Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by rgprice » Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:30 am

I've compared all of the references that I find in the Gospel of Mark to the letters of Paul to the reconstructions of Marcion's Apostolikon.

I'm currently at 24 references. On those I find 13 as being confirmed in the Apostolikon. 8 are unattested and regarded neutral in Kirby's reconstruction. 3 are red in Kirby's reconstruction, but according to the notes they are actually unattested with scholars who believe they are interpolations. They aren't actually confirmed as not being present by ancient sources.

Two of three in question are pretty major references in Mark. Here are the three in question:

Mark 04:11-12 Rom 11:7-8
Mark 12:16-17 Rom 13:6
Mark 13:32-37 1 Thes 5:2-6
Mark 4:
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
Romans 11:
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”
BeDuhn:
Tertullian says with regard to the words of 11.33:
Whence that outburst? Out of his recollection of those scriptures to
which he had already referred, out of his mediation upon those types
and figures which he had previously expounded as bearing on the faith
of Christ which was to emerge from the Law. If Marcion has of set purpose
cut out these passages, what is this exclamation his apostle makes,
when he has no riches of his god to look upon, a poor god and needy as
one must be who has created nothing, prophesied nothing, in fact possessed
nothing, one who has come down to another’s property? (5.14.9)
Harnack (Marcion, 108*) maintains that this remark indicates that the
entirety of 10.5–11.32 was lacking in Marcion’s text, and that 11.33
directly commented on 10.4. Schmid (Marcion und sein Apostolos, 111)
expresses some doubt that the gap was so extensive. He points to a
passage in Ireneaus, Haer. 1.27.3, which refers to a Marcionite belief in
Christ’s descent into Hades, and suggests that this belief is based on
Rom 10.6–10. It is quite uncharacteristic of Schmid to credit anything
outside of the more systematic sources, and to rely, as he does here, on
an isolated comment about Marcionite teachings. I agree that explicit
reports about Marcionite interpretation and application of biblical passages
should be given tentative credit; but Irenaeus’ remark scarcely
rises to that standard, and Schmid’s suggestion cannot be accepted.
Mark 12:
14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.
Romans 13:
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
BeDuhn:
Rom 12.20–13.8a is unattested. Several researchers have suggested that
13.1–7 is an interpolation, among them Barnikol, “Römer 13,” and J.
Kallas, “Romans xiii.1–7: An Interpolation.”
Mark 13:
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Beware, keep alert;[f] for you do not know when the time will come. 34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 35 Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, 36 or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.”
1 Thess 5:
2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! 4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; 5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. 6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober;
BeDuhn:
1 Thess 4.18–5.18 is unattested. Friedrich, “1 Thessalonischer 5,1–11,”
has argued that the first eleven verses of chapter 5 constitute an
interpolation.
It seems to me that the exclusion of the last two sets of verses is pretty weak. They are really just unattested as far as I can see. I'm not sure what to make of the first comment, on Romans 11. Even that actually seems fairly weak. At the same time, that parallel between Mark and Paul is also questionable.

I was hoping for a decisive result here one way or the other, showing either that Mark was a witness to a pre-Marcionite orthodox collection or that Mark used a version that matched Marcion's. This leaves me a little bit in limbo, but right now I'm coming down on the side of Mark having used letters that match Marcion's. Given that I find no relation to 2 Thess, Colossians or Ephesians, I still think Mark was using a pre-Marcionite collection, but the question is whether the letters that matched Marcion's matched what Marcion used.

Granted, there aren't really that many confirmed differences between the two sets. One thing I do note is that it is confirmed that Marcion's Galatians listed the Jerusalem apostles as Peter (not Cephas), James, John, whereas the orthodox set lists James, Cephas, John. The Gospel of Mark of course uses Peter, not Cephas, and it introduces the disciples in the order Peter, James, John. So I'm looking at that as a point in favor of Mark having used a version that matches Marcion.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:13 am

rgprice wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:30 am
One thing I do note is that it is confirmed that Marcion's Galatians listed the Jerusalem apostles as Peter (not Cephas), James, John, whereas the orthodox set lists James, Cephas, John. The Gospel of Mark of course uses Peter, not Cephas, and it introduces the disciples in the order Peter, James, John. So I'm looking at that as a point in favor of Mark having used a version that matches Marcion.
This is misleading. There are plenty of orthodox writers and manuscripts which have Peter instead of Cephas in Galatians.

rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by rgprice » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:40 am

Thanks Ben.

Also note:
Mark 7:
21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, 22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly.
NRSV
Gal 5:
19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these.
Epiphanius, Panarion 42.11.8: 6. 'Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, factions, envyings, drunkenness, revellings—of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'
I'm not sure how helpful this is, or if doing this in English is even useful, or how many underlying variations there are to this passage in the different manuscripts...

hakeem
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by hakeem » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:47 am

rgprice wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 8:30 am
I've compared all of the references that I find in the Gospel of Mark to the letters of Paul to the reconstructions of Marcion's Apostolikon.

I'm currently at 24 references. On those I find 13 as being confirmed in the Apostolikon. 8 are unattested and regarded neutral in Kirby's reconstruction. 3 are red in Kirby's reconstruction, but according to the notes they are actually unattested with scholars who believe they are interpolations. They aren't actually confirmed as not being present by ancient sources.

Two of three in question are pretty major references in Mark. Here are the three in question:

Mark 04:11-12 Rom 11:7-8
Mark 12:16-17 Rom 13:6
Mark 13:32-37 1 Thes 5:2-6
Mark 4:
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’”
Romans 11:
7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”
BeDuhn:
Tertullian says with regard to the words of 11.33:
Whence that outburst? Out of his recollection of those scriptures to
which he had already referred, out of his mediation upon those types
and figures which he had previously expounded as bearing on the faith
of Christ which was to emerge from the Law. If Marcion has of set purpose
cut out these passages, what is this exclamation his apostle makes,
when he has no riches of his god to look upon, a poor god and needy as
one must be who has created nothing, prophesied nothing, in fact possessed
nothing, one who has come down to another’s property? (5.14.9)
Harnack (Marcion, 108*) maintains that this remark indicates that the
entirety of 10.5–11.32 was lacking in Marcion’s text, and that 11.33
directly commented on 10.4. Schmid (Marcion und sein Apostolos, 111)
expresses some doubt that the gap was so extensive. He points to a
passage in Ireneaus, Haer. 1.27.3, which refers to a Marcionite belief in
Christ’s descent into Hades, and suggests that this belief is based on
Rom 10.6–10. It is quite uncharacteristic of Schmid to credit anything
outside of the more systematic sources, and to rely, as he does here, on
an isolated comment about Marcionite teachings. I agree that explicit
reports about Marcionite interpretation and application of biblical passages
should be given tentative credit; but Irenaeus’ remark scarcely
rises to that standard, and Schmid’s suggestion cannot be accepted.
Mark 12:
14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15 Should we pay them, or should we not?” But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.” 16 And they brought one. Then he said to them, “Whose head is this, and whose title?” They answered, “The emperor’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were utterly amazed at him.
Romans 13:
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, busy with this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is due them—taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
BeDuhn:
Rom 12.20–13.8a is unattested. Several researchers have suggested that
13.1–7 is an interpolation, among them Barnikol, “Römer 13,” and J.
Kallas, “Romans xiii.1–7: An Interpolation.”
Mark 13:
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Beware, keep alert;[f] for you do not know when the time will come. 34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 35 Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, 36 or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.”
1 Thess 5:
2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! 4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; 5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. 6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober;
BeDuhn:
1 Thess 4.18–5.18 is unattested. Friedrich, “1 Thessalonischer 5,1–11,”
has argued that the first eleven verses of chapter 5 constitute an
interpolation.
It seems to me that the exclusion of the last two sets of verses is pretty weak. They are really just unattested as far as I can see. I'm not sure what to make of the first comment, on Romans 11. Even that actually seems fairly weak. At the same time, that parallel between Mark and Paul is also questionable.

I was hoping for a decisive result here one way or the other, showing either that Mark was a witness to a pre-Marcionite orthodox collection or that Mark used a version that matched Marcion's. This leaves me a little bit in limbo, but right now I'm coming down on the side of Mark having used letters that match Marcion's. Given that I find no relation to 2 Thess, Colossians or Ephesians, I still think Mark was using a pre-Marcionite collection, but the question is whether the letters that matched Marcion's matched what Marcion used.

Granted, there aren't really that many confirmed differences between the two sets. One thing I do note is that it is confirmed that Marcion's Galatians listed the Jerusalem apostles as Peter (not Cephas), James, John, whereas the orthodox set lists James, Cephas, John. The Gospel of Mark of course uses Peter, not Cephas, and it introduces the disciples in the order Peter, James, John. So I'm looking at that as a point in favor of Mark having used a version that matches Marcion.
I find your post to be mind-bogglingly bizarre. How is it even possible for the author of gMark to have used the writings of Marcion when Christian writers themselves claimed he Marcion lived about 150 years after their Jesus.

The author of gMark openly admitted he was using the writings of the prophets to assemble his Jesus story.

rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by rgprice » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:11 am

I guess my question here is, how firm really is case that Rom 11:7-8 was not present in Marcion's copy of Romans? It seem to me that the other two are not definitive at all. They are really just unattested, but it looks like Rom 11:7-8 has some ancient testimony that scholars see as indicating that Rom 11:7-8 wasn't present in the Apostolikon.

From what I've read of the notes regarding that passage however, its not clear to me how definitive that evidence really is.

rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by rgprice » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:19 am

hakeem wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:47 am
I find your post to be mind-bogglingly bizarre. How is it even possible for the author of gMark to have used the writings of Marcion when Christian writers themselves claimed he Marcion lived about 150 years after their Jesus.

The author of gMark openly admitted he was using the writings of the prophets to assemble his Jesus story.
That's not at all what this is about. I assume Mark was written long before Marcion. The question is whether the Pauline letters that Mark was using looked like the letters that Marcion later published or they looked like the letters that orthodox Christians later used.

Hypothetically speaking, if one were to identify 40 passage in Mark that are sourced from Paul, and all 40 passages are known to have exited in Marcion's letters, then that would give confidence that Marcion's letters represent an original form of the collection. On the other hand, if it could be shown that Mark references several passages that ancient sources attest were definitely not in Marcion's letters, then that would give support to the proposition that the orthodox form of the letters preceded the form of the letters that Marcion used.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6685
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:22 am

hakeem wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:47 am
How is it even possible for the author of gMark to have used the writings of Marcion when Christian writers themselves claimed he Marcion lived about 150 years after their Jesus.
  • It'd be possible and would have happened if gMark was in fact written after Marcion had written
    • (Marcion's said to have lived from 60-70 yrs to 130 yrs after Jesus is said to have died)

hakeem wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:47 am
The author of gMark openly admitted he was using the writings of the prophets to assemble his Jesus story.
  • Yep, most if not all NT authors admitted they were using the writings of "the prophets' to assemble their Jesus story
    • (and so did a few key Church Fathers)

hakeem
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by hakeem » Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:02 pm

hakeem wrote:

The author of gMark openly admitted he was using the writings of the prophets to assemble his Jesus story.
rgprice wrote:That's not at all what this is about. I assume Mark was written long before Marcion. The question is whether the Pauline letters that Mark was using looked like the letters that Marcion later published or they looked like the letters that orthodox Christians later used.
Your question is still mind-bogglingly bizarre since the author of gMark could not have used the Pauline Epistles to assemble a story about some Galileans.
rgprice wrote:Hypothetically speaking, if one were to identify 40 passage in Mark that are sourced from Paul, and all 40 passages are known to have exited in Marcion's letters, then that would give confidence that Marcion's letters represent an original form of the collection. On the other hand, if it could be shown that Mark references several passages that ancient sources attest were definitely not in Marcion's letters, then that would give support to the proposition that the orthodox form of the letters preceded the form of the letters that Marcion used.
It is most flawed reasoning to assume that passages found in gMark and the Epistles only mean that the author of gMark used the so-called Pauline letters. There are over a hundred passages in gMark found in gMatthew but that does not mean gMark used gMatthew.

In any event, the version of the Jesus story in the short gMark must be earlier than the Jesus story in the Epistles. In gMark No-ne was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel to the world and none of the apostles were seen of the risen Jesus.

The Markan Jesus had no interest at all in the salvation of the Galileans by his crucifixion and resurrection or a new religion and dispensation but preached his Gospel of repentance while he was alive.

Mark 1. 14-15
....Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Universal Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection is a late invention by so-called Pauline writer which means the Pauline Jesus must be dead before universal salvation can be obtained.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Pauline Epistles are all late writings and after Marcion who preached another God and other son as stated by his contemporary Justin Martyr.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark and Marcion's Pauline letters

Post by mlinssen » Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:16 am

hakeem wrote:
Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:02 pm
hakeem wrote:

The author of gMark openly admitted he was using the writings of the prophets to assemble his Jesus story.
rgprice wrote:That's not at all what this is about. I assume Mark was written long before Marcion. The question is whether the Pauline letters that Mark was using looked like the letters that Marcion later published or they looked like the letters that orthodox Christians later used.
Your question is still mind-bogglingly bizarre since the author of gMark could not have used the Pauline Epistles to assemble a story about some Galileans.
rgprice wrote:Hypothetically speaking, if one were to identify 40 passage in Mark that are sourced from Paul, and all 40 passages are known to have exited in Marcion's letters, then that would give confidence that Marcion's letters represent an original form of the collection. On the other hand, if it could be shown that Mark references several passages that ancient sources attest were definitely not in Marcion's letters, then that would give support to the proposition that the orthodox form of the letters preceded the form of the letters that Marcion used.
It is most flawed reasoning to assume that passages found in gMark and the Epistles only mean that the author of gMark used the so-called Pauline letters. There are over a hundred passages in gMark found in gMatthew but that does not mean gMark used gMatthew.

In any event, the version of the Jesus story in the short gMark must be earlier than the Jesus story in the Epistles. In gMark No-ne was commissioned by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel to the world and none of the apostles were seen of the risen Jesus.

The Markan Jesus had no interest at all in the salvation of the Galileans by his crucifixion and resurrection or a new religion and dispensation but preached his Gospel of repentance while he was alive.

Mark 1. 14-15
....Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Universal Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection is a late invention by so-called Pauline writer which means the Pauline Jesus must be dead before universal salvation can be obtained.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

The Pauline Epistles are all late writings and after Marcion who preached another God and other son as stated by his contemporary Justin Martyr.
Paul himself claims that his Jesus was dead, doesn't he?
Isn't Mark merely providing a body to Paul's story, writing a nice little narrative about what Paul's Jesus could have done? It's flimsy on purpose with regards to theology, Paul is supposed to be the second volume to the series, even though it was earlier

It was Mark's goal to create a living Jesus and then have him die, that's basically it. Paul was just giving everyone a new Messiah and existing religion from scratch, and Mark wrote the prequel to that afterwards

Post Reply