Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Stuart »

Klinghardt creates many problems with Mark. By making Mark a response specifically to the Marcionite gospel he brings forward all the issues with the Griesbach theory (two gospel theory) in the synoptic gospels.

He compounds it by making Mark at once capable of building entire parables such as the wicked Tenants from Isaiah and other OT exegesis, including John's Baptism, and at the same time incapable of getting a citation right. There is a whole laundry list of new problems with this "solution."

But for me an overriding factor would be that Klinghardt's theory violates a few of the principles I follow to arrive at my gospel order, especially the first one:

Authors tend to add material, not remove it, especially not in large blocks. Their works are longer not shorter.
- Why did Mark remove Luke 7:11-28 as Klinghardt requires? What theological reason could exist to do so?
- same question for the Mark not having a Sermon on the Mount and many other juicy stories

Klinghardt also gives Mark an agenda, and specifically an anti-Marcionite one. But this seems improbable as it is so subtle it cannot be drawn from the text, it requires a scholar's expertise, like say Klinghardt, to tease it out. There are no straight forward repudiations like Matthew 5:17, or like John 7:40-42 direct repudiation of Matthew 2:1-6, or 1 John 4:2-3 in blunt rejection of Docetism. There is no subtlety. If a writer opposes something he says so. Yet Klinghardt makes Mark the most sublime of authors, even more special and unique. This just doesn't hold up under even light scrutiny.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:32 am - Why did Mark remove Luke 7:11-28 as Klinghardt requires? What theological reason could exist to do so?
I can't clearly quote everywhere Klinghardt (even if sometimes I am tempted to do so :silenced: ), but I would like that you limit yourself to explain why you think that Mcn knew the baptism of Jesus by John from Mark.
Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 10:32 am Klinghardt also gives Mark an agenda, and specifically an anti-Marcionite one. But this seems improbable as it is so subtle it cannot be drawn from the text, it requires a scholar's expertise, like say Klinghardt, to tease it out. There are no straight forward repudiations like Matthew 5:17, or like John 7:40-42 direct repudiation of Matthew 2:1-6, or 1 John 4:2-3 in blunt rejection of Docetism. There is no subtlety. If a writer opposes something he says so. Yet Klinghardt makes Mark the most sublime of authors, even more special and unique. This just doesn't hold up under even light scrutiny.
from a purely literary POV, I am extremely satisfied that Klinghardt starts with the assumption that Mark is "the most sublime of authors, even more special and unique". The contrary would have been strongly deluding for me (in that case I would have even thrown the book!). I have well clear in mind the memory of what Dykstra, Adamczewski, Tarazi, MacDonald (and even Joe Wallack here) have preached again and again about the extreme complexity of Mark, therefore a criticism of Mark's priority has to deal with it, if it wants to be prima facie credible.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Peter Kirby »

The synoptic solution informs my opinion of the author of Mark, as it does for others as well.

If first, Mark appears something of a genius.

If subsequent, it would seem that Mark is mostly an editor and probably not that special even as an editor.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 11:05 am If first, Mark appears something of a genius.

If subsequent, it would seem that Mark is mostly an editor and probably not that special even as an editor.
this a false dichotomy. The great merit of Klinghardt is, in my view, to have proved the existence of a third possibility:

Mark was a genial editor.

This genius is in action, it would seem, even when he removes entire blocks from Mcn.

While I perceive rather easily the geniality of the editor (given the numerous examples listed by Klinghardt in this sense), I concede a point to Stuart: apart the fact that Mark adored YHWH as supreme god (see his invention of the baptism of Jesus by John, or his insistence on the "catholic" mission of the 12 to overcome the dualism insiders versus outsiders), there is an invisible theological agenda in Mark.

I can disregard easily Luke and Matthew for the authentic puerility (!) of their anti-Marcionite polemic, but with Mark it is different. More research is necessary along that direction. But Klinghardt has opened the way, I think.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:35 am Expecting the coming of Klinghardt's opus magnum by 20 May
It looks like it's available:

https://www.amazon.com/Oldest-Gospel-Fo ... 9042943092

Do you have a copy now?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:03 pm Do you have a copy now?
All the quotes in this thread come from it.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:13 pmnor Klinghardt, nor I think Mark is first.
it is a bit ambiguous as claim, given that precisely you claim that Mcn was embarrassed by Mark's incipit about John baptizing Jesus and accordingly removed it, whereas Klinghardt has persuaded me that Mark invented ex novo that particular episode of John baptizing Jesus. I imagine that your view is that some parts of Mark preceded Mcn. I will see how Klinghardt deals with these cases.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:04 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:03 pm Do you have a copy now?
All the quotes in this thread come from it.
It looks like it is a pearl of great price!

I ordered a copy for myself as well.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Stuart »

I have explained repeatedly why I think, in fact know Marcion knew the Baptism story.

We have triple tradition evidence pointing to it's presence in a prototype gospel. Mark and probably the first version of Matthew seem to be circular, starting with a baptism and ending with an empty tomb. This is a logical structure. This however proved unsatisfactory to Christians of nearly every stripe who demanded the resurrection story, to know what happened next. And as this was also a major sectarian point of dispute (the Thomas layer John and "spirit has not bones as I do" in Luke both center on the theological point of a physical rather than spiritual resurrection, a divide between the Apelleans and the Marcionites for example). None could leave it alone, it lost it's circular form, where it could start again upon completion.

The Marcionite gospel's author played with both ends of the story. Not even John (first published edition) changed that basic structure of beginning with John the Baptist (although John changes his deity allegiance from his synoptic self).

But it's not just John's baptism that the Marcionite author played with. We see that he removed the temptation (prototype form was probably very close to Mark, just two lines where makes the ritual passage through the desert, where he is ministered (taught) by angels. And also he moved the calling of the fishermen until after the Capernaum stories, creating the conundrum of visiting Simon's house before he knew him and called him to be his disciple.

It's not like that passage alone was moved from the triple tradition and thus likely proto-synoptic location. Luke 22:25-27 is an element moved from what should be it's location before verses 18:35-43. A doublet in Luke 20:20 replaces the original material which was moved to 11:53-54. The question of Eternal Life was also moved to the central section, from what should be it's location before verse 20:39 to 10:25-28. Other elements from the mini-Apocalypse appear to have been moved by the Marcionite author (12:11-12, 17:31b, 17:21, 12:37-38). The ointment story is also in a very different location.

On the other hand there is no evidence Mark changes any sequences. He always follows the same order as either Matthew or Luke alternately for long stretches. Placing the invention of John baptizing Jesus on Mark, and the attachment of John to the Malachi prophecy (yet mysteriously attributing it to Isaiah) is in itself difficult to accept (he also had to invent the Temptation story), but to also move the calling of the fishermen to before the Capernaum episode would be unprecedented and completely out of character for the rest of the Markan gospel, requiring us to assign a special exception to his compositional approach.

The evidence is very strong that the Marcionite author moved his source material around, depositing as he saw fit. What is more, clear theological reasons can be given for the removal of the Baptism story. Klinghardt creates too many loose ends. I just can't buy it.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Stuart wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:10 pm What is more, clear theological reasons can be given for the removal of the Baptism story.
on a strictly theological level, the contrary is equally true. "Mark" (editor) invented the baptism of Jesus by John in the incipit to make the 'Baptism of John' a Christian thing in anti-marcionite function. It seems that in Mcn the baptism of John doesn't share nothing with Jesus.
Post Reply