Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

It is particularly cogent the reason why "Mark" (editor) added the healing of the blind of Bethsaida in a previous gospel (=Mcn) that was without it, having only the healing of the blind Bartimeus.
  • Bartimeus is an example of blind who immediately recognises Jesus and as well immediately follows him. Thank the faith.
  • The idiot blind of Bethsaida is an example of a blind who gradually recovers the sight and is even sent back by Jesus, not becoming a his disciple. He has not sufficient faith.
Who introduced the healing of the blind of Bethsaida could do so only having him in deliberate contrast against the healing of the blind Bartimeus.

The author of Mcn couldn't remove the healing of the blind of Bethsaida, had he seen it in Mark.

Again, Klinghardt is going to apply correctly, in my view, the Argument from the Extreme Improbability of a Destruction of an Elaborate Construction.

He quotes Burnett Streeter:

A theory which would make an author capable of such a proceeding would only be tenable if, on other grounds, we had reason to believe he was a crank.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

The Argument from the Extreme Improbability of a Destruction of an Elaborate Construction can be easily applied against Mark's priority, by putting in contrast the routes of the two Jesuses.

Note 18 of p. 209 reads:

"A trip from Tyrus via Sidon (!) to (!) the Sea of Galilee into the center (!) of the area of the Decapolis seems hardly comprehensible" (J. SCHREIBER, Theologie des Vertrauens, Hamburg 1967, 171; emphasis in the original). The route does not indicate geographical ignorance, but editorial intent.

(my bold)

The references to Jesus' route in Mcn are at contrary "as purposelessly and coincidentially as other scenic introductions in no need of further localization" (p. 207).
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

There is a curious detail in Mcn 5:2:

...there he saw two boats lying by the lake. But the fishermen had gone out of them and washed their nets. He entered into one of the boats which belonged to Simon...

The other boat is where the fishes have to be amounted after the miracle, as "evidence" of the same.

In Mark 4:35-37 there are other "boats":

That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped

The great anomaly under Markan priority:

They remain without a recognizable narrative function and thus always caused irritation in the exegesis.

(p. 540)

The solution:

The second boat or the other boats originate from the fishing account in *Ev (on which Mark 4 is based and which Mark adopted) even though the additional boats are without a narrative function and disrupt the otherwise concise Markan composition.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

In the place of Simon the Leper (found in Mark 12:4), Mcn has Simon Peter (this fits the identity between Simon Magus — said to be a leper by the tradition — and Simon Peter, aka Simon bar Giora).

Hence "Mark 12:4 lessens that distance" between Simon Peter and Jesus, not only by introducing Simon the Leper in his place, but also by attributing the accusation of wastefulness to anonymous "some others".

Klinghardt infers that the Marcionite polemic against Peter "was probably referenced in the oldest Gospel".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Another decisive item:

The Independant Exorcist is justified by Jesus in Mcn as acting only "in the name of Jesus".

Mark 9,39f softened this brusque teaching. Instead of the abrupt contradiction of *9,50c, Mark 9,39b claims that it is impossible to act 'in the name of Jesus' and then 'easily to vilify' him. However, neither vilification nor an easy change of mind play a role in the context: Mark's ad-hoc-invention reduces the contradiction of *9,50 by its implied absurdity.

(p. 751)

Even so, there is a logic in Mark's absurdity:

The implied claim is complex: There is only one legitimate group that belong to Jesus and acts 'in his name' — and that is 'us'. 'Us' is everybody who acts in the name of Jesus except of those who make their separation explicit by vilifying Jesus.

The separation that is in view here, is the Marcion's separation.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

a good post of Stuart to be compared necessarily (this afternoon) with Klinghardt`s case about John the Baptist not being in the Oldest Gospel.
Stuart wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:40 pm I think the gospel of the Hebrews is distinct from the Marcionite gospel for a number of reasons:

1. The Marcionite gospel's author deliberately removed John's baptism of Jesus from his gospel, as he could not accept the notion that Jesus' authority came from John, whom accepted as the prophet of the creator. [1] All three synoptic gospels are very clear on the implications of John baptizing Jesus in the passage about the source his authority (Matthew 21:23-27, Mark 11:27-33, Luke/Marcion 20:1-8), which he explicitly ties to John's baptism. [2]

John's baptism of Jesus is a story of john, prophet of the creator, recognizing Jesus as the Christ and baptizing him, whereupon the Spirit, by which he will baptize, descends upon him (Mark 1:7-11). At that point Jesus ministry begins, his authority established.

The Marcionite author accepted this John, the one who is Elijah come again from the Malachi prophecy. But he rejects the notion that Jesus was known to the creator. And so in addition to removing the baptism scene he sets out to denigrate John's character and show that he was unable to recognize the true Christ. He accomplishes this in the passage Luke 7:11-28 (specifically Luke 7:18-28) by having John through his disciples ask if Jesus is the one he is looking for. This of course is ridiculous if John had baptized Jesus. But it shows the prophet of the creator, and thus the creator did not recognize Jesus. Then the author takes aim at the story of John's virtuous lifestyle in the desert, asking "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold?" This is of course a reference to John's life in the desert (Mark 1:4), Jesus mocks the power of John's authority by calling his staff or rod of power nothing more than a limp "reed shaken in the wind." He then comments on his clothes (Mark 1:6), but the mocking is indirect. He then refers to John as more than a prophet, the greatest born of women (by the way implying that Jesus, who is of course greater is not born of woman). And the author make sit clear he is referring to the baptism passage and to John filling the Elijah come again role by referencing the same Malachi 3:1 passage as the baptism scene (Mark 1:2). [3]

Luke 18-28 make the most sense with the baptism story removed, precisely what is reported about the Marcionite gospel. [4] With the baptism story present it's contradictory, with John seeing the spirit on Jesus, knowing who he is (e.g., Matthew 3:14-15) but then suffering amnesia and having to ask later again, sending his disciples out to so.
if I see no objection by Klinghardt against the Stuart`s points above, then the case for proto-Mark being the Oldest Gospel is definitely proved.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

I start with the questioning of the first claim of Stuart:
Stuart wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:40 pmAnd so in addition to removing the baptism scene he sets out to denigrate John's character and show that he was unable to recognize the true Christ. He accomplishes this in the passage Luke 7:11-28 (specifically Luke 7:18-28) by having John through his disciples ask if Jesus is the one he is looking for. This of course is ridiculous if John had baptized Jesus. But it shows the prophet of the creator, and thus the creator did not recognize Jesus.
This per se doesn't prove nothing about priority.

More interesting at contrary is the second claim of Stuart:
Stuart wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:40 pm Then the author takes aim at the story of John's virtuous lifestyle in the desert, asking "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold?" This is of course a reference to John's life in the desert (Mark 1:4)
...and the third claim of Stuart:
Stuart wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:40 pmJesus mocks the power of John's authority by calling his staff or rod of power nothing more than a limp "reed shaken in the wind." He then comments on his clothes (Mark 1:6), but the mocking is indirect.
...and the fourth claim of Stuart:
Stuart wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:40 pm He then refers to John as more than a prophet, the greatest born of women (by the way implying that Jesus, who is of course greater is not born of woman). And the author make sit clear he is referring to the baptism passage and to John filling the Elijah come again role by referencing the same Malachi 3:1 passage as the baptism scene (Mark 1:2).
Klinghardt goes directly against all these claims, when he writes:

The localization of the baptism in the 'desert' (Mark 1,4) originated from *7,24, and the reference to John the Baptist's clothing (Mark 1,6) from the question *7,25 (which Mark supplemented independently with ascetic foods). Above all, the programmatically blended quotation from Mal 3,1 and Exod 23,20 in Mark 1,2 originated from *7,27. Therefore, projecting the contours of Elijah onto John had its first identifiable reference in *Ev.

(p. 651)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

Klinghardt does this telling claim:

Like *Ev, Mark presupposes an extensive religious knowledge; unlike *Ev, however, Mark makes these extra-textual applications explicit.

4. Mark obtained the knowledge of John the Baptist (Mark 1,4.6.14) likely from *Ev. In *7,17b (see the reconstruction) John is described as 'the Baptist' (ὁ βαπτιστὴς). That he was (imprisoned and) beheaded by Herod (Mark 1,15; 6,14-29), Mark could have learned from *9,9. Mark combined the general and unassociated clues about John in *Ev into a coherent image. This includes primarily the report about John's baptism activity for which Mark (apart from the title ὁ βαπτιστὴς) could find no basis in *Ev. If this information was not based on 'world knowledge' generally available, Mark could have been informed for instance by Josephus, whose account includes not only the end of John the Baptist, but also his baptism activity (in association with its influence of obliterating sin).

(p. 233, my bold)

How not to think about the Doudna's case of an identity bewteen John Hyrcanus II and 'John the Baptist'?
The oral tradition makes similar confusion.
Last edited by Giuseppe on Wed Apr 14, 2021 7:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Giuseppe »

I think that the question of the Baptist alone can't be decisive in one or in the other case about the priority.

Two options:
  • If the Baptist never existed, then there is no doubt that only "Mark" (author) would have invented him the first time.
  • If the memory about the Baptist was around a historical nucleus (Doudna docet), then the elaborate explicit 'Mark's scriptural elaboration on him has to follow necessarily the sparse implicit references (disiecta membra) to him and his connections with Herod, with 'baptism', with 'desert'.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Marcion versus Mark: who comes first?

Post by Stuart »

The key on the Baptism is it's relationship to the Source of Authority parable. The entire purpose of Jesus responding when asked where his authority comes from is to show that his authority derives from John's baptism of him, the source that brought the spirit to descend upon him. To deny Jesus' authority would be to deny John's.

In the Marcionite gospel this is nonsense. But there it stands (AM 4.38), an example of editorial fatigue, or perhaps the author didn't recognize that the passage's message was dependent upon John's baptism of Jesus.

Klinghardt in my view has it backwards, because he doesn't recognize the role sectarianism had in developing the gospels. So instead of tendentious motivations he is looking for a general Catholic evolutionary line of development. My view is that the proliferation of gospels is the result of intense sectarian competition in the mid-2nd century and that Catholicism developed later on through the synthesis of some of these sects (the triumph of ecclesiastical politics), and is only present in the later layers of the gospels.

As for order, my view is we started with a synoptic prototype, which developed as something of a snowball. Somebody gave it some order, and I think it circulated in cenobitic Christian (or pre-Christian if you will) communities, perhaps as a religious play, but not yet as scripture. Anyway through the miracle of time and transmission, it took on some localized forms, not too different from other uncontrolled texts. Two of these forms became the base documents for the synoptic gospels. Mark alone used both of these forms, which in my view accounts for some of his at times awkward Greek, the messed up attributions such as Malachi 3:1 to Isaiah. Marcion used a version I call "L" (for Lukan path) and Matthew a version I call "M" (for Matthew path) as their base documents. Matthew also used the Marcionite gospel and I think referenced also the Antithesis in his sermon on the Mount. Luke is a revision of the Marcionite gospel, and borrowed passages from Matthew and Mark as well as some elements from what appears to be the traditions we find associated with the so-called Ebionite gospel or possible the Gospel of the Hebrews. John appears to me to have originally been a free hand derivation built off the Marcionite and early form of Matthew. A second edition of John was written to harmonize more with the synoptic accounts, and it was at this time some Markan language was picked up. Each of these came from different sects, with different theologies. If you notice I do not exactly place Mark, except before Luke and the 2nd version of John. I also do not address the order of later smaller revisions (e.g., Thomas layer in John). But using the principle of only writing a gospel if you cannot use the exiting ones, I come up with this dependency list:

Marcionite, Matthew, Mark, Ebionite/Hebrews?
Gospel[]b]dependencieskey points
Marcionite"L"Marcionite sect, Paul is patron saint, anti-creator
Matthew"M", Marcionitealmost Ebionite, Peter might be patron saint, anti-Marcionite
Mark"M", "L"uncertain sect, possibly Andrew is patron saint
John 1st EdMarcionite, Matthewalmost Cainite, possibly Modalist. John is patron saint, anti-creator, anti-Matthew
LukeAdoptionist leanings, almost Catholic
John 2nd EdJohn 1st Ed, Mark, other synoptic(s)Catholic, relationship to Luke uncertain

Mark can be anywhere in the order from the time of the Marcionite gospel until Luke is written to replace the Marcionite. Worth noticing, Q is missing, because it didn't exist and is not needed to explain the order. No phantom 1st century communities need exist for this model. It should be noted that Catholic for Luke and John only meant that Jesus' resurrection was physical.

In my view all of these were composed in a rather tight window, from around 140 AD to 200 AD, most of the activity in the 145 AD to 175 AD window. Evangelical competition drove the proliferation. Ecclesiastical consolidation ended the process - making money to run the growing organization outweighed ideological/theological zeal.
Post Reply