke" and "Matthew" chose the Q version of the saying.
A simpler explanation is to eliminate the "Q' writer. Matthew used Mark and Luke used Matthew and Mark.

The "Q" hypothesis is flawed since it pre-supposes that the Gospels writers themselves were incapable of making up, embellishing or altering stories found in gMark.

The Gospels stories of Jesus must have been made up.

lsayre
Posts: 353
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by lsayre » Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:52 am

hakeem wrote:
Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:00 pm
The Gospels stories of Jesus must have been made up.
All stories of transcendent "god(s)" are made up.

hakeem
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:07 am

As I posted before my position is that the short gMark's version of the Jesus story is the earliest version of all Jesus stories found in the entire NT.

To determine which version of the Jesus story is earliest one must compare similar stories found in gMark and other NT books.

The first example was the Temptation story of Jesus by Satan in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

The version of the Temptation story in gMark must have been or most likely composed before those in gMatthew and gLuke.

Now, compare the post-resurrection story in gMark with other NT books.

It will be quickly seen the short gMark's version of the post-resurrection is the earliest in all the NT.

The last chapter of the short gMark only contains 8 verses.

Mark 16 .
5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

So, in the short gMark, none of the apostles came to the tomb, none of them saw the resurrected Jesus and further there was no post-resurrection commission by the resurrected Jesus or anyone else to preach the Gospel to the world.

Now, compare the post-resurrection stories in gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles.

All of them contain far more supposed "details" than the short gMark.


In gMatthew 28 --it is claimed the visitors to the tomb did tell the disciples that Jesus was risen and that they met him in a mountain in Galilee where he commissioned them to preach the Gospel to all nations.

In gLuke 24, the post-resurrection story is changed---the apostle Peter visited the tomb while the resurrected Jesus was talking to people on their way to Emmaus. The resurrected Jesus also appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem and promised to send them the Holy Ghost.

In GJohn 20 &21--the post-resurrection story is changed again, --Peter and other disciples visit the tomb, the resurrected meet the disciples multiple times, and even cooks for them while they go fishing.

In Acts 1, The resurrected Jesus visits the apostles and tells them to wait in Jerusalem to get power from the Holy Ghost.

In 1 Corinthians 15. The resurrected Jesus was seen by the apostles, over 500 people at once and the Epistle writer.

It is evident that the post-resurrection version in the short gMark predates all other NT version just like the Temptation story.

The short gMark is the earliest version of the Jesus story of all the NT books.

Stuart
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Stuart » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:59 am

Hakeem,

You made a statement that 99% of Luke was anti-Marcionite, making it impossible that Luke was built on the Marcionite gospel, and that they must have developed in parallel. Setting aside that that is hyperbole, as Christians ranging from Gnostic to Ebionite agreed on most specific elements, I will give you a demonstration of a unmistakably clear Marcionite element left in Luke's gospel, one the author of Luke never would have written had it not been in the gospel he used as his base document.

The irony is I will show how the same element the Marcionite author put in to "correct" his source in one place is given away because he failed to remove or sufficiently modify the account in another place, which reveals what he did. (Honestly I think he did not realize the theological connection, so let it pass.)

I wrote a blog entry on this very subject a little over two years ago, inspired to reevaluate it as part of a critique of Markus Vinzent's model of the Synoptic gospels. But also to look at one of the very few claims By Tertullian (AM 4.38.1-2) of material being expunged by the Marcionites which I thought had some legitimate merit. You can read my evaluation of the Baptismal scene and the mechanics of how it went missing:

https://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/ ... hn-in.html

The key points are these:

1) the Marcionites agreed with the position of the proto-orthodox that John was the last prophet of the Jews
-- all the Synoptics felt this was important, that Jesus' authority was vouchsafed by John's Baptism (e.g., the Authority of John story)
-- Matthew explicitly states that John is Elijah redivivus, the others imply it with reference to the Malachi prophecies
-- only the gospel of John rejects this
2) the Marcionites held that the Creator (who was the Jewish God) did not recognize Christ, and neither did John
-- so it holds that John would not be able to recognize Jesus (see DA 1.26 comments by Marcus the Marcionite champion)
-- the passages in Luke 7:11-28 are from the Marcionites, meant to debunk John's authority, show his inferiority to Jesus, and his ignorance of him.
3) It would have been impossible for the Marcionites to accept that Jesus could submit to John for Baptism
-- this is why the Marcionite author removed the baptism scene
-- instead he chose to begin the gospel with the start of Jesus' mission, appearing in Capernaum
-- later Marcionite exegetes would interpret the words "he descended into Capernaum" (which was probably more a phrase of the sort where we say we "went down South" in the US) to mean that Jesus descended from heaven. Scholasticism was used by all early Christian sects to explain away inconsistencies or to read into the text positions that match your views without need to change the writing. This is an important point to keep in mind when considering why texts with positions inconsistent with the theology of the sect that used them, including the Catholics, were not always adjusted, but left standing. The principle, if it can be explained way, or made to sort of fit, why bother doing work on it?

The reason we know the Marcionite author removed the appearance of John and the Baptism scene (his prototype gospel text likely very similar to Mark 1:2, 4-11) is because of the references to the passage and words drawn from it in the refutation of John in Luke 7:24-28. References to John's garments, but instead of being beggarly they are fine, and instead of living simply he is said to live luxuriously in palaces. His staff is said to be a weak reed, flimsy and so of no power. He also makes reference to the Malachi 3:1 prophecy, agreeing with the Synoptic position of John as the last prophet, Elijah reborn, and the greatest prophet. But he says he is the least in heaven, the lowest of Christians, is greater than John (implies IMO that John is not in heaven, or at least not the heaven of Christ). This is also the sentiment of those who follow Moses but not Christ in Luke 16:19-31 (Marcionite version varies slightly in the last two versus, as Luke sought to soften the opinion expressed slightly, not denigrate Moses). The lower status of John, Moses and thus the Jewish God is established, all without tossing Abraham ("father of us all").

Note: if you look at Matthew's version of the Marcionite anti-John material (verses 11:7-11), you can see he mitigates it. Unlike Luke 16:16 where the Law ends (another example of a Marcionite view left in Luke by the redactor), it is merely prophecy (of Christ to come) which ends in Matthew 11:13, the verse immediately preceding where Matthew has Jesus explicitly identify John as Elijah. Matthew further rejects the Marcionite position by stating explicitly in 5:17 that the Law is not abolished by Jesus, but fulfilled (e.g., the prophecies)

The irony is that like the Lukan redactor, the Marcionite author let material in that refers specifically to Jesus' authority being derived from John's baptism found in Luke 20:1-8. He failed to see the connection of the two authorities, and how the synoptic prototype author drew Jesus' authority from John's baptism. He merely saw this as a put down of the Jewish high priests and scribes. The scene only has importance if it is referring to the Jesus' baptism as being vouchsafed by the prophet of the OT God.

So there you have it, two elements (Like 7:11-28, Luke 16:16) in Luke that are fully Marcionite.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6636
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by MrMacSon » Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:02 pm

mlinssen wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:56 pm
MrMacSon wrote:
Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:43 pm
It’s worth noting that many if not most Jewish texts written after the fall of the Second Temple, when referencing the temple, referred to it in the present tense, as if was still standing when it clearly did not; or did not acknowledge it no longer existed ie. just did not mention it’s destruction. There’s a view that Christian writers after 70 CE did the same thing/s.
Thomas neither wrote after 70 CE nor was he a Christian writer

It is, errr, odd and awkward how my very specific arguments and pointers are met with generalities and platitudes.
It is like saying "Hi there how are you doing on this bright and shiny day?" and getting in return the response "to do or not to do, that is the question"

That is as useful as a turd on a toad
My point had nothing to do with Thomas, nor with your views of it.

hakeem
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:05 pm

Stuart wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:59 am
Hakeem,

You made a statement that 99% of Luke was anti-Marcionite, making it impossible that Luke was built on the Marcionite gospel, and that they must have developed in parallel. Setting aside that that is hyperbole, as Christians ranging from Gnostic to Ebionite agreed on most specific elements, I will give you a demonstration of a unmistakably clear Marcionite element left in Luke's gospel, one the author of Luke never would have written had it not been in the gospel he used as his base document.
There is no clear demonstration that Marcion wrote a Gospel.

The first writer to mention Marcion, his contemporary Justin, stated nowhere that Marcion wrote a Gospel. Later in Ephraem's Against Marcion we see no evidence at all that Marcionites used gLuke and the Epistles to compose a Gospel.

Marcion taught his disciples that his God, the Good God, was greater than the God of the Jews, the Just one and he Marcion, preached another son.

GLuke and the Epistle Jesus was sent from the God of the Jews--a most anti-Marcionite teaching.

Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Marcion did not preach that his son of God was born or was sent by the God of the Jews.

Stuart
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by Stuart » Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:17 pm

hakeem wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:05 pm
Stuart wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:59 am
Hakeem,

You made a statement that 99% of Luke was anti-Marcionite, making it impossible that Luke was built on the Marcionite gospel, and that they must have developed in parallel. Setting aside that that is hyperbole, as Christians ranging from Gnostic to Ebionite agreed on most specific elements, I will give you a demonstration of a unmistakably clear Marcionite element left in Luke's gospel, one the author of Luke never would have written had it not been in the gospel he used as his base document.
There is no clear demonstration that Marcion wrote a Gospel.

The first writer to mention Marcion, his contemporary Justin, stated nowhere that Marcion wrote a Gospel. Later in Ephraem's Against Marcion we see no evidence at all that Marcionites used gLuke and the Epistles to compose a Gospel.

Marcion taught his disciples that his God, the Good God, was greater than the God of the Jews, the Just one and he Marcion, preached another son.

GLuke and the Epistle Jesus was sent from the God of the Jews--a most anti-Marcionite teaching.

Luke 1:26
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Marcion did not preach that his son of God was born or was sent by the God of the Jews.
Hakeem,

You still have a comprehension problem. What I say, and in fact all scholars who accept the Marcionite gospel is embedded in Luke say, is that Luke was written on top of the Marcionite gospel.

The passage you cite in the protoevangelium of Luke was not in Marcion's text and was added later by the Lukan author. It is not proof whatsoever --in fact it is not even evidence-- that Luke's gospel is independent of the Marcionite gospel as you claim. It is simply proof that the Lukan author found it necessary to expand the story and specifically write elements that refuted the Marcionite (among others) position on Jesus.

The example I gave showed that a Marcionite addition to the synoptic tradition, the belittling of John and denial that he knew Jesus, and which is a confirmed element in the Marcionite gospel, is present in Luke. It is an element dependent upon the baptism of Jesus by John, and derives elements of the story from that removed story the Marcionite author used. The protoevangelium, is full of favorite Lukan words. However the elements of the gospel shared with Marcion are missing such words. This is strong evidence that the material you cite in the protoevangelum was written after the material in common with the Marcionite gospel.

But this element would not have been in Luke if it were independent. Luke fully agreed with Mark and Matthew that the baptism of Jesus by John was a passing of authority to Jesus, and that John fully knew who Jesus was. There is no reason for him to add an element not found in Mark. There is no evidence that Mark removed anything from his sources.

Also verse 4:4 is not attested in the Marcionite version of Galatians. It too was added later as part of an anti-Marcionite layer. As with the gospel there are distinctions in the vocabulary between the verses not attested and those attested in the Marcionite text of Paul. This is a strong indicator of a later editor's work.

Note, I am not disputing what the Marcionites believed. What I am saying is you cannot cite material not in the Marcionite version of the texts and claim that it is proof the texts are independent of the Marcionites. That is attempting to do an end run, evade the issue. You have to argue from the attested texts of the Marcionites. You have to explain how Marcionite elements reside in Luke, identical in wording and content, yet Luke is somehow independent of that document.

hakeem
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:39 pm

Stuart wrote: Hakeem,

You still have a comprehension problem. What I say, and in fact all scholars who accept the Marcionite gospel is embedded in Luke say, is that Luke was written on top of the Marcionite gospel.
I am of the opinion that it is you who have problems with comprehension.

My position is that gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the so-called Pauline Epistles were composed at least after c 178 CE or after Celsus' "True Discourse".

Tertullian's Against Marcion is complete propaganda about Marcion and unknown by Christian writers up to at least the 5th century

In effect, Marcion had no Gospel or Epistle that was used by NT authors.
Stuart wrote:Note, I am not disputing what the Marcionites believed. What I am saying is you cannot cite material not in the Marcionite version of the texts and claim that it is proof the texts are independent of the Marcionites. That is attempting to do an end run, evade the issue. You have to argue from the attested texts of the Marcionites. You have to explain how Marcionite elements reside in Luke, identical in wording and content, yet Luke is somehow independent of that document.
You have no texts or manuscripts from Marcion so it is virtually impossible for you to argue about what Macion wrote.

rgprice
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by rgprice » Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:35 am

A very simple explanation: a Q writer expanded on what "Mark" wrote and both "Luke" and "Matthew" chose the Q version of the saying.
This by definition isn't Q. I'm not saying its necessarily an invalid proposition, but you can't call it Q, because Q is deemed to be a pre-Gospel list of sayings, something that was written before any Gospel had been written. What you are proposing is that someone made a commentary on Mark and then Matthew and Luke both integrated that commentary. That's a fine proposition, but it has nothing to do with Q. But furthermore, there is little difference between that proposition and saying that Marcion's Gospel is derived from Mark, and than Matthew and Luke built from Marcion's Gospel. It is literally the same proposition.

I'm not going to re-argue Goodacre's case against Q. All I can say is, if you haven't read it yourself, then I highly recommend it.

Also, he has a good bit of info on his website: http://www.markgoodacre.org/Q/
Where is (are) the insult(s) on Mary?
Maybe "insult" is too strong, but still. This is the only mention of "Mary" in the entire body of Luke after 3:1:
19 Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. 20 And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” 21 But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.”
The writer has Jesus essentially deny that Mary is his mother. This in a Gospel that begins with the most elaborate story of the birth of Jesus and a depiction of Mary and Jesus' family as devout and wholesome Jews who are fulfilling prophecy...

Joseph B. Tyson lays out an extensive case showing that the birth narrative was added on to a Gospel that started at Luke 3:1 in Marcion and Luke-Acts, pages 90-100.

hakeem
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The Synopitc problem + Acts, Paul & Marcion

Post by hakeem » Wed Feb 17, 2021 6:43 am

rgprice wrote:
Joseph B. Tyson lays out an extensive case showing that the birth narrative was added on to a Gospel that started at Luke 3:1 in Marcion and Luke-Acts, pages 90-100.
Marcion would not have preached a Gospel where the son of his God was baptised. Marcion's son of God had no physical body.

Post Reply